 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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. Clear consensus is that the "Kurt 4 Klerk" incident comes under WP:ONEVENT, and that notability apart from that incident has not been established. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Reuben Glaser[edit]
- Reuben Glaser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local blogger, with only slight WP:BLP1E for the county clerk stunt. 7 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Keep - See, I don't really see how that argument can stand. You say he's "non-notable," but I don't understand your reasoning. There are ample sources to back up that he is indeed relevant. If this is based on you as an individual not being familiar with him, that isn't exactly a legitimate basis.
Look - I live in Wisconsin and I know this incident was on more than one newspaper front-page more than once. Then he even made it to national publications.
In addition, you write him off as a "local blogger," which isn't even accurate. He is a filmmaker if anything, with sources to back that up too. Where on this page does it even say besides that he is on twitter that he blogs? You didn't do your homework very well. You just posted one discouraging sentence about it in order to justify the whole argument.
Maybe if you lived in Wisconsin and actually understood this, you'd change your tune.
--Funkychunkybeans (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)— Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Commment If you have ample sources to back up your claims that he's notable, you must show them or add them to the article. Be aware that pages to store sites such as amazon do not count towards notability, nor do links to blogs unless they're written by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority. (Very few people meet these guidelines unless they are considered Wikipedia notable, mind you.) Also, be aware that primary sources cannot be used unless there are multiple independent secondary sources to back them up. IMDb links cannot be used as sources either, unfortunately. Finally, just like blogs, everything else that is used as a source MUST be by a reliable person or group. Just because a blog or podcast mentioned or interviewed him doesn't mean that it gives him notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to direct you to WP:ONEEVENT, which shows that having one well publicized event does not always give notability. I would also like to ask that you refrain from being hostile or mean, as that is absolutely not necessary. The argument posed by the nominator is a good one and one that's actually pretty descriptive of the situation. I'm going to look into sources while Wikipedia is down, but I'm thinking that this is a non-notable blogger who is only notable for one event that doesn't have any lasting notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to say that since you're taking this very personally, if you know the blogger or are the blogger himself, please look over our conflict of interest section. (WP:COI) You can still edit and contribute to deletion discussions with a COI, but it's not recommended since you have a bias that will keep you from seeing things in a neutral manner.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I did a search and the results were pretty quick and defining. Glaser's only real claim to fame is that he was one of the people behind a teenager running for a public officer. He wasn't the person who was actually running and the incident isn't one of lasting notability as far as Wikipedia goes. Of the sources in the article, none of them are what WP:RS would consider to be reliable sources showing notability for Glaser, especially when the ones about the public office incident don't even mention Glaser and are non-usable. The other sources are either brief mentions, primary sources, or local mentions that don't show how Glaser is notable. This is just pure puffery here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Comment I removed all of the links that weren't about Glaser at all, but left the podcast up since those would actually have to be listened to. Right now the only sources that remain are a local radio show. I did remove a link to a high school paper review of Glaser doing a play, which again- isn't a notable source. High school performances aren't considered notable per Wikipedia standards. This might actually be speedy-able.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Comment Hi, StupidDumbGnome here. I'd first like to say I am shocked at what has happened to this page when I logged on since I last saw it. I didn't think this would be such a source of controversy. I'd like to make it clear that I am just a fan of Reuben Glaser's who discovered him through the Kurt 4 Klerk incident, and nothing more. I don't believe that tag saying I have a close connection with him is very appropriate. Also, I don't know who "FunkyBeans" is, so I would hope that their contributions to this debate doesn't jeopardize it's fate.
Secondly, I am somewhat astounded to see you have deleted all my sources, and claimed many false things such as that Glaser isn't even mentioned in some of them. I find it irresponsible that you'd delete all but one, and claim that the only one remaining is a "podcast." It is not a podcast, it is actually one of Milwaukee's most popular radio shows by Charlie Sykes, which I am also shocked about to see he doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. You could plainly see this if you researched a little deeper. I say this not as somebody closely connected to my subject but as somebody who wrote their first article and perceives your lack of tact just a slight bit unprofessional. Please don't consider this "hostility" like you did with the commenter above either. I just wrote my opinion as eloquently as I could.
To continue, MediaIte, a nationally read news source, was a link I can't understand you removing, as well as the Huffington Post link, which directed the reader to an article further discussing Reuben Glaser's involvement.
I can agree with the deletion of some sources and understand you saying they aren't notable, but to see you delete 19 is surprising to say the least.
And of course, you say the Kurt 4 Klerk incident isn't one of lasting notability as far as Wikipedia goes." This statement, I believe, is subjective. If nothing else,this page should present a snapshot of these very important times in Wisconsin at least politically, and if being mentioned in Wisconsin's most read newspaper and being featured on the front-page of many more and being the top story on one of this state's most watched news programs as a top story (which is where I discovered Reuben Glaser) doesn't meet your requirements for notability, I don't know what would. All I know is that in the week this was happening, people would have thought Glaser and Kurt Heins were almost celebrities, there was such a media saturation of this.--StupidDumbGnome (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The amount of media saturation means nothing. It's one event and you have to prove that it has lasting notability beyond the event. From what I can see, there was a brief flurry of news articles and they stopped shortly afterwards. I really think that you should read through WP:ONEEVENT. Just because an event got in the news does not make it notable per Wikipedia guidelines. For example, recently we had an article about a police parody cartoon called "Mr Fiddlesticks" that resulted in cyberstalking, harassment, and an officer having to resign from their job. It got about the same amount of media coverage, if not more so because the officials were accused of an extreme abuse of power. It's an event that has more notability than a teenager putting in a joke bid for a political office, but under Wikipedia guidelines it didn't have the lasting notability needed for a Wikipedia article. As for the articles I deleted, many of them were unusable as reliable sources per WP:RS. Some of the ones I deleted were things like primary sources (Glaser's blog, his youtube videos), links to sale sites like amazon, links to forums and mentions of performances, links to IMDb (completely unusable as a source), and general sites that can't be considered to be reliable sources. For example, Glaser's high school newspaper might work very hard but generally high school papers cannot be used as sources to show notability as far as Wikipedia goes. College newspapers are sometimes usable, but high school papers are not unless it's something so notable that you have several other sources to back up the claims in the paper. A review of a high school play is not really something that big papers would cover or would need to. As far as the other sources go, I went through them with a page search and Glaser's name didn't come up. As for the MediaIt page, that came up as "nothing found". It's a dead link. [2] The Huffington Post link was just a picture of Heins, which can't be used as a reliable source. [3]. What I did find on the internet via a gsearch only brought up extremely brief mentions of Glaser as far as the Heins incident goes. Brief mentions in papers cannot be used as sources to show notability. Glaser is just not a notable person as far as WP:BIO or WP:GNG goes.
As far as sources go, I'll go through them one by one and show you why I deleted them:
- [4] Non-notable local paper. At the very most this could potentially be used as a trivial source, but a non-notable local paper article isn't enough to show that this is enough to give notability. I restored this one to be nice, but I want to stress that this does not give the notability needed to pass WP:BIO.
- [5] This is Glaser's blog. It's a primary source and unless you have several independent notable secondary sources to back up the claims here, you can't use primary sources.
