< 8 May 10 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Arana[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY, never played in a fully-professional league. PROD was contested by the article's creator due to the original PROD'er's inappropriate choice of words in their edit summary, but without addressing the underlying concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notablity, and applies only to footballers who have played actual matches. Simply being part of a squad or named to substitutes bench is insufficient for this guideline to apply. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darconville's Cat[edit]

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

Non-notable novel; still an unsourced, unreferenced stub after over four years. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually cannot access either JSTOR or the full-text NY Review of Books (it's a paywall). Do we have some sort of resource list somewhere so I can find an editor who does have access to one or both of them through the WP subs? MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PC-1 (computer)[edit]

PC-1 (computer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable Professor and his local laboratory. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—The parametron is a type of circuit. There were several computers built using it and the book you found could definitely contribute to that article. The PC-1 (as best I can tell) was just one of many of this kind of computer and as such it may not be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1802 Zhang Heng[edit]

1802 Zhang Heng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to William Shatner#Family. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerine Kidd[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO1E. Mainly notable for being the much younger wife of William Shatner, and even that was due to the circumstances of her death. Sources to illustrate standalone notability of the subject are problematic - the big item that might do it ("runner-up in Miss World") isn't cited anywhere but in a book on alcoholism (so it is likely a trivial mention), and is incorrect. A source I found here states Kidd was second runner-up in the Miss World America pageant, the winner of which goes to Miss World. We don't have articles on contestants at that level unless they went on to win the World pageant, or had some other career that met GNG.

Many of the subject's career details are not covered contemporaneously, but are sourced from obituaries. Much of the article content is trivial: a vague statement of generosity towards her family with her earnings, her early life is notably not about her, and even her career info is scant and taken mostly from two or three sources, one of which is William Shatner's own biography (written after her death, and also not an independent source). Easily 80% of the article is about her marriage to Shatner, alcoholism, and death. Those three items are substantially covered in William Shatner's article already. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:21, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Camacaro[edit]

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

Non-notable bullpen catcher who fails GNG (and, FWIW, also fails WP:BASE/N). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utica greens[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination of a "redirect" that was listed at RFD. Since this is actually an article, I think it would be better to take it here. The nominator, Buffaboy, had the following to say: "Having made almost 100kb worth of edits on Utica, New York, I think it's safe to say this should redirect to Cuisine of the Mid-Atlantic United States#Dishes, which would be a prose list I suppose, or Endive or something. I just don't believe it should be an article" Tavix | Talk  19:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article - I think there's enough here for an article, but the current one needs much work. I don't know what notability guideline to refer to for local cuisine, so I'm judging GNG by the diversity of search results, and the fact that Rachael Ray has published her own recipe for this dish. As a side note, this should probably be at AfD since an article was created. Ivanvector (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus is that the sources provided by Hiroloveswords and others have shown notability. The article has been improved too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Boucher[edit]

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

Minor appointed official. The only significant material is some negative material about minor crimes. Wee he a notable elected official it might be relevant--it is not in this case. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, I'm a little puzzled by what you mean by "false" biographical sketch, or why a reference being in the public domain is significant. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what is notable is the case, not the person. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted G7 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Duff[edit]

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

city manager of a number of small cities. No evidence for notability. city manager is not one of those positions that necessarily implies notability. The population of the cities was in each case under 35,000, so even had he been an elected official such as mayor, that wouldn't imply notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still received significant coverage in 10th Mountain Division, which was published by a reputable company (Turner Publishing Company), and the Boston Globe. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Operations Research Society[edit]

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

No independent sources, no indication of any notability. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:56, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Stoyalov[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:NACTOR. There are many films listed in the article, half of them are not notable, half of them are just random where this actor did not seem to play any significant role (or any role at all). Among sources listed in the article:

To sum up, we have a mix of episodic roles that clearly are not significant and a mix of possible hoaxes where Stoyalov appears in one database but is not listed in any other source. None of the roles match WP:NACTOR — NickK (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not cheating ... minor role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Stoyalov Stoyanov just different people, just a little information about Stoyalove, Zone 1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do these pictures prove? — NickK (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What plays in the film, and in one, and is ready to raise the Ukrainian spirit and Ukrainian cinema ipnews.
  • Commenting here because this was mentioned on my talk page: The previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Stoyalov was closed as moot because an admin speedy deleted the article as WP:CSD#G2 (test page) before any opinions could be offered. I therefore declined speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 because there was no prior AfD consensus to delete. I myself have no opinion on this article.  Sandstein  22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it - so I retract the word sloppy. The AfD existed but did not have a chance to form consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing ISBN 1565-9062 SBN 978-3-942855-01-3. Actor, director, screenwriter, not an authoritative source, but I will throw off 1 2 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.16 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actor, director, screenwriter + publishing, reference:


[www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200911/25/01.php, si-sf.ru/den_m_s/ 1] [www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200912/23/01.php 2] [www.novijdom.com/chul22-08.shtml 3] on-magazine.at.ua/index/9_2009g/0-17 4 [www.technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/208/1406 5] 6[ aesthetoscope.livejournal.com/18559.html 7], 8. 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Gênero: Terror Direção: George A. Romero Roteiro: George A. Romero Elenco: Alan Van Sprang, Alexandria DeFabiis, Amy Ciupak Lalonde, Anthony Cancelliere, Ara Katz, Boyd Banks, Daniel Kash, Donna Croce, George Buza, Gregory Nicotero, Guillermo del Toro, Jack Birman, James Binkley, Jamie Bloch, Janet Lo, Joe Dinicol, Joshua Close, Kyle Glencross, Laura de Carteret, Laura DeCarteret, Martin Roach, Matt Birman, Maxim Stoyalov, Megan Park, Nick Alachiotis, Quentin Tarantino, R.D. Reid, Ron Payne, Scott Gibson, Shelley Cook, Simon Pegg, Stephen King, Tatiana Maslany, Tino Monte, Todd Schroeder, Trish Adams, 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 3132 h[ttps://vimeo.com/67805063 33] http://new-rutor.org/torrent/413877/povodyr_povodir_the-guide-2014-satrip/ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.58 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Davis[edit]

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

Page that has been deleted before-as Dre davis anyway unotable actress. Wgolf (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:NPOL #1. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ullah Baqi[edit]

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

Prod that was contested-originally I restored the prod thinking it was a blp prod but in fact it was a normal one. No notability mentioned as well as only refs are els' Wgolf (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (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 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. The gist of the discussion, setting aside the various walls of text, is that the topic is probably notable but might need a partial or complete rewrite. No consensus about blowing it up, though.  Sandstein  09:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[edit]

