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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Najaf Daryabandari[edit]

Najaf Daryabandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, AUTHOR points 1-4 are visibly not met, while the only sources I saw on him were "Daryabandari" released from hospital" and mirrors of the original copyvio, which IMO do not meet the GNG "significant coverage" requirement. Buggie111 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added two additional Persian sources, one of which from Hamshahri has some biographical details for expanding the article. Translators rarely get much coverage, much less Iranians translating into Persian. The works he is translating are significant/important, he has "rendered works of some of the world's greatest authors into Persian", and he has decent coverage in reliable Iranian sources. I don't think we could expect much more for an Iranian Persian-translator. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with Green Cardamom but the article needs improvement. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is not internet database of his works; I am trying to gather from here and there(99% persian sources). He is also a writer. He has dedicated all his life mostly on translating but also writing; number of his works are magnificent and his pen is magic. I am collecting more and more data, but it takes time. Please wait for it. Also, he has written a cook book that it is republishing 2 times each year and does not stand in the market for long. Every Iranian is familiar with his name. maryam faridounnia (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Persian sources seem quite supportive. I would say that he passes WP:AUTHOR #1. --Bejnar (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mertins (baseball)[edit]

Kurt Mertins (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Free agent minor league baseball player, has no significant coverage so does not meet notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not noteworthy. AutomaticStrikeout 04:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage that I can see – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject never played in MLB, therefore not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. Media coverage is thin to non-existent, and certainly does not rise to the level required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. When a stub can only be stretched to two short sentences, and its only sources are sports stats pages, that speaks volumes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he fails WP:NBASEBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Go Phightins! 03:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request (also per WP:SNOW. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José Yépez[edit]

José Yépez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. PROD removed with no reason given. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSPORT. I created the article when he was called up a few seasons ago, only for him to never actually play.Giants27(T|C) 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, not notable. Buggie111 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spanneraol (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable minor leaguer to be deleted per AfD nomination and article creator Giants27's comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as CSD G7, the author, as the main substantial contributor, requests deletion. The article's author has stated above that the subject isn't notable, and has supported deleting it.--xanchester (t) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per article creator. AutomaticStrikeout 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Kopp (baseball)[edit]

David Kopp (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual per WP:GNG, also fails WP:BASE/N. PROD declined with no reason given. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable subject. AutomaticStrikeout 04:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and coverage insufficient to satisfy general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Des not meet GNG, as well as WP:NBASEBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Scoma[edit]

Ryan Scoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable baseball player. He played a little in the very low minors and is now playing independent league ball. Fails all notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Spanneraol says, fails any notability guideline and requirement there is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N....William 17:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable--Yankees10 18:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Subject does not rate a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, nor satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The article also includes absolutely zero reliable sources and constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and Spanneraol. Go Phightins! 19:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Player is 25 years old and washed out of the low minors. All available coverage appears to be either routine or from non-reliable sources. -Dewelar (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments which have been repeated quite a few times already. AutomaticStrikeout 03:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above arguments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada State Route 705[edit]

Nevada State Route 705 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:N. Only one link of any relevance was found on Google, to an article in the local newspaper, which is behind a paywall. Other than that, this article has no notability whatsoever. -happy5214 17:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll set aside the WP:USRD/NT notability guideline that all state highways are inherently notable. I have reason to believe this particular route is part of an early alignment of US 50 and the Lincoln Highway between Carson City and Lake Tahoe. I don't currently have resources in front of me to support this, but would like the opportunity to expand the article when such information becomes available. -- LJ ↗ 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this map of the Lincoln Highway, and NV-705 was indeed part of it. If you can expand it sufficiently, then keep; otherwise merge. I will not hesitate to withdraw this nomination if improvements to the article can demonstrate that it deserves to stand alone. -happy5214 20:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the find. I will try to add some detail to the article in the next couple days. -- LJ ↗ 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Expansion of article completed. Hopefully that will be enough to establishsatisfy the notability concern. -- LJ ↗ 05:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Satisfies me. I now withdraw my nomination. -happy5214 09:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The highway has a significant history as part of US 50 and the Lincoln Highway and has sufficient coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—per above. Imzadi 1979 → 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - State highways are notable. If Nevada has a large number of routes under one mile, then this can be merged to a list. Dough4872 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G1 with additional comment "something made up one day". "Pepper" @ 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Wingman (social)[edit]