- [6] This is a local radio podcast. Even if it's a big station in the area, this is still local coverage and generally speaking, local coverage is rarely enough to pass notability guidelines. The only reason I didn't delete this one outright was because I didn't have the time to listen to it since I have college to focus on, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.
- [7] High school paper review of a play. Doesn't show notability.
- [8] This is an IMDb page. Since anyone can go onto IMDb and upload a page, this can't be used as a source. (See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb) Even if Glaser himself didn't upload this, starring in or directing a movie does not give you automatic notability. You need multiple secondary and reliable sources to show that the acting or directing is notable.
- [9] This is one of several amazon links peppered throughout the article. Links to products cannot be used as a reliable source as they merely prove that the item exists, not that it's notable.
- [10] This is one of many links in the article that go to videos that Glaser himself uploaded to youtube. It's a primary source, so it can't be used unless there are multiple reliable secondary sources independent of Glaser that back the claims in this video up.
- [11] This is just a photo of a couple of students of the month in the local paper. This doesn't show notability in the slightest.
- [12] This is just an event calendar. Notices of performances or upcoming dates do not count towards notability.
- [13] Non notable blog. A blog is only usable as a source unless it comes from someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, which generally means that this person is so notable that they themselves would have an entry. For example, if the chief editor of the Huffington Post blogged about Glaser, it could be used as a source. If I blogged about it, it can't be used.
- [14] No mention of Glaser, can't be used as a source to show that he's notable since he's not even mentioned.
- [15] Facebook cannot be used as a source at all.
- [16] Dead link. Even if it wasn't, you'd still have to show that Glaser gets a lot of mention in this video. As said above, brief mentions do not count towards notability.
- [17] Dead link.
- [18] Does not mention Glaser, cannot be used as a source showing he's notable.
- [19] This is just a brief mention and a redirect to the local paper. Cannot be used as a source.
Even with the scant articles that mention Glaser's contribution to the prank, there's not enough here to show that this has any lasting notability. It's not even notable enough to mention on any of the other pages either. I can't help but feel that you are someone who is closely involved with Glaser (or are Glaser himself), so you're looking at this with a big conflict of interest, causing you to see lasting notability and importance where there is none. None of us are doing this to be mean or nasty, Glaser just plain doesn't meet the strict notability guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Comment. Again, I don't know Glaser beyond being a fan and living relatively close to him and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of that and possibly remove the tag at the top of the page that is just merely heresy. Also, thanks for restoring one of the links, but saying you did so just to be nice is exceedingly condescending and I don't appreciate being chastised as such. With that aside, I want you to understand that I recognize why you consider some of the articles and links not relevant or legitimate, and I'm not protesting that. A high-school newspaper isn't notable. This I will accept.
However, you still are getting some facts incorrect. You keep repeatedly calling the radio show a podcast, which is it not. And as much as I commend you for concentrating on college, if Wikipedia is such a distraction enough for you to use it as an excuse, perhaps you ought to hand this over to somebody else who will actually listen to the audio to establish that it isn't just a podcast.
Also, the two links you say are dead happen to be the most credible, so I will post them right here again so you can look at them and tell me they aren't pertinent.
This one is decidedly an active link with a viewable video of the story that was featured as headline news on an edition of this program - http://www.wisn.com/news/29576642/detail.html Again, to reiterate, WISN 12 is one of the most viewed programs in all of Southeastern Wisconsin and the entire Milwaukee area. Here is a second link to the same video, lest the previous link be considered dead - http://www.wisn.com/video/29576301/detail.html
Here is the MediaIte link that features Reuben Glaser heavily - http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-kurt-heins-the-17-year-old-high-schooler-running-for-county-clerk-as-a-prank-or-not/ If the link is still dead, go to Mediaite.com and search Reuben Glaser. It should be the first result.
I also did some more digging as a cushion and scraped up references on the DailyKos - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/12/875377/-John-Boehner-Claims-The-GOPs-Not-Just-Going-To-Be-The-Party-Of-No#comments - and references to a video specially made in opposition to John Boehner - http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/search?q=Reubnick
And here is the source of the Menominee Falls newspaper that works in tandem with The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - http://www.menomoneefallsnow.com/news/prankster-behind-teens-bid-for-county-office-steps-forward-132670738.html
I understand your gripe, but I feel if you really give these links a consideration you will find that this page, although barely, is still notable, and you won't have to delete my page after all this work I've put into it. Thanks--StupidDumbGnome (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The reason I keep referring to it as a podcast is because on the site's page it's filed under "Home > Podcasts > Opinion/talk > Charlie Sykes". Even if it was originally broadcast live on the radio, it can still be referred to as a podcast if the station were to upload the broadcast onto the web and make it available for subscription or download. The term "podcast" can be used pretty loosely and doesn't have to only apply to shows that are only heard via the podcast download. Radio shows can be uploaded into podcast format too, as can audio books and anything else that was previously recorded or broadcast in other formats. At one point it did refer exclusively to media that was only released via podcast, but the term has become very loose since then. Now moving on, the only problem with these links is that they mainly focus on Hines, not Glaser. I'm also a little confused where the DailyKos came from- the site doesn't refer to Glaser or Hines at all and I never saw anything on the article that came from or mentioned this site. Even if the blog did mention Hines or Glaser (which it didn't, I did a search) or Glaser contributed to them, that doesn't automatically make him notable enough for his own article. You need to explain how the DailyKos reference is notable. If you're trying to say that he's one of the people that writes for the site, you need to specify which writer he is, what he's written for the site, and then link to those specific articles. This site [20] is only a blog and it doesn't appear to be by a person that Wikipedia would consider a reliable or notable authority. (Please read WP:BLOG.) Even with the other sites (including the radio show), the fact remains that the Hines incident is not something that has enough notability to be included on Wikipedia. It's one event that got a limited amount of press and doesn't show enough notability for Glaser to have an article. To put it bluntly, it's a short-lived prank by a couple of high school kids that only received a few days of media attention before it was quickly forgotten. This got maybe, maybe a dozen news stories about it that seem to all have been released at the end of October. The event just isn't notable. I really, really feel that you're seeing notability where there isn't any because you are likely involved with or are Glaser himself. It's not against the rules to write about yourself or someone you know, but it increases the likelihood that you won't approach it in a neutral manner and will give greater importance to things than they actually have. (If you aren't then I apologize, but because this event had such limited scope and you've written about things that weren't in the few news stories about the prank, I'm assuming that you are Glaser or someone who knows him. If you are, then it's probably a good idea to say what your relation is. It's not required but it's a good idea because not being honest about it can look pretty bad if/when others discover it.) Other than the Hines prank, there is no other coverage of Glaser that's considered to be reliable per WP:RS and the Hines prank does not pass WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Even if the Hines prank were to pass these guidelines, Glaser is not notable outside of this event and does not merit an article to himself. (But again, the prank itself does not merit an article either since it only got about 3-4 days of water cooler discussion type articles.) Very few news events, let alone news events that really only get local attention, are considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. (See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP1E.) In the end the fact remains that the Hines prank is not considered to have lasting notability per WP:EVENT or WP:GNG and Glaser does not have enough notability outside of the prank to be notable in and of himself.