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

per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I was unable to find additional sources that both have a larger scope than city/county and have more than a trivial mention. At time of nom, majority of current references are the sites own webpage (fails 'indepedent of subject' criteria). The israeli gov page does not appear to mention the subject. The jweekly article is at a news source that covers only local news (fails WP:AUD " On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.") The 'san mateo times' article is hosted (and does so suspiciously) on the main website for the group, but even if we assume that it's accurate, it appears to make no mention of the group and is also only local coverage, for San Mateo county. From the articles creation the infobox has listed only 30 regular participants in the infobox (though the infobox was broken at first) [8] ― Padenton|✉   20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BenjaminGittins, self-published sources (i.e. published on the groups webpage) do not generate notability. The group needs significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject(the group). (see WP:GNG for details). And FYI, [[blahblahblah]] creates links to articles on wikipedia, you want to use [] for links to websites outside wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   19:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I am trying to assume that everyone here is operating in good faith User:BenjaminGittins has been editing since 2006, and has been editing this rarely-edited page regularly since he founded the page in March 2013, comfortably using the talk page, and even removing tags from the page. He can hardly be regarded as a novice editor. He has been joined on this otherwise rarely-edited page by SPAs in the past, and a new SPA began to edit the page yesterday. I am not judging the page by the behavior of the editors, there may indeed be sources, but given that this is a page with grand claims and little sourcing - to date - I cannot help but think that it all feels a tad disingenuous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:BenjaminGittins, I now see that you posted on the talk page. Where no one responded. Indeed, what I see it a problem that sometimes occurs on WP, to wit, a page is created filled with assertions and material utterly unsupported by sources (in this case, none of the sources support the claims that this group has primacy among such groups, let alone the sort of global influence that the page asserts. When few or no editors examine such a page, it can stay up for years. Until some alert editor notices it. Such pages are usually started and maintained by a founder, fan, member, or supporter of the group in quesiton. If that does not describe you, I apologize for making such an assumption. All of which still leaves us with an embarrassingly poor page filled with assertions unsupported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


User:Unicorn46 is a brand-new, SPA, editing only on this AFD. The page itself, though infrequently edited, has been edited by otern single-purpose accounts over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Voice of America article confirms that the Taubman living room group has longevity. And that other such groups now exist. Not that the other groups exist because the Taubmans started their
Here's a recent New York Times article about a cooking club that has been meeting continuously for 124 years.[13] It's nice to have your living room chat group written up in the newspaper. It does not make you notable.
An broader article about Israeli-Palestinian grassroots dialogue groups might work.
This article is about a specific group in a specific living room, but most of the copy is about dialogue with no indication of a relationship to the Taubman living room group. The infobox is about this small, local group, which the lede asserts has "grown to global influence". I just don't see evidence this living room club has global significance. Despite the fact that it was the subject of a handful of color stories during the second intifadaE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The few extra days to improve this article are appreciated. I am open to suggestions as I work to address the issues that have been raised. Unicorn46 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there should not be duplicates in the "references" and "external Links" sections. I will clean that up as soon as I have finished with inserting the needed citations. Thank you for your patience with this " brand-new, SPA," I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I still appreciate your patience. Unicorn46 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News Reports[edit]

Deadlines?[edit]

Video[edit]

Thesis[edit]

The Dialogue Group and participants have been included as subjects of research papers and theses.

Interview[edit]

Have the requests for citations of credible sources been adequately addressed by the contents of the updated page and in the links above?[edit]

  1. Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group.
  2. Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published.
  3. independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability.
The only sources that matter in this discussion here are those that would satisfy WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to list WP:AUD as well: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They count towards notability. If your point is only that at least one regional or national or international source is necessary, that is true. But those exist as well. Though they are not devoted to the subject. But Jweekly, for example, is regional covering 20,000 readers, and some of those other refs are RSs ... and the knock on those sources as not counting towards notability is an exaggeration (unintentional) of what our guideline actually says. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: Jweekly isn't regional, it covers the city/county of San Francisco. 20,000 readers is nothing, there are 50 million people in California and 850,000 in San Francisco county alone. There are nearly 20,000 people in every square mile of San Francisco. I grow tired of digging for a needle in this haystack of non-WP:RS or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources(many of which have now been listed several times), so if you don't mind, I would appreciate if you would be specific about which one I missed. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Padenton -- that's a bald mis-statement. Of course Jweekly is regional. Where in the world do you come up with the unsupported statement that it only covers San Francisco? That's a mis-statement. Presumably unintentional on your part. Have you read the publication's "About" section, for example. Which clearly states: "the newspaper serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California.". I haven't even !voted as of yet, but I'm concerned about your engaging in exaggerations and mis-statements to support your position. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: It's written right here in their logo: [19]. See WP:AUD: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If you look through their articles, jweekly purely covers SF stories. SF Bay area is not a region, it's a few counties. It also fails the "media of limited interest and circulation" requirement. The SF Bay area has 7.5 million people. ― Padenton|✉   17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does cover the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, a region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California, which region also surrounds a number of other bays including San Leandro Bay, Suisun Bay, San Rafael Bay, Richardson Bay, Grizzly Bay, and Honker Bay, and which region encompasses the major cities and metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, along with smaller urban and rural areas. It also "serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California." This is what is meant by a "regional" newspaper. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: Group in the Northern Region of Cameron inspired by the work of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. [1] CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders[2] International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.[3] Christian Science Monitor – 8th and 27th sections (count single sentences as sections) of this article specifically mention the group founders and the Dialogue Process used by the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and that the national hub for the Dialogue groups is the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[4] Voice of America News Article specifically mentions the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders in the very beginning of the article and again at the end[5] The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, specifically mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group – see Page 2[6] The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles specifically mentions the groups founders and the work of the group. See paragraph 2 [7] ABC, NBC and CNN interviewed members of the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group during the 2000 Intafada and while the files now have to be accessed through the site of the founders, they do, none-the-less exist, the group was considered “notable” enough for three national new channels to interview its members and the news clips can be watched on either a MAC or a PC. Go to the year 2000 and see the third entry.[8] The NeedCSI Website in Nigeria notes a Film and Conference for over 200 diverse African women and men which resulted from the International collaboration between the New Era Educational and Charitable Support Foundation and the Jewish Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, California, USA held in Jos, Nigeria [9] The United Religions Initiative reports on its website about a project in Nigeria’s Bauchi State that was inspired by the Jos, Nigeria Conference. [10] Journal13H – a news program in the Ivory Coast ran a story on the Albino/Non-albino Reconciliation meeting with English subtitles. The Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group was the co sponsor of the gathering and the name of the group can be seen on the banner in the video. Members of the group helped facilitate the meeting. While the group leaders posted the link – the event still happened and it drew media attention in the Ivory Coast. [11] The Jewish Herald Voice is not a local paper – it is, in fact, published in Houston, TX[12] Unicorn46 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://globalcompassio.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/interfaith-dialogue/
  2. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  3. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/
  4. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p11s01-lihc.html
  5. ^ http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2006-06-20-voa40/317928.html
  6. ^ http://www.monmouth.edu/university/directory-of-arab-jewish/israeli-palestinian-groups-for-dialogue-and-peaceful-coexistence.aspx
  7. ^ http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/jews_and_palestinians_talk_peace_under_norcal_pines_20071102
  8. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  9. ^ http://needcsi.org/new/dialogue-in-nigeria-muslims-christians-creating-their-future/
  10. ^ http://www.uri.org/the_latest/2015/05/a_strong_partnership_between_facis_and_jewishpalestinian_living_room_dialogue_in_san_mateo_california_usa
  11. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Herald-Voice
These are already in the list above and suffer from the problems stated. ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: CNN and MSNBC TV