Anti Wingman (social) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this a how-to? Pure original research? Or something-made-up-in-one-day? In any case, not article material at all. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish tribes[edit]

Kurdish tribes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

When a page is 80% redlink and a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it shouldn't be existing. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A list of ethnicities, I think, is not indiscriminate, and the redlinks are probably all potential articles, even if they never get made. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : It's hardly "indiscriminate" and far less trivial than articles on Anglo surnames that one finds included in Wikipedia. Or lists of minor league baseball teams, or some other twaddle. The listings have ethnographic and historical significance, red links are our friends, and there are enough active links to make the list useful as it stands. It will no doubt have active content added to it over time. OttawaAC (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I don't think it's a very good list but nor do I think it's indiscriminate. I might have a crack at cleaning it up. Stalwart111 04:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please note that many of the blue links do not link to the correct articles, for example: Balak, Gardy. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I haven't touched any of the links to tribes (or otherwise) - just re-arranged them into general sub-heading sections with a brief explanation of what is where based on the articles they link to. I'm no expert on the subject so my work probably needs more work but I think it's a little clearer than before. If you can help fix the links themselves (or the sub-headings or explanations for that matter) then please do! Stalwart111 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have now fixed the couple you pointed out and a couple of others. Stalwart111 05:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Redlinks are our friends"? Yup, to some extent (though I don't invite them over for tea). But, do read this (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists):

Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space.

Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 03:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I read exactly the same thing in relation to this article too! You're right, of course, but I suppose my inclination was that having this in the main space might encourage the creation of the other articles. It doesn't really strike me as a one-person user-space type project. If we had someone willing to put the effort in by themselves then I might be more inclined to go the other way. But some team work is probably in order. Some have articles, many don't. Could go either way. Suppose that's part of why I ended up Weak keep... Stalwart111 05:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redlink policy is relevant here; there should be a list of Kurdish tribes on Wikipedia, whether or not there should be articles on every Kurdish tribe or links to them. A text-only link-free list would also do. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers: The problem with your interpretation is that this is not a list that "exist[s] primarily for development or maintenance purposes"; the list should exist in the encyclopedia completely apart from whatever function it may have as a to-do list. See this recent AFD for a discussion of that principle. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf: Ohh. I see what you're getting there. I guess I misinterpreted....

• BUT I still think there is no need for this list as it merely just lists all the tribes, nothing else. If so, [[Category:Kurdish tribes]] can do the job, right? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am failing to understand something here—how can a category be used to list pages that do not exist? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not an indiscriminate list. It doesn't matter whether the links are blue or red, or just unlinked black. I agree that it is not duplicative of a category listing. --Bejnar (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO)[edit]

United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this is an advertisement. Everything is based on first party sources and I fail to see the notability of this organisation. Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as G11 - A Google News and Books search provided nothing so it's likely that any useful sources aren't English but I tagged the article as G11 for now because it hardly reads like a proper encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Say[edit]

Afternoon Say (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not for me is there any question. I've tagged it for speedy. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (Non-admin closure). Go Phightins! 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Gopalakrishnan[edit]