You're just not seeing this per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You're seeing it by your own guidelines, which unfortunately do not mesh with the very strict and stringent guidelines that Wikipedia has. I would really recommend that you brush up on the basics (WP:RS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BIO, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:GNG, WP:COI and WP:PUFF). I'm not trying to be difficult or mean, you've just got to understand that there's nothing in this article that has lasting notability to show that Glaser would merit an article. Maybe one day he will have this notability and can laugh about this on the Today Show, but right now he doesn't have the notability nor does the single event he was involved with. Even without listening to the radio show I can confirm this. It's nice that you want to save the page, but there just isn't anything to show that the event had any lasting notability. The only places that really covered it were local news stations and one brief mention by the Huff Post that linked to a local article. It's just not enough to show that this had any lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete - insufficient evidence of notability whether in the article or on the web. Signs of local campaigning with SPA/SPI activity similarly fail to establish notability. Claims in article themselves mainly trivia and in any case largely unsubstantiated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The single prank is not one that is of lasting note. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and then reinstate the previous redirect. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Mark Gurman[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Mark Gurman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Self-written article, WP:Notability Acfrazier (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This article provides no notable information, and looks like pointless ego-inflation. I mean, look at the "apple rejected me" links! Dustin Howett (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This does not appear to meet the Basic Criteria for a biography. I am unable to find any independent articles about the subject. --Sbingner (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Sbingner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I also noticed that this article was, at one point, submitted for creation but that creation request was denied - see Articles_for_creation/Mark_Gurman - This gives me the impression that this page is blatantly disregarding the response to the request for creation --Sbingner (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was denied for the reason this nomination was put up. "subject appears to be a non-notable person" --Austen Frazier (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also noticed that this article was, at one point, submitted for creation but that creation request was denied - see Articles_for_creation/Mark_Gurman - This gives me the impression that this page is blatantly disregarding the response to the request for creation --Sbingner (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This article does not seem to have a neutral point of view. Its sole purpose seems to only be for ego-inflation. --winocm (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC) — winocm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Seems that this user made this page to boost his own esteem no neutral point like winocm said. Soul purpose ego inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.192.207 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2012
- Delete Ego-feeding article with no real content of importance. Almost convinced this page is a joke. MikeBeas (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — MikeBeas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Patrolling admin note/heads up: It looks like this page was hijacked from an article about an athlete that was converted to a redirect and then overwritten with the first of a string of edits that led to the current incarnation. If the article in its current form has consensus to be deleted, please make sure to re-instate the redirect; if not, perhaps a
((for))hat/disambig/etc if it's appropriate; haven't otherwise investigated. --slakr\ talk / 07:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The discussion centres on adequate reliable sources doing more than mention the organisation in pasing. As the organisation is widely mentioned, often with detail, in reliable and independent sources, the argument to delete is not met, though the article would benefit from more secure sourcing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Association for Contextual Behavioral Science[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious notability; author removed PROD but still lacks independent sources to confirm enduring notability. Zzarch (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The author did not remove PROD for this article, I did. I disagree that this article meets criteria for deletion which is why I removed PROD in the first place. --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, it would seem that ACBS is notable enough to be mentioned within the article for Behaviorism itself... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism#21st-century_behavior_analysis --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. If you could find independent sources confirming the general notability of this organization, I would support keeping. Zzarch (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was able to find a few independent sources which make mention of ACBS: "http://moritaschool.com/content/links", "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831449/", "http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/4/398.short". The following google scholar search brought up 55 hits: "http://scholar.google.com/scholar?lr=lang_en&q=%22association+for+contextual+behavioral+science%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14" --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. If you could find independent sources confirming the general notability of this organization, I would support keeping. Zzarch (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, it would seem that ACBS is notable enough to be mentioned within the article for Behaviorism itself... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism#21st-century_behavior_analysis --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I have found no independent sources mentioning this group. From what I can tell the links above are all from advocates, with one source only mentioning this group while citing the Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the account creating this article may be the same Steven C. Hayes who founded the therapy it advocates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- That seems a valid WP:COI concern, and I am withdrawing my vote for now to see if anyone can provide sources that clearly come from neutral and non-advocating parties. Zzarch (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about this for a neutral or non-advocating party? The Association for Behavioral Analysis International mentioned ACBS in 2007 in Vol. 30, No 7 of its newsletter; scroll down that page and look for the heading "Building Bridges: Collaboration with Other Organizations," and then look for the mention of ACBS as one of eight organizations ABAI is interested in "building bridges and sharing opportunities with." Some of the other organizations in this list are quite well known, e.g. the American Psychology Association, so it is not as if phantoms are being made up here. This plus the University of Nevado, Reno source that I mentioned in my Keep vote lower on on this page are examples of numerous brief mentions on the web of ACBS by reputable and neutral (in the sense of not directly affiliated) third parties. Whole Sight (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's an important, fastly expanding organization. Branches (chapters) in many countries - see here for the Dutch wing. I'll see if I can add more. It's hard to find independent sources for whatever group. It's their activities that are mentioned. See also American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, or American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry to name just a few (not to mention Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. Try to find independent sources for these! And their pages contain much less information. If this page is deleted, you have to delete plenty of others.--Queeste (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I completely agree here. Another excellent example is the Association for Behavior Analysis International. Only 3 citations, and all of them are from internal sources. 2 of them are from their own publications and the 3rd is from the website of one of their special interest groups. The latest version of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science now has 9 references, 5 of which appear to me to be independent sources. If that is not acceptable, then surely all of these other groups must be considered for deletion as well.--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The notion of deleting at this point seems driven by a single person who has chosen to selectively ignore a great deal of evidence pointing in favor of notability. To give just one more instance of such evidence, the University of Nevada, Reno, has a press release on its web site detailing the 2010 annual conference for ACBS - including a rough count of number of conference participants, etc. etc. Yes, UNR is where Steven C. Hayes teaches; but on the other hand, UNR's existence as a university is not in question, and for this press release to be dismissed as untrustworthy in its description of this ACBS event as a significant one within the field of academic psychology, one would have to conceive of a grand conspiracy theory of some sort. I would say it is up to anyone still proposing deletion to at this point prove the various cited sources are unreliable. The link to the UNR press release is is here . Whole Sight (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)— Whole Sight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ah, I see someone has gone to the effort of SPA'ing me as a "single purpose account." I wouldn't agree. I've had few edits outside this page, yes, but I do have other interests, e.g. I spotted and flagged a blatantly promotional article for KSwiss, the sneaker manufacturer, that was then removed; my interest in that case was tennis. Very suspicious I'm sure! Check me out a bit more carefully, please, before making unwarranted assumptions. Whole Sight (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Queeste and Tzadkiel have few edits on Wikipedia and a nice chunk of those edits relate to this therapy and its proponents. The therapy itself has some established notability, but notability is not transferable to anything related to the therapy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment on comment Are we going ad hominem? The Devil's Advocate's comment is a lie. I do have few edits, right. I'm Dutch speaking and active on the Dutch Wiki. But a nice chunk of my edits having to do with this therapy??? Exactly 1 to be precise: it's about Steven Hayes. What did I add: a category! Big thing, no? Check my Dutch edits if you want to have an impression of my background; be my guest. And still: it's ad hominem and thus besides the question. It's an insult.