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing the requirements of WP:GNG[edit]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  2. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/

Have the concerns regarding WP:GNG now been successfully addressed?[edit]

  • No, will you please stop spamming the same poor sources as before? It is beginning to get disruptive. I do not have all the time in the world to do your work for you, digging through every article from an unreliable source you post multiple times in this AFD hoping to flood the page so that some inattentive closer will hopefully close it as keep because he can't see anyone in favor of deletion. I am a strong believer in WP:AGF but this is getting ridiculous. If you can't provide sources meeting WP:GNG and WP:NORG then newsflash: your 30-person dinner club is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I still do not see a single source that is INDEPDENDENT of the subject(That means no articles from the creator of the group, or members, and interviews do not count either) and more than LOCAL coverage. Pick some out, post it (and ONLY sources meeting those criteria) below. ― Padenton|✉   20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As per Padenton. But also, as I stated above, I have come to suspect that this experienced editor, editing on a rarely edited page that has been edited by a series of SPAs, unusually familiar with Wikipedia procedure, and certainly an avid partisan of this group, seems to be displaying faux ignorance in an effort to game AFD and keep this page live.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rankism. I am concerned that the complaints against Unicorn46 regarding that user's particular skillset, and labelling that user as SPA in this case may be being used as a form of [Rankism] to diminish the independent contributions of that user. I do not see any "gaming" taking place here. Rather, I see a genuine attempt to address the concerns raised by various editors. To be clear, I am not Unicorn46 and I have never met or talked with Unicorn46. I do not use sock puppets. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unicorn46: It's simple. It's been explained above. Now stop wasting our time.― Padenton|✉   14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate criteria - With regard to [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)][edit]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the CNN and MSNBC citations?[edit]

Short list of Video sources that are clearly independent, and available online[edit]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is the problem with these
  1. Local news(says so at the start of the video)
  2. KTVU is a local news affiliate.
  3. ABC-7 is local news.
  4. Interviews with members of the group. This fails WP:INDEPENDENT as I have said several times now.
  5. Not about the group. Notability isn't inherited, and you're not notable just because a few new groups are created.
  6. Local. Rule of thumb: Anything that says "channel _" or some random 4-character designation (KTVU, etc.) is local news.
  7. Local news (cbs5), coverage is not about the group.
The reason these sources don't keep copies of all their interviews and articles hosted online is because they're local news coverage. Stop wasting my time. These have the same exact problems that have already been said multiple times. ― Padenton|✉   17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: The "two videos [I] didn't mention" were ones I in fact mentioned. If you can't understand how to read a numbered list, I don't know how to help you. Is this a non-profit organization? Non-profit organization is a legal classification, it doesn't just apply to any number of people that meets up and doesn't exist for a profit-driven goal. You need to be registered with the government for that, feel free to provide a link to a government database showing this. But even then, there is 0 verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ― Padenton|✉   19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More independent reports from credible sources[edit]

*More independent reports from credible sources on the activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group Associated Press Article that mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group [1] Associated Press Herald Journal article on how the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group coordinated a dialogue at Georgetown University [2] Washington Post - See 5th paragraph after the second picture [3] The activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group have reached far beyond their beginnings as a group of concerned citizens meeting in a living room in 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ifapray.org/archive/Understanding_Palestinian_Terrorism/UPT2003/Anti-Semitic%20Acts%20Up%20on%20Campuses%20%20-%20March%2028,%202003.html
  2. ^ https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20021103&id=pK0nAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J9AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5271,597393&hl=en
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/food-truck-will-deliver-message-of-mideast-peace/2013/01/25/b121ea7e-6665-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html
Again, this is the problem with these
  1. Brief mention. There is no discussion of the group. Len Traubman is quoted, and Traubman is mentioned as the founder of the group. This article says absolutely nothing about the group itself.
  2. Brief mention. Helping coordinate an event doesn't give a group notability. A source being used to establish a group's notability needs to provide significant coverage of the group. I.e. a standalone article should be able to be made based on its information. This is not the case here. From this source, the most that could be said about the group is that it helped coordinate an event.
  3. Again, brief mention. This article is about a food truck owner. Libby Traubman is quoted, and introduced as the co-founder of the group: "said Libby Traubman, co-founder of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue, which tries to facilitate interaction between Arabs and Jews. “It think it will work because, well, everyone likes food.”" There is no other mention of the group in this article.
These show nothing about the groups notability. It suggests (to me) that Len and Libby Traubman might meet the notability guidelines(with other sources), but there is nothing here to suggest that the living room group is notable. ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: For the tenth time, sources where some member is quoted for an unrelated story and the group is mentioned only to provide context for that person's quote, DOES NOT GIVE YOUR GROUP NOTABILITY. I grow tired of being notified to this article 5 times a day when you repeatedly refuse to provide any sources establishing notability and meeting the criteria that you were told about in the fucking nomination. Do not post my username again without providing a source that is reliable, independent (Where the coverage of the group is not written or said by a member of the group), substantial coverage (meaning NO BRIEF MENTIONS), and in a news source that is not local news. ― Padenton|✉   19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Despite, or perhaps because of, the walls of text above, nobody has actually expressed a "delete" or "keep" opinion since the last relist. I ask that previously uninvolved editors do so now, and that the editors who have written the walls of text above leave the discussion to others for now.  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I agree with that comment. Something else is going on here, which is pretty clear to an outsider. This is nuts. FYI I would be willing to overhaul the article to improve it to decent standards if nobody else plans to do so. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a "deep edit" to be found here User:LaMona/tnt. It still has a lot of OR in the list of related groups, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I removed all non-RS sources (other than those in that list). I did not add other sources that have surfaced here. Anyone have a comment? LaMona (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Aaker[edit]

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

Solely promotional page written like an extended resume, would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? I have contributed much more content to Wikipedia than I have proposed for deletion, so if you have some chip on your shoulder don't come passive aggressively insulting me about it. Thanks to everyone else who has contributed by stripping the article of promotional content. Citobun (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see you at wikimania; there i will tell you who i am. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie and the Bhoys[edit]

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

Non-notable music group. Brief mentions are made in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article should be cleaned up, but plenty of evidence of notability was found. Shii (tock) 07:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Grundmann[edit]

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

Notability not established, issues have been pointed out back in 2014 September on talk page, poor citing, most to blog posts from person and to his own publications, and often cites which do not conform to Wikipedia standards. prokaryotes (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is some level of notability, looking at some unsourced content and a look at media appearance, but i could go there and delete half of the page or more(when removing listing of pubs), based on above issues. Thus, my impression is that the notability is over hyped, especially if you consider some of his involvement with his input about Climategate. prokaryotes (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you posted on my talk page Gerda Arendt (talk), i answer you here, please keep the discussion here. Another point i noticed, the article wrongly states "He was President (2009–10) of the Sociology and Social Policy Section of the British Science Association." Ofc, this claim is unsourced as most content on this article, a google search also does not show any validation. Then you can go to the criteria for listing academics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) I do not see how Grundmann fits in here. Unless there are substantial updates, the person as it is, is not notable. prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what sort of google you use, but mine didn't have any problem to confirm his contribution to the British Science festival and his presidency with the sociology section of the BSA. Serten 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that i have read now two papers from him, but cannot judge him at this point. However, i don't think his work is that important, not the best, not extensive enough. Additionally, he doesn't seem to bother with pointing out errors of the science he quotes, he just quotes mainstream facts and compares both sides, and doesn't seem to be aware of all the science - he just skips a lot. But he might become notable in the future, i.e. in the case his papers gain traction and are judged by notable reviews in a peer-reviewed process or the related media. Thus, for now i suggest if required his work could be mentioned on related articles.prokaryotes (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* I might have made the error to base the noteability on the German rules - a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham, contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and (Worldcat providing 355 entries is a WP:SNOW case in the deWP with her much stricter rules. That said, I have inserted three reviews of three books and editions of Grundmann's, two in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, one in the New Left Review to get rid of the drive-by-tagging. A simple google research would have easened that task as well for prokaryotes.
* Prokaryotes accusations about the section Reiner_Grundmann#Peer_review_and_climate_change are being far from accurate and accusing me to carefully avoid his stance on climate is a sort of fairy tale. Either have the cake or eat it. Grundmann is mentioned as a coathor of the The Hartwell Paper (clear indication of a political cloud far from the denial crowd) and as an author of prestigeous books and studies comparing the political dealings with Ozone depletion and climate change and dealt as well with Climategate and its political effects. If you don't like the findings, no reason for an AfD, as said. I point out Grundmann's stance on Hans von Storch's science blog Klimazwiebel as well and refer to a controversy in the peer reviewed literature using various scientific entries. Finally just to quote the Nottingham University website: [nottingham.ac.uk/Sociology/People/reiner.grundmann Reiner Grundmann joined the University of Nottingham in September 2012 as Professor in Science and Technology Studies from Aston University where he was heading the Sociology department over many years. Reiner ... first degree in Sociology from the Free University in Berlin ... PhD in Political and Social Sciences ... European University Institute, Florence ...obtained a German Habilitation (Comment: full regalia for german tenure) from Bielefeld University. Before moving to the UK he was researcher at the Wissenschaftszentrum in Berlin (Germany) and at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (Cologne, Germany).]
* That said, the AfD is sort of contentious. WP:SNOW in combination with Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT respectively Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE HIM. Serten 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disclosure, last March Serten filed an successful AfD on my article about the scientific consensus on climate change, over at the German wikipedia, and the page was deleted. Because i tried to explain the issues with the Grundmann article to Serten on the article talk page already in detail, i have nothing else to add, unless someone wants more links or a translation etc. prokaryotes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats sorta wrong. I filed a successfull AfD in the deWP on Prokaryotes Bablefish translation of Scientific opinion on climate change. Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham
PROF asks for more than this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)"
contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association
PROF asks for more than this: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and Worldcat providing 355 entries
Then it shouldn't be difficult meet this requirement of PROF: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. But what we need are reliable secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based larger parts of the articles on peer reviewed publications and scientific text books - that means, those books and entrys already went through independent checking and reviews. You seem to tell the audience here, that a peer reviewed contribution is same level as a blog entry. Thats sort of contentious again. That said, I have added various English reviews in scientific journals, some german and others are yet to come. Serten 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No,I didn't say anything like "a peer reviewed contribution is [the] same level as a blog entry". Sorry, that's simply untrue.