--Queeste (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am clever enough to actually look at your contributions you know, including those on the Dutch Wikipedia. You have made mostly insignificant contributions there (a whole lot of redirects to articles about beer stuck out) and, once more, you were making a lot of contributions to articles related to this therapy right as you started editing there. As far as only making "1 edit" you actually have made several, though you may think someone is not going to check up on that. You have added wikilinks for the Steven Hayes article to other articles, added information about RFT, made edits on experiential avoidance that support the general contention of ACT, and added the website for the subject of this article to another page. All of that on the English Wikipedia. Edits on this particular subject are your first edits in both areas of Wikipedia. Do you have any affiliation with the proponents of the therapy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to move the discussion back to the merits of the article itself? I hardly think that my relatively few edits (most of which concern naval issues, not sure how you came to the conclusion that a "nice chunk" relate to the therapy or its proponents) compared to yours has much to do with the points that were raised concerning the presence of other articles covering organizations without independent sources. The argument that you made concerning the therapy's notability not applying to the organization also applies to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies and Association for Behavior Analysis International. If these articles are acceptable, why not Association for Contextual Behavioral Science? Or any of the other organizations that Queeste mentioned that you did not address?--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is important an admin reviewing this understands the apparent biases of those suggesting it be kept. Your points are ultimately not very significant. There are many articles lacking sources, but notability does not specifically require that sources be present in the article. So long as independent sources exist supporting its notability the article is suitable for inclusion. However, listing other articles that you think should or should not be deleted is a distraction. If any of those other articles lack sufficient notability for an independent article then those would need to be deleted as well. What matters is whether this article has notability that can be established with significant mentions in independent reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree about the relevance of the other similar articles currently in existence, I think. Can you be specific as to exactly what kinds of independent sources you consider suitable? A google search for "Association for Contextual Behavioral Science" returns 389,000 results. --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raw number of hits are irrelevant. The top results I find are all directly-affiliated or closely-affiliated with the subject of the article. After ten pages of such sources Google stops listing them because the rest are apparently not much different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get the impression that you're really not reading what I am typing here. I asked you directly what kinds of independent sources you consider suitable, and you offered no input on that. I'm going to go ahead and add this to the debate: ACBS is a rapidly expanding notable international organization of over 5,000 members on par with other organizations with their own articles. ACBS was recognized back in 2007 by the Association for Behavior Analysis International as a noteworthy organization.[1] Time magazine ran a piece on Steven C. Hayes in which the ACBS website is listed as a resource for locating ACT therapists.[2] Finally, I noticed that in addition to calling for the deletion of this article you've flagged the biography for Steven C. Hayes as problematic as well. Since you've ignored the other articles which I have pointed out have the exact same problems as the article under discussion, I think I'm going to have to point out a possible bias on your part, The Devil's Advocate, as you seem to be targeting Steven C. Hayes and the organization that he is associated with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzadkiel43 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raw number of hits are irrelevant. The top results I find are all directly-affiliated or closely-affiliated with the subject of the article. After ten pages of such sources Google stops listing them because the rest are apparently not much different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree about the relevance of the other similar articles currently in existence, I think. Can you be specific as to exactly what kinds of independent sources you consider suitable? A google search for "Association for Contextual Behavioral Science" returns 389,000 results. --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is important an admin reviewing this understands the apparent biases of those suggesting it be kept. Your points are ultimately not very significant. There are many articles lacking sources, but notability does not specifically require that sources be present in the article. So long as independent sources exist supporting its notability the article is suitable for inclusion. However, listing other articles that you think should or should not be deleted is a distraction. If any of those other articles lack sufficient notability for an independent article then those would need to be deleted as well. What matters is whether this article has notability that can be established with significant mentions in independent reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to move the discussion back to the merits of the article itself? I hardly think that my relatively few edits (most of which concern naval issues, not sure how you came to the conclusion that a "nice chunk" relate to the therapy or its proponents) compared to yours has much to do with the points that were raised concerning the presence of other articles covering organizations without independent sources. The argument that you made concerning the therapy's notability not applying to the organization also applies to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies and Association for Behavior Analysis International. If these articles are acceptable, why not Association for Contextual Behavioral Science? Or any of the other organizations that Queeste mentioned that you did not address?--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am clever enough to actually look at your contributions you know, including those on the Dutch Wikipedia. You have made mostly insignificant contributions there (a whole lot of redirects to articles about beer stuck out) and, once more, you were making a lot of contributions to articles related to this therapy right as you started editing there. As far as only making "1 edit" you actually have made several, though you may think someone is not going to check up on that. You have added wikilinks for the Steven Hayes article to other articles, added information about RFT, made edits on experiential avoidance that support the general contention of ACT, and added the website for the subject of this article to another page. All of that on the English Wikipedia. Edits on this particular subject are your first edits in both areas of Wikipedia. Do you have any affiliation with the proponents of the therapy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know I'm asked to keep focused on the article and not the person, but just this: I know (more than) a few things about behaviorism. And yes, RFT is recent behaviorism, so I do have some knowledge. I wrote more on behaviorism, token economy, delay discounting, etc and tens of times more about beer, religion, history, ... So what? Only people not knowing anything about the subject are valid? If you want to start a discussion about beer, only they who know about wine are neutral or objective? Just had to get rid of this. Now the article: essentially the other mentioned organisations have no more "independent" sources acknowledging their importance: American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, or American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry to name just a few (not to mention Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. And these are just a few. Delete all?--Queeste (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am a member of the organization and perhaps not unbiased, but I want to say that the organization is very important for professionals (both clinicians and scientists) working within behavior analysis and the work will benefit people in general. The area as well as the organization is expanding rapidly why I would say it is of importance to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.240.144 (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment on the irony of this discussion within Wikipedia What would normally be a superabundance of evidence that ACBS is a notable organization is effectively being held hostage by a single Wikipedia editor who has failed to answer a direct question as to what he, personally, would consider acceptable evidence. Meanwhile, outside of Wikipedia, we have a book reviewer in the very well-known Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis citing the Wikipedia entry on Behaviorism as evidence that behavior analysis as a field is evolving in new and important ways - with ACBS being part of this evolution! This article can be found [here] and the pertinent passage is as follows - the italics are mine to add emphasis:
No book is perfect, however, and this one does have some gaps in important subjects, the diminutive or absent coverage of which is incongruent with the large size of their relevant literatures. Three notable examples include behavioral pharmacology, organizational behavior management (OBM), and clinical behavior analysis (e.g., acceptance and commitment therapy [ACT], functional analytic psychotherapy). All three areas have large literatures, broad multi-disciplinary influence, and many adherents.
For example, the section of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia devoted to behaviorism describes OBM as having “a particularly strong following within behavior analysis, as evidenced by the formation of the OBM network and the influential Journal of Organizational Management (… recently rated as the third highest impact journal in applied psychology…).” The same section discusses ACT and states that “researchers and practitioners in RFT/ACT have become sufficiently prominent that they have formed their own specialized organization, known as the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science.” Wikipedia does not include behavioral pharmacology as an entry, but one recent issue of JABA is devoted entirely to the topic (Winter 2008). This issue is large, and it is one of the few devoted to a single subject that JABA has published in its history, which is pretty clear evidence that the area is important to the field. I suspect I need supply no more evidence to support my argument that all three are large and growing specialized areas of applied behavior analysis. That I could, however, is readily indicated by cursory searches on Google Scholar, Psych Info, Amazon.com, and in university libraries.