We can't use Grundmann's publications to discuss the significance of Grundmann's publications. That shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp. Nor can we count Grundmann's publications and use that tally to assert that made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. His works are not independent sources. They're the opposite of independent. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I inserted some reviews, including Süddeutsche Zeitung / Perlentaucher (new scientific field, one of the essentials here), some politics and social science portals reviews in German and French, and btw I like the quotes Routledge was allowed to start Transnational environmental policy with: Take Gaia Guru Jim Lovelock stating This readable book is the best treatment of the subject published so far and Noble Prize Laureate Frank Sherwood Rowland with Stimulating and thought-provoking. The quoted WP_Prof requirements are no must, but shalls, but see no reason for doubt against notability. You? Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC) I am OK with the request for reviews, it gets however contentious again, if major points from Grundmanns science books and peer reviewed papers are being tagged as needing third party confirmations. An article about a scholar, needs third party reviews proving that he or she may be noteable. It doesnt need third party sources to confirm that he has written certain stuff. Thats being based and depicted on his work, books and papers. (added by Serten)
The only cases where a person with this level of an academic record have ever been deleted here for lack of notability have been a very few times for people whose views on some controversial subject were unpopular at WP, and such deletions do us no credit. Ivery much hope that this sort of prejudice is not the motive here.
What is however true is the nominator's statement that the article is much too full of the subjects opinions, and not a npov description of his career. I tried to fix some of this in 2014, but the fluff is back again, re-added by Serten. --and indeed what I did then was incomplete--much more cutting is needed That contributor is doing the article and WP no service by restoring such material. Making an article into a promotional for the authors views is likely to attract negative attention. If it can not be fixed, and remain fixed, I will myself bring a third afd as promotional to apply WP:TNT and have it rewritten in a more proper way. Or even G11, as promotional and impossible to fix by normal editing. I would feel much better about this if that editor would promise to stay away from the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made some good points, also this TNT thingy sounds interesting. And because the article could be helpful to state the person's views more clearly, which would be a service to every interested reader, and i imagine there are many who wonder who is this guy who criticises Oreskes, the IPCC, climate scientists and equals them with deniers. prokaryotes (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a diametrically opposite view regarding your comments about less-than-noble motives. If someone really wanted to "get" an academic that they disagreed with, one of the best ways would be to have a Wikipedia article about them where it could be filled with criticism, or the subject of never-ending battles over one thing or another. I certainly wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my closest and most valued colleagues. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate - DGG checked notability. Prokaryotes had been made aware of Reiners h-index (16 since 2010), he didn't care. The AfD has got a sort of interesting timing, as I was longer absent from the enWP recently, the article itself has not been touched by anyone involved since December 2014. Nothing happened since. I will accept now the reduction the list of peer reviewed papers and book chapters as foreseen by DGG. Far from anything WP:TNT is being called for.
@Short Brigade Harvester Boris The only climate related conflicts I registered is a) the one with Lever Tracy, and b) the one about climategate and its moral impact. Both have been described from the very start. The most interesting conflict he's been in is the one in the New left and a recent Springer volume by PRC scholars about the Marx-and-ecology: Grundmanns interpretation of mastery of nature by man is of interest, globally, as being shown now with the works of scholars from PRC and (South...) Korea.
I am sort of annoyed about the COI allegation. A German sociologist writing about ClimateChange/Ozone and or doing a review of Oreskes Merchands of doubts in a sociology journal puts them into perspective. He is far from the anglo quasireligious infights in that realm. Thats one of the reasons his work was praised as groundbreaking. Serten 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where the nature of his views is relevant one way or the other to establishing his WP:notability.
As for your comment on his h index, a value of 16 is completely unremarkable in most fields I'm familiar with (especially if it is the inflated Google Scholar h index rather than the Web of Science one). If sociologists tend to publish far less than the physical sciences, maybe h=16 would argue in favor of notability. DGG, can you comment on this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryotes made a lot of comments on his views. That should not be an issue here. H-index: pre 2010 is 21. It seems to be be feasible to have a WP entry with less, so may be its again dependend on his views. Serten 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: - I'm curious about the significance of the fact that his book Transnational environmental policy reconstructing ozone is held by 580 libraries if, according to Google Scholar, it has only been cited 50 times (and given the way Google Scholar inflates citations, the real number is probably lower). These aren't all physical copies (I clicked on a few to check and they are electronic copies) and I know that publishers offer huge bundles of older e-books to libraries. Should we really be putting weight on numbers of copies held by libraries if a lot of those copies are virtual? Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the difference between the social sciences/humanities and sciences. Citations of books and mainly by other books, and come to a much lower number than citations of articles. In the sciences, it is routine doe an article to cite every possible article that relates to the subject in a substantial way, and most of them are just listed, not discussed. In the social sciences, it is normal for a book to cite only the particular other books that the author wishes to specifically discuss. The most exact way of evaluating holdings of books is in contrast to other books in the subject--this is a little complicated, and I defer this--its more of a research project than I think warranted in the present case.
I do not base my judgment of notability as an author on this particular book; it is published by Routledge, which is a good but not absolutely first rate publisher. If he had published nothing else, I might not be arguing for notability at all. I base it on the books published by CUP and OUP , which are in another league altogether, several levels up. Traditionally in most fields the two highest quality English language academic publishers-- or 3, if you add PrincetonUP; in this particular field, I'd also add ChicagoUP. I would certainly maintain that any academic book published by them is notable, and any author publishing two books by these presses is notable, and no further analysis is necessary for notability any more than further analysis is necessary for a major prize. I can enlarge on this in another place--the WP standards for notability of books is worth some further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thnxs DGG. Important is as well that book reviews (as the one on merchants of doubt) ar much more important in social sciences but do not add to most indexes. This sort of review is based on invitations by the journal, so its a one to one issue as well. I might add as well that Grundmann's Work as a social scientist has passed several language and cultural barriers. DGG has mentioned prestigous UK publishers, but anything with Suhrkamp_Verlag#Academic_authors or Velbrück can be considered as main contribution in the field, Campus Verlag is like routledge, OK but another league. The article contains now some recent schlolarly entries from China about the marx/ecology issue with Reiner Grundmann in the title. Serten 10:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. For clarity can you explain in what specific way these books satisfy WP's formal BLP notability guidelines, since that's what we should be concerned with here? (The real problem is the reprehensible laxness of our BLP notability criteria, but that's not something we can settle in this venue.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds User_talk:Prokaryotes#Grundmann won't go on for with that AfD. I did a sloppy version in the deWP, gained at once interest from other authors to expand it. WP:Snow for any AfD as well there. I ask to close the discussion here. Serten 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't throw smoke grenades. Oreskes best publication was cited much better than all of Grundmann's publications together (!). And Merchants of Doubt alone has more than halve of the cites Grundmann got in his total scientific life. But thank you for showing that you have a political agenda, which is to reject Oreskes work as unscientific. And thats the POV the Grundmann article is made of. Which is why it should be deleted. 84.170.142.6 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TBK and WP:BK are both applicable, for all Grundmann books with one or two translations. Oreskes wrote a popular bestseller about the US specific shenanigins of Seitz and Singer in the climate/ozone/etc wars. Grundmann took years (and his habilitation) to conclude his studies about Transnational Environmental Policy (which led e.g. to a case study in The Power of Scientific Knowledge and is a base of Experts and Power of Expertise). That said, its not easy to compare, but I wonder, why no one asks for third party sources and scientific reviews for the Oreske article. It should be rather easy to add and quote them, it took me not much time to add some more to the Grundmann article (just found another STS review of Oreskes by Brian Wynne). The books mentioned above have full regalia to be noteable on their own. I wonder as well why someone researching the very topic we are using and displaying in wikipedia - knowledge - in standard textbooks as the Routledge Critical Concepts series could ever be thought of being deleted. Serten 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaf markup language[edit]

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

One-man project; no sources cited, and none that I could find in quick web search, to establish WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Louhivuori[edit]

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

Non notable priest, somehow connected to Near Eastern archaeology. Maybe we should redirect it to Near Eastern archaeology. Hajme 09:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 22:47, 16 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. The article also appears to have been created as part of evading a block.. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MemeSpeak[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:28, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Brewton[edit]

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

A WP:BLP with no reliable independent sources (bad idea), discussing a conspiracy theorist. I find his theories ideologically consonant, but I don't see any evidence that his work is considered significant by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. E.M.Gregory has done a good job finding sources that show mainstream coverage. - Location (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think those mentions might be what are considered "trivial". There are also similar blurbs in the early 1990s about his coverage of the S&L crisis in the LA Times, Mother Jones, and Newsweek. I guess the question is whether or not these mentions are enough to build a stand-alone article via WP:AUTHOR or whether there should be a redirect to some part of Savings and loan crisis. - Location (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, IMO. That page is self-sourced and does not establish who the awards are from or for what. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any reason to doubt the authenticity of the claims, especially since Texas Tech is the publisher. I don't have the same access to searching sources as E.M.Gregory, however, I did find confirmation of the PEN Center USA award here. Unrelated, but another post from Texas Tech here. - Location (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, [[User:Location. Added the PEN prize to the page. It is pretty routine to link the faculty page to an academic's WP bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability has been proven although it does need some cleaning, The Delete !vote makes no sense so discounting that here, Cheers (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tetuila[edit]

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

This Article Does not meet Wikipedia Guidelines there is No Evidence of Notability on this Article --Samat lib (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Recommendation. I recommend the speedy close of this discussion in good faith by any patrolling admin as it serve no other purpose than to waste the precious time of other editors. Moreover, the subject notability had been established by the multiple reliable sources provided above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding more reliable multiple sources on the Article main page to prove is Notability , Secondly if this problem is not fixed fast * Delete Kokobenin (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockette Morton[edit]

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

This Article does not meet Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability

Sorry there is No Evidence of Notability on this Article references ....--Samat lib (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply to wp:spa account. I mentioned the sources in my keep !vote above.--Gaff (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 USC Trojans football team[edit]

2016 USC Trojans football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Premature creation of college football team season article for 2016 college football season. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and previous AfD precedents regarding future sports seasons, we do not create future season articles before the current season is over. This article is premature by eight months or more per WP:TOOSOON, and there is no way to properly source it per WP:RS 16 months before the 2016 season starts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I got to laugh. There's enormous quantities of news articles about high profile programs and their recruiting classes. In this specific case, I found 18 THOUSAND news articles about it. You can't dismiss that as being from "blogs". Hell, one program created buzz when they recruited someone out of 8th grade. This stuff is major, major stuff in the news and directly relates to the programs recruiting them. But, for bureaucratic...rather than encyclopedic reasons..(not directing this at you Paul in particular)..we can't have an article about. Utter <facepalm> if I ever saw one. Might as well snow-close this AfD under the heading "Napoleon was right" ("the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy). One question, since I couldn't find it, where is it written in law around here that an article about this team (which WILL exist...there's nothing crystal ball about that) can't exist for another eight months? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't laugh. Show the sources you found and we will consider them. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. As of now, I do not doubt that there are thousands of entries on the internet about the class. I question that they are from both reliable and third party sources. As for the question when a subject achieves notability to deserve an article, see WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been here long enough to know about WP:N, as I haven't hit 50,000 edits yet and can't even be trusted to edit templates. So, you'll have to forgive me for being so clueless ;) I joke, but anyway... As to sources; I already linked to the Google news search showing more than 18,000 articles relating to this class. Even if only 1% of those qualify under your criteria, that's still 180 articles supporting an article about this future team. There's oodles of information to work with here. But, I guarantee that even if I did develop this article with all that material it would be deleted anyway, for purely bureaucratic reasons. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of edits has no bearing on the weight of the argument being made. I don't care if anyone has zero edits--if they have an opinion, they get to express it. And they may be right. But what I don't see are three or four specific references that you believe are good examples to showcase the notability of the subject. The "news" link above is a good start, but the first few that I read through either were not bona fide news sources (i.e. fan blogs), not third party (i.e. USC Football), or not about the 2016 USC program (they happened to have "USC" and "2016" in the article). Give us specific examples. Like this.
  • Thanks for posting. Each of those to me do not qualify. Bleacher Reports and isportsweb.com are considered by many to not qualify as reliable sources--at least for the purposes of determining notability. Because of the open-source nature of their editing and information coupled with the distinct lack of peer review, the websites in question are normally not considered for determining notability. Naturally, you can argue that point (for example, if Lou Holtz were to write such an article it would have more weight). The other sites you provided (Yahoo Sports and ESPN) certainly qualify as reliable third party sources, but what you provide is simply a table and not an article. Such a table would be suitable for including supplemental data as a reference in this article or for "College Football Recruiting Class of 2016" (covering all teams), but it does not establish notability for this particular topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples you provided are the sort of Bleacher Report pieces and Rivals rankings that exist for every major team's future recruiting classes. If those types of pieces were enough, sports fans would be free to create articles 2 or maybe even 3 years in advance for every major college team. Those articles would be completely devoid of meaningful information, and would consist of nothing more than repetition of subjective opinions and predictions by various sources about the potential future value of high school football players who have not yet even signed binding commitments to attend the university in question. You can call it "bureaucracy", but I consider the current practice to be sound management developed based on the consensus of editors who routinely edit and develop college sports articles. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <shaking my head> Ah, Wikipedia, what have ye become? Enormous amounts of press can be generated about something, yet for bureaucratic reasons here we can't talk about them. Wikipedia, the world's resource for free knowledge, can't report on known facts and realities. Commits? They don't exist. National rankings of an incoming class, even in the top 10? Nope, not notable. ESPN isn't a reliable source, bleacherreport.com (a top 100 site in the U.S.) discusses the class and that's not acceptable, etc. Nah, nothing's acceptable. At least, not until Wikipedia declares, by a date which apparently isn't written into policy/guideline anywhere, that we can't create an article about it. Even with tons of press about this class, we can't write about it because of an arbitrary, unwritten date at some time in the future. This is nuts. Absolutely nuts. You guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Go ahead and delete. The bureaucracy has won. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you are mis-understanding. ESPN is a reliable source, it's just that the article you provided does not speak to the notability of the subject. And that's just my opinion. As to Bleacherreport, that's not a peer-reviewed reliable source no matter how many articles they print so it doesn't qualify for establishing notability. Again, that's my opinion. As for "enormous amounts of press" I just haven't seen it in reliable third party sources. But even then, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source per WP:NOTNEWS. Have you tried Wikinews or another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment you're welcome to change your position for any reason you choose. I hope that you would not simply because we disagree on a subject. It's not about winning or losing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. Look, the reality is the bureaucracy isn't going to allow this article, despite ample, reliable sources. So many of you are saying "too soon". Yet, not a single one of you has been able to point to any policy that says this article can't exist until xyz date. I wish you could see yourselves in the mirror. But, alas. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU! You've just proved my point about bureaucracy. Even if we had 1,000,000 articles from every news outlet in the world the bureaucracy wouldn't allow an article about this team until we reach some arbitrary date. We even have verifiable information regarding a portion of their schedule [46] (but the bureaucracy will probably cry WP:PRIMARY). But no, can't have an article. News keeps rolling in about their incoming class [47], and we can't discuss it here because of an arbitrary date. Yahoo! can have a list of their recruiting class [48], but not us. Oh no! It's too EARLY! The program lands fifth ranked linebacker in the country, but oh no! We have to wait, because that's not notable. Source after source after source after source is discussing this team and its upcoming members, but the bureaucracy here stands in the way. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've complained that there aren't any guidelines that support the position of deletion, I point them out, and you then complain about too many guidelines. Which is it? Not enough or too many? And we don't have a million articles from every news outlet in the world. You have shown, in fact, none that meet the notability, reliable source, and third party standards. Now your comments are starting to become disruptive in nature. And finally, no one is saying it can't be discussed here. HERE is exactly the place to discuss it. "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" is not a valid argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for a place in policy dictating that the article can't exist until a xyz date. What I got was a wall of links to essays, guidelines and policies...none of which indicate that an article about this team can not exist now. So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet. I'm waiting. Maybe I'll have to wait until the arbitrary date (whatever it is; no one seems to know) is passed :) You claim that none of the links I have provided pass established standards. Yet, I've linked to plenty of news sources from third party sources that are reliable sources of news. But, I guess Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sports Illustrated and Bleacher Report are not reliable. If it's "too soon" then pray tell why we have an article about Super Bowl LII, which will occur two years after the season article you're going to delete will begin? Why do we have an article about 2028 Summer Olympics, which is 13 years in the future? Then there's 2023 Cricket World Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup and more. We're discussing a season that begins training less than 12 months from now...less than one year. We know who the coach is contracted to be, we know where the home games are to be played, we know who is on the incoming class and we know a portion of the schedule that is to be played...all of it verifiable by reliable, third party sources. Lastly, if you seriously think I'm being disruptive for voicing an opinion, then as an administrator you should be well aware of how to handle that through normal dispute resolution channels. I encourage you to attack my opinion, rather than try to undermine my stance by accusing me of being disruptive. If voicing an opinion and attempting to show why the prevailing opinion among those here is wrong counts as disruptive, then I am extremely proud to be labeled as disruptive. For that matter, so should any Wikipedian. If noting multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts as "Liar liar pants on fire" then I'll gladly claim it as a badge of honor. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo Sports, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated are widely considered reliable sources. You haven't provided any articles from those sources that establish notability of the subject in question. Bleacher Report is normally considered not to be a reliable source. If you disagree that it should be reliable, you can state reasons why you think so (but you haven't). I can't really speak to why the future articles you mention are in Wikipedia, but WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing on this discussion. As to what action I should take as an administrator--the answer is "nothing" because I'm involved. At first I thought you were new to Wikipedia because of the type of statements you were making, but now I see you've been actively editing as far back as 2007. You should know by now that just saying you've posted "multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts" is not the same thing as actually having done so. If you want to seriously discuss the merits of the issue at hand I'm certainly open to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way you said "So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet" let me refer you to the aforementioned WP:TOOSOON among the list of others provided throughout this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> I fail to see the point of this discussion. I cite sources, you say ESPN/SI/BR/YS are unreliable. I cite precedent with plenty of other articles pertaining to things future, and you discredit them as otherstuff. I ask for where this is codified in policy/guideline, and you reference me to a wall of policies/guidelines/essays, none of which address the specific point. I voice an opinion, and you accuse me of being disruptive. *shrug* Nothing I say will sway you. Further debate is useless. You've already won this debate, and this article will be deleted. I'd hoped to be able to sway opinion here, but that seems impossible. So, I already struck my vote. I'm not sure what you expect of me, or what will make you happy. If saying you're right and I'm wrong is the only way forward in this, I'm sorry but you'll just have to be disappointed. I'm exiting this conversation as useless. The mic is yours for repartee. I don't care. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN, SI, and YS are reliable sources and I have maintained that throughout the discussion. It is Bleacher Reports that I believe does not qualify. The rest of your martyr cry is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 22:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Richmond History Center[edit]