— Patrick C Friman, J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Spring; 43(1): 161–174.
Leaving the irony of the Wikipedia cite aside, what ought to be especially telling for this discussion is Friman's comment that even "cursory searches" in the databases and libraries he mentions validate his argument that behavior analysis is evolving and that ACT (sponsored by ACBS) is part of this. And in fact anyone interested in this discussion can undertake such a cursory search for themselves: specifically, search within the recent literature of behavior analysis (2011 will be fine though you can easily go back 10 or 20 years) for mentions of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Relational frame theory. Then start researching the professional affiliations for the researchers involved. Surprise . . . you will start seeing ACBS membership frequently mentioned.
I invite anyone who still proposes this article for deletion to undertake the above research. It would take perhaps 20 minutes. It might convince you to let go of any doubts you still harbor. Whole Sight (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The fact it is only mentioning the group because it is mentioned on Wikipedia is exactly the problem. I have yet to find any example of this group receiving significant mentions from people who are not affiliated with the group or the therapy. Seems the group itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant their own article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you not read my full comment? Fridman is not mentioning ACBS "because it is mentioned on Wikipedia." Please re-read my comment in its entirety and respond accordingly. Whole Sight (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I confess I did not read everything, though what I didn't read before isn't anymore helpful now than the part I did read when I made my comment. The remainder of your comments make the exact kind of argument that I already addressed. Notability is not inherited. Just because a notable therapy is connected to a group, does not mean that group has notability sufficient for an article as well. I have no objection to including the information in articles about the therapy and related ideas where it is sufficiently significant and relevant to the subject, but an independent article on this group would not be justified.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you not read my full comment? Fridman is not mentioning ACBS "because it is mentioned on Wikipedia." Please re-read my comment in its entirety and respond accordingly. Whole Sight (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. In response to your objection that notability here is "inherited," please see the section on "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" within [[49]]. This section states that "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." I'd say ACBS meets the first of these two criteria easily: it has international activities and scope. I also think it meets the second criteria, on the basis of frequent mentions in news bulletins from major universities, some of which are already cited here. Is there an objection to such cites as somehow unreliable? Whole Sight (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- The sources have to be independent and so far you have definitely not met that standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is a new bulletin from a major university not independent? And surely you mean to suggest that you feel the article does not meet that standard, not a participant in this discussion? Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here are more independent sources which mention ACBS, in addition to the ones that have already been posted and been ignored: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686981/ ; http://www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/treatments/chronicpain_act.html ; http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/838097/6-ways-to-conquer-your-biggest-fears ; http://www.scientificmindfulness.com/2010/07/acbs-2010-interview-with-robyn-walser.html ; http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449 ; http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2010/nevada-hosts-international-third-wave-psychology-conference ; http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/Hand%20book%20on%20research%20in%20educational%20communication/ER5849x_C006.fm.pdf ; http://crankyshrink.blogspot.com/2010/04/eighth-world-conference-on-act-rft-and.html ; http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/scrcQuiz.aspx?courseID=44 Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Independent means a source that is not connected to the subject. Two of those sources are papers co-written by Steven C. Hayes himself, the creator of the therapy the organization advocates. Eric J. Fox is a member of the ACBS so the pdf you gave is not independent. Joel Guarna, one of the bloggers you cited, is another member. Several of the other sources are focused in the same limited field of "mindfulness" or "spiritual" therapy. One source is just a faculty member at a university writing about the group having an event at that university. The only decent sources you gave make only trivial mentions of the group in connection with the ACT therapy. Again, the therapy is notable, but that does not automatically pass on to the organization advocating it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The mention of ACBS as the sponsoring organization for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices web site is not a trivial mention, but rather, quite detailed and specific, as follows: "ACT development is guided by the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS), which can provide referrals to professionals in a specific area of interest. ACBS also has a worldwide system of recognized trainers (http://www.contextualpsychology.org/act_trainers) who are available to assist agencies interested in implementation." The source here is a department of a U.S. government agency that undertakes strict reviews of particular therapies, including a history ("Implementation History") of those who advocate said therapies - hence the very material and pertinent reference to ACBS. And the very nature of these reviews is that they be independent and reliable - as stated on the About NREPP page, "The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) is a searchable online registry of mental health and substance abuse interventions that have been reviewed and rated by independent reviewers." So that is one source for notability right there that is already included in the article. One additional source will meet the criteria for "multiple sources" and thus for notability of ACBS. Whole Sight (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Trivial mentions are not enough. Multiple trivial mentions are still trivial mentions. All the independent sources mentioned have been talking about ACT and then saying basically "see here for practitioners of this therapy" without any significant information on the organization. You have made a strong argument for possibly making this a redirect to the ACT therapy page, but your argument is not strong enough for having an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- If a redirect to the ACT therapy page makes more sense within the strictures of Wikipedia, then I'm all for that. I think that would satisfy (or ought to) anyone who comes to Wikipedia wondering what ACBS is & hoping to find information on it. Whole Sight (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- A redirect to ACT misses the point: ACBS is not just ACT. It stands for a specific kind of science and psychology, including ACT and RFT, but not only these. It's the unifying whole above all these and that's what makes it worth while mentioning. But I'm aware this isn't an argument that will impress opponents. This discussion has nothing to do with objectivity and neutrality: an international organization with thousands of members not being encyclopedic? If there would be such an international organization for believers in tooth fairies (not sure the writing is correct), I would vote "keep" (as I voted for keeping the page on reincarnation therapy on the Dutch pages a year or so ago). No mather how few scientific papers mention it. But, I believe this discussion is leading nowhere. I'm afraid the conclusion will be: delete, and with it 50 or more other organizations, already having a page (same standards for every organization, no?). Best,--Queeste (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- If a redirect to the ACT therapy page makes more sense within the strictures of Wikipedia, then I'm all for that. I think that would satisfy (or ought to) anyone who comes to Wikipedia wondering what ACBS is & hoping to find information on it. Whole Sight (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Trivial mentions are not enough. Multiple trivial mentions are still trivial mentions. All the independent sources mentioned have been talking about ACT and then saying basically "see here for practitioners of this therapy" without any significant information on the organization. You have made a strong argument for possibly making this a redirect to the ACT therapy page, but your argument is not strong enough for having an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The mention of ACBS as the sponsoring organization for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices web site is not a trivial mention, but rather, quite detailed and specific, as follows: "ACT development is guided by the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS), which can provide referrals to professionals in a specific area of interest. ACBS also has a worldwide system of recognized trainers (http://www.contextualpsychology.org/act_trainers) who are available to assist agencies interested in implementation." The source here is a department of a U.S. government agency that undertakes strict reviews of particular therapies, including a history ("Implementation History") of those who advocate said therapies - hence the very material and pertinent reference to ACBS. And the very nature of these reviews is that they be independent and reliable - as stated on the About NREPP page, "The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) is a searchable online registry of mental health and substance abuse interventions that have been reviewed and rated by independent reviewers." So that is one source for notability right there that is already included in the article. One additional source will meet the criteria for "multiple sources" and thus for notability of ACBS. Whole Sight (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Independent means a source that is not connected to the subject. Two of those sources are papers co-written by Steven C. Hayes himself, the creator of the therapy the organization advocates. Eric J. Fox is a member of the ACBS so the pdf you gave is not independent. Joel Guarna, one of the bloggers you cited, is another member. Several of the other sources are focused in the same limited field of "mindfulness" or "spiritual" therapy. One source is just a faculty member at a university writing about the group having an event at that university. The only decent sources you gave make only trivial mentions of the group in connection with the ACT therapy. Again, the therapy is notable, but that does not automatically pass on to the organization advocating it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here are more independent sources which mention ACBS, in addition to the ones that have already been posted and been ignored: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686981/ ; http://www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/treatments/chronicpain_act.html ; http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/838097/6-ways-to-conquer-your-biggest-fears ; http://www.scientificmindfulness.com/2010/07/acbs-2010-interview-with-robyn-walser.html ; http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449 ; http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2010/nevada-hosts-international-third-wave-psychology-conference ; http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/Hand%20book%20on%20research%20in%20educational%20communication/ER5849x_C006.fm.pdf ; http://crankyshrink.blogspot.com/2010/04/eighth-world-conference-on-act-rft-and.html ; http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/scrcQuiz.aspx?courseID=44 Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is a new bulletin from a major university not independent? And surely you mean to suggest that you feel the article does not meet that standard, not a participant in this discussion? Tzadkiel43 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The sources have to be independent and so far you have definitely not met that standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. In response to your objection that notability here is "inherited," please see the section on "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" within [[49]]. This section states that "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." I'd say ACBS meets the first of these two criteria easily: it has international activities and scope. I also think it meets the second criteria, on the basis of frequent mentions in news bulletins from major universities, some of which are already cited here. Is there an objection to such cites as somehow unreliable? Whole Sight (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that you have to provide an independent reliable source to back up those claims for notability. An organization can claim it has as many members as it likes and assign them any level of credibility, but we should not just take their word for it. So far it seems the few independent sources mentioning it, sources of questionable reliability, only mention it in the context of ACT and the mention is only to note it as a way to find people who practice the therapy. That is not enough to establish a case for an independent article. As I said, it seems reasonable enough to use those as an argument for a redirect, but nothing more.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think one source of disagreement here has been that those who have been pushing for a separate article on ACBS (including me) are not familiar enough with how Wikipedia operates. How do you get volunteer editors together to create a work that at least gestures towards reliability? By setting standards that call for other published sources that are deemed generally reliable by their nature to have "vetted" topics first. This is not the only criterion, of course, but it is a very large one. I agree with Queeste that ACBS's goals are larger than ACT, just as Relational frame theory is larger in scope than ACT. The problem is, from the Wikipedia point of view, that nothing has yet been written by third parties (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc.) focusing primarily on ACBS and its goals rather than simply mentioning its sponsorship of ACT; thus there is no source independent enough with which to support a separate article. There is nothing wrong with this per se - it is simply how Wikipedia is forced to operate if it wishes to rely on volunteer effort. This does not resolve Queeste's objection that many other organizations already having Wikipedia articles which fail to meet notability standards - but that is really a separate issue; more a matter of articles slipping through the cracks than a positive support for an article on ACBS. So again I'd reiterate, a redirect (though not absolutely necessary) seems reasonable if the policy on redirects would support such a compromise. I have not looked up the policy yet, but hope to do so shortly when I have time. Whole Sight (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite all of the filibustering above from the promotors of this organisation the sources offered fall well short of our requirements for notability, with no independent reliable sources giving more than a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure that this statement makes a great deal of sense. So far the opposition to this article has been one individual which more closely fits the definition of filibustering. Secondly, I don't see how labeling contributors to this discussion as "promoters of the organization" assumes good faith on the part of others or helps in any way to build a consensus on this article. There are several suitable independent sources which have been provided for this article. Labeling them "passing mentions" and dismissing them does not change this fact. 98.195.154.2 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)— 98.195.154.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- OK then, if I'm missing something in the above discussion, could you please point out which of the independent reliable sources presented provide more than passing mentions? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Try to find them for American Association of Christian Counselors, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, Muslim Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Photobiology, or Maharashtra Academy of Sciences. Not written by members, not written on therapy or their science, but on the organization. If you want to delete ACBS, do it with these too. Independent reliable sources almost never mention an organization. Look at the ones you're member of. Now I promise to shut up. In fact I already had, but I was invited to look at the discussion again.--Queeste (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure that this statement makes a great deal of sense. So far the opposition to this article has been one individual which more closely fits the definition of filibustering. Secondly, I don't see how labeling contributors to this discussion as "promoters of the organization" assumes good faith on the part of others or helps in any way to build a consensus on this article. There are several suitable independent sources which have been provided for this article. Labeling them "passing mentions" and dismissing them does not change this fact. 98.195.154.2 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)— 98.195.154.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. The Devil's Advocate has argued convincingly that there does not seem to be coverage of this group that is not superficial or whose author is not associated with the group. This means we do not have the factual basis for an article (see WP:V#Notability). Sandstein 18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree (having changed my initial position) but would like to clarify the language being used here, so that those who have supported a separate article on ACBS understand what is being said. "Superficial" does not mean ACBS itself is superficial as it exists in the world outside of Wikipedia; it means the independent mentions of ACBS that have been obtained so far do not discuss the group at sufficient length to support a separate article. Likewise "no factual basis" does not mean that anyone is contending ACBS is fictious - only that the sort of factual basis required by Wikipedia's internal standards is lacking. The issue is procedural, really; it is not a slam against ACBS but merely a guarding of Wikipedia's process. And pax Queeste, that the process is occasionally inconsistent does not support violating it. Whole Sight (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy vs occasional exception (sorry for my intervention, but my name was mentioned): I did some research: ACBS belongs to Category:Psychology organizations. OK, what is put above is that most of the organizations have sufficient "independent sources mentioning this group". I counted, and please check me, just those under the letter "A": 2 of the 24 psychology organizations seem to fulfill this requirement (American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association), 2/24 !! None of the others: they only refer to their journals, activities or articles of proponents. (And no, I did not purposely only look at the letter A: 0 of 5 under B fulfills this requirement - I did not check C or next.) So, Wikipedia policy? Policy is to accept organizations, however strange and irrelevant (during this search I found Belgian Synesthesia Association, completely unknown in Belgium - has not even a Dutch article - but yes, accepted on Wikipedia without any remarks. This is NOT the occasional exception, it is the rule, the policy. Please check this, I might have overlooked 1 or 2, or even 5, and even then: still not the majority. But don't worry, I'm not going to nominate countless organizations for deletion, as Devil's Advocate was fearing. I'm a convinced Wikipedian. If ACBS is deleted, so be it. Wikipedia is a wonderful tool, and errors happen, double standards exist, that's human. And no, I'm not gaining money with ACBS, so I won't weep when it's deleted. Best,--Queeste (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Queeste, when you say "This is NOT the occasional exception, it is the rule, the policy," are you trying to say that because so many exceptions exist, this is a de facto policy? If so that is very different from "the rule, the policy" as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. If you are concerned that the guidelines are not being followed adequately and thus either creating an unfair situation vis-a-vis ACBS, or else corrupting the integrity of Wikipedia, then you need to raise this at a higher level than just the discussion for this article. Whole Sight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