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

Though I may suggest toning down the non-neutral notification, I agree with @Mike Cline:'s comments here. Most of the article is unsourced original research. The only sources provided are primary sources from the organization's website. There is no indication of notability provided by secondary sources, but even if they were notable, we would need to delete everything not cited to a reliable secondary source, meaning the entire page.

As Wikipedians we have a shared interest with the article-subject in history and a desire to show our support, however we should not abuse our role as Wikipedian for this purpose. Promotion and notability are not issues exclusive to commercial organizations and many topics like open-source or academics get unreasonable special treatment due to their appeal to our editor demographic.

CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google indicates that this seems to be a legitimate, longstanding, notable museum. See HERE for one article from a reliable source, and HERE for another. This place has been around for a hundred years, for pete's sake. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, but there doesn't seem to be good justification for deleting it on the basis of notability. Lou Sander (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page may still not qualify for WP:CORP, given that many of the sources are primary, are actually about the founder, only briefly mention the museum, or in some cases are blatant personal blogs (I removed those) or local tourism promotions. In other cases[50][51] the sources are reliable, but I cannot find "Valentine" mentioned anywhere in the source. I have a hard time swallowing this personal blog as a reliable source, when it calls beef juice a "tried-and-true [remedy]" that "cured Valentine’s wife, or at least appeared to". I'm no doctor like @Doc James:, but I'm pretty sure squeezing meat doesn't actually cure ailments.
This is a good example of why we need stronger sources to write a neutral article. This guy literally squeezed the juice out of raw meat and sold it as a "health tonic" with dubious health claims and through this product made the money that was used to purchase most of the museum's main attractions. We made it sound glorious using weak sources, when in actuality these exhibits were purchased by selling fake medicine. I shutter to think what sanitation and disease issues surrounded selling meat juice in the 1800s. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appears it was partly written by the place User:ValentineRHC. The initial trimming has helped. May need some more though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boy! What a slippery slope that might be when we start worrying about where the $$$ actually comes from to finance enterprise!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mike Cline (talk • contribs)
We could also make one or more additional articles about Valentine Meat Juice or Mann Valentine if y'all think that would make the article more streamlined. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's problems are fixable. Deletion is not cleanup.--Cúchullain t/c 15:11, 15 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And 2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) restored. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2013–14 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009–10 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008–09 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007–08 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006–07 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005–06 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004–05 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003–04 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001–02 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999–2000 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998–99 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997–98 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995–96 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994–95 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993–94 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992–93 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991–92 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990–91 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989–90 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988–89 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987–88 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986–87 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985–86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984–85 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983–84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982–83 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981–82 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979–80 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978–79 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977–78 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976–77 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975–76 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974–75 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973–74 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972–73 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971–72 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970–71 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969–70 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968–69 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967–68 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966–67 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1965–66 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1964–65 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1963–64 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962–63 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1961–62 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) that such schedules are outside the scope of Wikipedia I hereby nominate all other articles in Category:United States Saturday morning network television schedules for deletion. Some of the older ones actually do cite a source, but that does not solve the basic problem that these schedules do not provide encyclopedic information and by their very nature violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Huon (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using those links to try to justify notability for these articles is mostly WP:SYNTH. They don't specifically apply to these lists. Remember too, notability is not inherited. Just because a TV series is notable doesn't mean that a list mentioning it is also notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You complained about the criticism of the test AFD as not representative of consensus, and a history of AFDs to the contrary was presented. You asked for evidence that network schedules are a topic of RS commentary and analysis, and a wide range of sources was presented. Your initial response was the non sequitur "I don't have to prove anything and notability isn't everything." Now you assert, without explanation, that the evidence constitutes SYNTH in this discussion (notwithstanding that OR only limits article content, and that's plainly not at issue here), and drop another non sequitur about NOTINHERITED and the notability of the lists.