- Yes, it's a de facto policy to accept psychology organizations that don't fulfill (or prove) the requirements, as proven by the numbers (more than 90% of the checked don't meet the requirements). But I won't raise the issue at a higher level, just discussing it here. There's no conspiracy, ACBS is not a victim, just an accident of some well-meaning Wikipedians falling over this article. Such things happen in the best of worlds.--Queeste (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would think that if other psychology organization articles are in existence that do not fulfill the notability requirements then these pages need to be flagged as such. Please note that I would not advocate that they be submitted for speedy deletion as was done with this article, but I think we could hardly call ourselves responsible Wikipedia contributors if we ignore this issue that apparently exists in a multitude of other articles. Tzadkiel43 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a de facto policy to accept psychology organizations that don't fulfill (or prove) the requirements, as proven by the numbers (more than 90% of the checked don't meet the requirements). But I won't raise the issue at a higher level, just discussing it here. There's no conspiracy, ACBS is not a victim, just an accident of some well-meaning Wikipedians falling over this article. Such things happen in the best of worlds.--Queeste (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Queeste, when you say "This is NOT the occasional exception, it is the rule, the policy," are you trying to say that because so many exceptions exist, this is a de facto policy? If so that is very different from "the rule, the policy" as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. If you are concerned that the guidelines are not being followed adequately and thus either creating an unfair situation vis-a-vis ACBS, or else corrupting the integrity of Wikipedia, then you need to raise this at a higher level than just the discussion for this article. Whole Sight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Keep here are more references: ). http://www.nawazeng.com/index.htm , see Farm Equipment Supply Chains. Guidelines for Policy-makers and Service Providers: Experiences from Kenya, Pakistan and Brazil: Agricultural and Food ... and Food Engineering Technical Report) by B. G. Sims (Paperback - Jan 28, 2010) The research report used Nawaz Rice Engineering in case study. Nawaz Rice Engineering is the only company that has supplied agricultural equipment to European companies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc5247 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW but also because by the time this AFD closes, this event will have happened and the nominator's statement will no longer apply. No prejudice to a renomination after the event, but I suggest a much stronger deletion rationale. v/r - TP 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
2012 Wikipedia blackout[edit]
- 2012 Wikipedia blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. It hasn't even happened yet. →Στc. 03:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I created this on the basis that someone was going to, so it might as well start off with good habits (sources). For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to this being moved, and its scope expanded to incorporate all of the action taking place on the 18th. As for the it hasn't even happened yet part, the decision has already been made, and the decision alone has attracted significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. —WFC— 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Other than my specific comment on a merge, I don't wish to badger any individual rationale. What I will note is that WP:NOTNEWS is depreciated, as a result of having been understood by some to mean "all news must be deleted". I consider the thinking behind that decision to be relevant here. —WFC— 06:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the "not news" invocation. Should we have an article on every single strike, boycott, or other act of protest? What we need are articles on greater issues of contention, with reports on individual events reported in their proper places of importance. -BigJim707 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Vain as it seems for Wikipedia to create an article about a protest of its own, this has received ample coverage in the mainstream media. Coupled along with the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, this "event" is certainly notable. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- When I said ample news coverage, I meant thousands of news articles, not your typical weather update. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 04:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete—We do not need an article on every single thing that gets a news article or two. If the blackout ends up being earth-shattering, it might warrant an article. Until then, it's simply not a notable event. Merge this with all other coverage of protests in the main Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles. hare j 04:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Part of my objection to a merge in this specific instance is the danger of skewing those articles, particularly given that they are likely to remain visible tomorrow. Let's say for argument's sake you're right and I have misjudged the notability, far better for any fluff to gather here and to delete or upmerge at a later date. —WFC— 04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete with no bar on recreation if lasting significance can be shown. For the avoidance of any doubt there is no indication that this blackout will in and of it's self be of any lasting significance even if the bill is does not become law. Mtking (edits) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, article passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT. Gsingh (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NOTNEWS looks to exclude "routine" news events. The coverage this event is generating is clearly not routine -- indeed, the fact that, as the nom correctly states, it hasn't yet happened and is nonetheless getting massive coverage tends to suggest that this is not the type of routine news item that WP:NOTNEWS excludes. The intentional 24 hour shutdown of a website with ~25 million daily visitors is not equivalent to "every single strike, boycott, or other act of protest." Indeed -- and I don't think this is me going all WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- we have quite a few articles on notable protest actions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a watershed event in the history of Wikipedia. Dough4872 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This AFD won't close until after the blackout. --Rschen7754 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice against a future merger. Let's see how this storyline develops in the media, but with the level of attention that it has already generated before the blackout, the topic easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep "It hasn't happened yet" is an invalid reason to delete. — Moe ε 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- But WP:NOTNEWS is. →Στc. 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes it is. WP:NOTNEWS. It hasn't even happened yet. →Στc. 07:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- In fairness, the first thing he says in the nomination is WP:NOTNEWS :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Just read up... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 06:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and navel gazing at its best. It should not have its own article yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I dislike navel gazing, but I have to agree with others here. This event seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources, more than routine coverage, and widespread enough to meet the general notability guideline. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: It's aready being reported worldwide (although not currently by the BBC
). Deletion now only to re-create the article after the event is beaurocracy for the sake of beaurocracy. As the first action of it's kind ever taken by us, the Wikipedia community, it will be a significant historic event which already easily passes WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The event is "notable and is almost certain to take place." WP:CRYSTAL slots in nicely when discussing, say, a planned U2 world tour in early 2013 (making that up), but this is a confirmed event scheduled for tomorrow. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah that's an interpretation that would mean we should never write about any future events. There's nothing in the article that's speculating about the nature of the "event"; it's simply reporting what reliable sources are saying about a notable event. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 07:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This AfD was brought up in IRC, and was discussed by a few users who were unaware of this discussion. The closing admin should take into account the possible occurrence of canvassing. →Στc. 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this AfD was brought up in IRC by Σ. —WFC— 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Having been there on IRC, and knowing what Wikipedia:Canvassing is (i.e, from the nutshell: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions"), it is not canvassing. Providing a link to a discussion is not canvassing. — Moe ε 07:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- But when the subject at the moment is a YouTube video, and then someone randomly claims I started a WP:POINTy AfD... On WP:Canvassing, Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience.→Στc. 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge One line in the 2012 section of our history will suffice, as well as a line in the SOPA article. There are plenty of good independent sources, but there's not much to say other than that we're planning to protest some legislation. Steven Walling • talk 07:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Snow Keep - Deletion of this truly has a snowball's chance... NOTNEWS today, fully sourced before this AfD closes, we'll decide what it actually looks like a year or two from now when the dust clears. Inevitable that this article would be prematurely created, inevitable that it would be hauled to AfD, inevitable that it will be kept... Carrite (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge or Rename. mechamind90 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename in order to acknowledge that while Wikipedia is the most prominent, several sites such as Reddit are also blacking out on this date.Brian Dell (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would be supportive of a rename in order to broaden the scope, but am unsure what to rename to. —WFC— 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about "2012 US Anti-Piracy Laws Protest"? A little unwieldy, I admit, but would allow us to cover almost everything on Jan 18 that is anti-SOPA/anti-PIPA.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any discussion about renamed should be at talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about "2012 US Anti-Piracy Laws Protest"? A little unwieldy, I admit, but would allow us to cover almost everything on Jan 18 that is anti-SOPA/anti-PIPA.