The sources establish conclusively two separate but related points: 1) that network/season schedules are highly relevant to the history of network series, which makes it an encyclopedic means of indexing them per WP:LISTPURP, and 2) that there is regularly significant reporting on and commentary about every season's lineup which makes the schedules themselves notable (and I still have no clue why you would think otherwise--you have not yet presented your own understanding of the subject, just "derp derp hoarders"). Either point is sufficient to justify keeping the lists. Is your claim now that, because I have not comprehensively documented the history of every year of network coverage within this AFD, that there was somehow a TV season that slipped through the cracks and that no one talked about? I can only guess. I'm not sure if your lone support of the nomination is why this was relisted, but if all you're going to do is offer more dismissive handwaving of the sources and repeating your original unelaborated opinion, then there's nothing left that needs to be responded to. An unelaborated "still haven't proved nothin'" is not a substantive rebuttal. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio. Many thanks to Maralia for noting this. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Stephen Bilbrey, DVM[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as the only realistic claim to notability is the "Maurice Shahan Award", and very low citation index on pubs so WP:PROF is not met either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, more a resume than an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Have asked the admin who blocked the article's creator (for 3 promotional articles on other vets in the same practice) to take a look. The subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Every word of the article is copyvio of the cited source; it should have been speedied. Maralia (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAGGiS Adventures[edit]

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

This article has been knocking around for a few years, but it really doesn't seem notable. The bulk was written by an SPA, and it feels very ad-ish. Besides the small blurb in the Scotsman, there doesn't appear to be much media. Agtx (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. Only The Scotsman is a Reliable source, and there are just a few paragraphs mentioning an advert that this outfit put up all over town. Big deal. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Symbiosis#Mutualism . feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multigenomic organism[edit]

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

This article has a misleading title that does not accurately reflect its subject matter and is not in accord with scientific consensus on the meaning of the term "multigenomic organism". It appears to describe obligate symbionts (a page which does not yet exist), not multigenomic organisms. A multigenomic organism would be an organism that is described as a belonging to a single species but which happens to have several distinct genomes - potentially from symbiogenesis or allopolyploidy. One could conceivably have a multigenomic organism without a symbioic relationship (i.e. organisms with distinct nuclear and mitochondrial genomes that arose as a result of symbiogenesis would not be called symbionts because the two ancestral organisms have ceased to be distinct). I think that this article needs to be heavily revised or, preferably, deleted in accordance with WP:TNT ("the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over"). In its place, it would be ideal to create separate pages for both obligate symbionts and multigenomic organisms and highlight the potential for confusion. Lagomorphae(t) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lagomorphae(t) 02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "multigenomic organism" would be one that includes multiple genomes. The confusion with symbiosis comes from the problem of what an "organism" is. For instance, human intestinal bacteria could not survive outside the human body, the human host needs them to survive, and neither is eliciting an immune system response from the other. Debating whether there is one organism ("human") with multiple genomes or multiple organisms (human + bacteria) with one genome each, living in symbiosis, seems a bit moot to me.
Since there is no real-life example of multigenomic organism that could not be rewritten as obligate symbiosis[citation needed], even if in theory you could imagine some (say, having different genomes for liver cells than for hearth cells) I do not think that it warrants more than a mention on the symbiosis page such as "Organisms in mutual obligate symbiotic relationships are sometimes considered as a single organism with multiple genomes".
Oh, and some sources would be good, in any case. Tigraan (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striked some, see below. Also notice that my "merge" is almost the same thing as the "move and rewrite" below. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being given the current organization of symbiosis and related articles such as Mutualism_(biology), I think it would be better to add a subsection somewhere rather than creating a standalone article. If the host article needs to be summarized-split afterwards because of length, then so be it, that is regular editorial work. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jody Brown Indian Family[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to back up anything in this article. The group don't seem notable and fail WP:NMUSIC. Seems like a lot of Original Research was used. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kay[edit]

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

He is a businessman with a factory and a retail store. He has one article about him from his local newspaper. He is not Notable at all. I attempted to clean up the article by removing all the puff, but when I did, there was nothing left. You can check the Edit summary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Sabrouty[edit]

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

Article about a dog behaviorist that fails to meet WP:BIO. All available material is self-generated and/or social media. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho[edit]

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

Non-notable television show. No coverage in reliable sources, article consists of unverified claims and Facebook links. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The show is the leading magazine show in the country, and therefore I have added an citation because every article is required to atleast have one. Angelo6397 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Stability for the Disabled[edit]

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

Self-published book with little external citation and no independent sources found. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a side note, I'm going to block one of the two accounts since it looks to be the same person operating under two accounts with nothing to show exactly why they're doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there are more- I'll open an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing. Book appears to have regional relevence only.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadleigh Roberts[edit]

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

Declined speedy deletion. Non-notable politician: at present only a candidate to become a MP; as a Labour candidate in Thornbury and Yate (UK Parliament constituency). IMO if he gets elected on May 7 he'll have no need to use Westminster Bridg to cross the Thames.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having lost the election and never served in office, clearly fails WP:BIO. Monty845 02:47, 9 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Just another Indian surname. No reliable sources discuss it. We do not even seem yet to have an article for any person of that name, so creating a dab of people who share it is not feasible. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. GSearch, JSTOR, Questia, DeGruyter, the library catalogues and search facilities of several major universities (Cambridge, Columbia etc), my own home "library" (pretty extensive), emails with native-language speakers in India over several years. I know all about WP:BEFORE but I do believe you have access to NYPL and I haven't checked there.

    I can mention it specifically at WT:INB if you want, rather than relying on delsort, but it is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome. This is a very typical stub of the "Indian last name" variety and frankly I'm fed up of seeing them: it is no more notable or discussed than my own name, perhaps even less so. Apologies if this seems arrogant but this is one of the few subject areas where I know what I'm doing and most regulars know that I, erm, know. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Grillo[edit]

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

Subject turns up no hits on Google news, could find nothing to support a notability claim. Article might warrant a redirect to X-Factor instead of deletion. KDS4444Talk 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, article is also incoherent. Citobun (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B (venue)[edit]

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

Coverage in timeout.com is WP:ROUTINE, having had someone die after leaving the club does not make that club notable. In accordance with WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE I propose that this article be deleted. KDS4444Talk 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 03:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betti-Sue Hertz[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable curator; she has done what curators do (curate exhibitions, write some stuff about them), but where is the in-depth coverage of her work in substantial independent publications. Her highest Scholar cites seem to be 4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (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.
  1. ^ Kuhn, Gerrit; Hijri, Mohamed; Sanders, Ian R. (13 December 2001). "Evidence for the evolution of multiple genomes in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi". Nature.
  2. ^ Battista, John R. (1 March 2000). "Radiation resistance: The fragments that remain". Current Biology.
  3. ^ Booth, Austin (20 May 2014). "Symbiosis, selection, and individuality". Biology & Philosophy.
More