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would be supportive of a rename in order to broaden the scope, but am unsure what to rename to. —WFC— 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep 330 results on google news some of them important, like Yahoo news, ZNet. It didn't happened yet, but its already notable. If you guys want to delete the article and create it after the black out, you can. But its just a waste of time for everybody. Per WP:COMMONSENSE--Neo139 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious keep I wont insult anyone's intelligence in explaining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. People want to link-farmer this in the 24 hours leading up to the blackout. Afterwards the real article will emerge. Alarbus (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Once something reaches a certain level of notability it is reasonable to have an article. This isn't too soon as of the time I am writing this unless they don't carry it out and there is not reason thus far to believe the foundation won't.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep definitely notable Georgeslegloupier (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- KeepIf it is not notable then why bother doing it - surely the whole point of it is to make an impact. Vrenator talk 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to the SOPA article. Navel gazing. Tsk. --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is certainly not a routine news event! Wikipedia is the 8th most frequented website and our community has never engaged in a protest before. There will definitely be more media coverage of this on and after January 18. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. BBC article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/merge. Not notable in its own right as much as part of a larger movement. Recreate if there are notable reactions/consequences specific to Wikipedia, otherwise just have a common article for the blackout protest or cover it on the main article. --kissekatt (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename. It already has a level of notability to be a clear keep, and if nothing else, WP:NOLAW because before the day is over, it will be a quite good article in all aspects. But as other have pointed out, the name need to be fixed as wikipedia is not alone in this event. Belorn (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. We've somehow gotten lost in the presumption that this future event will be notable, when the bill being protested is already sunk, and that we can cover this neutrally. We're using sources which are primarily based on the press release. I just removed the WMF press release from the article; why is it that an article about a future event is now allowed to have a press release in it. We've got a screenshot of the proposed design, which will inevitable be different from the real thing. This is how we loose our neutrality. This article promotes our blackout. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This future event is already getting a wide coverage in the media. --eugrus (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but Rename/Merge into an article about the SOPA/PIPA blackouts in general. The blackout of multiple prominent sites in protest of SOPA/PIPA is more notable, more valuable as information, and frankly would be a more interesting topic to read about, than the blackout of one, and a separate article on each prominent website to have blacked out would be silly. Xmoogle (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I've now added a requested move discussion to the talk page of the article, as others have suggested should be done. Xmoogle (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename - Part of larger movement, our taking part in it is a small piece of a big story, suggest a rename to 2012 SOPA protest blackout. We're not the only site doing this, we should not be the only subject of the article. BarkingFish 11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - This is all over the news today, with reliable sources all over the place. This is probably the wrong place to say this, however, but I don't understand what on earth I'm supposed to do about this other than wander off and do something else for the day, which probably isn't really the intent. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge into History of Wikipedia. This is indeed a major milestone in the history of wikipedia, but not to the point where it requires its own article and we already have a suitable place for it to incorporated. Modest Genius talk 12:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Audriusa (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC). Wikipedia is now the site notable enough to make the blackout of this duration notable regardless of the reasons, even it they would be purely technical. Imagine Google would close for a day! Audriusa (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- While I would say "delete" on the general grounds, I know that by the time it happens it won't matter. But I strongly urge everyone to review notability of news events (Which always suggests a wait-and-see approach to whether a news event is noteworthy). My gut tells me that it's not specifically WP's blackout but the coordinated blackout, headlined by Wikipedia's involvement, that is the notable event. My !vote is then, based on guessing how this will play out, is to move this article per Xmoogle above, to being about the internet blackout in general rather than just WP's part in it. But that's pending what news items come on the 19th and 20th to analyze the impact. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into an article about other SOPA protests. This is utterly ridiculous. --B (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is a clear notable event covers in multiple very reliable sources. Why it's odd for an encyclopedia to cover itself it's clearly notable. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough reliable sources around to cover the topic in detail, especially afterwards. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Comfortably meets GNG.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Article only shows one side of the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, sure to have plenty more info starting on the 19th, already has sufficient sourcing to pass WP:N. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, extremely noteworthy, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and WP:trout the deletion creator. notable event. Igottheconch (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously notable event. BTW, someone should create another article for the blackout in general: SOPA blackout since Wikipedia isn't the only site doing a blackout. We don't appear to have one yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep or rename to encompass other similar protests to these laws, there are at least 1867 news articles that are covering this. The "not news" argument doesn't seem to be applicable here. This is noteworthy in of itself as this action will affect millions of people tomorrow. Also, if I may be so bold, it looks like the vast majority of people here are in favor of "keep" - maybe we have enough for consensus? If I counted correctly, there are 8 delete and 30 keep (I did not include the merge/renames unless they said "keep" or "delete"). Falconusp t c 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:EVENT or Rename per Falconus's suggestion above — Johnl1479 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I agree WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a concern, but I think there's a reasonable chance that this event will get enough lasting coverage or impact to justify a separate article and so we ought to keep it until we can make that assessment. At the moment, of course, we can't tell. The other concern that "It hasn't even happened yet" won't be valid when this discussion is closed. Hut 8.5 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to article on SOPA. Eventually we may have an article on the general blackout, but focusing specifically on Wikipedia seems a bit too newsy to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong DeleteBlackout has not happened yet. Hoyle Casino Man (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep or Rename C'mon. Notability is obvious; this is a story that has encompassed much of the mainstream media, though if this had been posted more than a week ago, I would agree with the "premature" arguments. Renaming to include and note the other sites going dark with this is more than reasonable. --mhking (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep How could anyone possibly say this isn't notable? HorseloverFat (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename per Falconus's suggestion. The event will have already occurred by the time this discussion ends, there's already plenty of coverage from reliable sources, the article should also cover other similar protests, and there's a reasonable possibility that the protests as a group may have a lasting effect. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Last edited at 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC))
- Strong Keep This is making headlines worldwide that Wikipedia is blacking out. If that is not noteworthy, I don't know what is. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀
- Keep I edit in wiki-pt, and there are has a same article. Vitor Mazuco Talk! 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Widely and prominently reported by reliable news sources. RashersTierney (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blackout for 24 hours, then keep. Geometry guy 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep self-evidently- it is news and is being covered by BBC, etc. --Smerus (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: definitely notable. Or merge into a section on a single article covering all of the SOPA/PIPA protest blackouts scheduled for the same day. --Millerjb (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep- "It hasn't happened yet is easily countered by exception one of WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NOTNEWS is countered by, quite frankly, the amount of coverage this is receiving. This isn't just some run-of the-mill service interruption. This is large, and largely unprecedented action by the website. The magnitude of this causes it to leap over the threshold of being a simple news story and into encyclopedic territory. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and rename/expand scope per Falconus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and rename This event has gained worldwide media attention. It's on the front page of BBC and CNN. However, some may think that "2012 Wikipedia blackout" may be a conflict of interest. I suggest renaming it to something more generic, like "2012 Internet blackout" or something along those lines. -- Luke (Talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.