Kris Gopalakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Person whose only claim to being notable is being a) rich and b) being one of seven co-founders of Infosys. Unlike the other founders who have gone on to do many notable things outside of Infosys, this person has done little. While the company is most definitely notable, I don't believe that this person is. (Note - I have also nominated K. Dinesh for the exact same reason) Biker Biker (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep WP:BASIC 1. Coverage [3], [4][5], [6] WP:ANYBIO 1. Award (Padma Bhushan) 2. contribution "cochairman of Infosys", co-founder, CEO and MD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep NOTABLE.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy keep Notable. Industry leader, part of many industry forums. Arunram (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN (should've been a SPEEDY CLOSE in any event); discuss merging along normal channels. Note also that WP:NOTINHERITED has no application here. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Hicks filmography[edit]

Seymour Hicks filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is unnecessary. In some cases, we do have separate articles for filmographies, but in THIS case, it appears that there is no need. It is short enough to just be included in the main article on the actor. Notability is not inherited, and so... Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble)) 10:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why didn't you just merge it or suggest merging it on the article's talk page if you thought it might be contentious? There is no case whatsoever for deleting this. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Michig's merge proposal makes sense, per WP:BEFORE. It would save time and effort here at AfD if this nomination were to be withdrawn. I note that WP:SIZERULE doesn't necessarily advise either way (the current article size of Seymour Hicks is 68kB). -- Trevj (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. I withdraw my nom, but I'd be really grateful if someone else were to help me propose a merge; I'm not quite familiar with the protocol. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Electronic tuner. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitouch Tuner[edit]

Intellitouch Tuner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable - examination of the sources shows they aren't independent of the company. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to electronic tuner, per WP:PRODUCT. There's a claim that At the time it was created, it was the first of its kind, and a huge leap of innovation. Using a musical instrument's vibrations to measure pitch by a device that attaches by a clip had never been done before. This statement (particularly if it can be sourced) seems to be at least worthy of inclusion elsewhere. -- Trevj (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to electronic tuner as per Trev. Refs are catalogs and press releases. I've found the tuner described in independent product reviews but that doesn't reach the threshold of notability I'm looking for. -—Kvng 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Falcon Motorcycles. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Barry[edit]

Ian Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The latest rewrite of this article (by what I suspect is a paid-for contributor) reads more like a puff-piece than what went before. Fundamentally Barry is only notable for his work at Falcon Motorcycles. Yes he is engaged to married to a (borderline) notable person, but you don't get notability by association. So what is comes down to is whether we need an article about Barry given that the motorcycles are already covered in the Falcon article. Get rid of this article and that's a little bit more of the cancerous paid-for content removed from Wikipedia. My recommendation is simply to delete and create a redirect to the perfectly adequate Falcon Motorcycles Biker Biker (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ian Barry has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, such as The Los Angeles Times, Architectural Digest, Dazed and Confused, Cycle World, and other articles cited. The articles mention Barry as the designer of Falcon motorcycles, and cite that he is solely responsible for designing multiple significant and well-known works. Barry has received multiple well-known and significant awards for his designs, and has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field of custom motorcycles. He is regarded as an important figure in his field and is widely cited by peers and press alike. Notability also extends across multiple professions, including restaurants and music.HaeckelLight (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Falcon Motorcycles. The sources here are enough to keep the article Falcon Motorcycles, but not to spawn a whole suite of Falcon-related hagiography. All mentions of Ian Barry are about Falcon Motorcycles. I'd probably merge Amaryllis Knight too; her non-Falcon related citations are very thin and probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep though it wouldn't pain me to see it merged to Falcon Motorcycles. Notability seems to extend across motorcycle design, restarauteurship and musicianship. — Brianhe (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article attributed to independent reliable sources. Subject meets notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE. Verifiable sources address the subject directly in detail, and in substantial depth.Yodabirdblue (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - silly, unnecessary promo-spam. Merge to Falcon Motorcycles with the same rationale as here. Stalwart111 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Mahadik family Gwalior[edit]

Sardar Mahadik family Gwalior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be a personal genealogy project attempting to be a Wikipedia article. The family don't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 21:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete Not a notable lineage at all. Buggie111 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, as the nominator notes, just someone's family history project (complete with family snaps!). I've tried contacting the creator of the article but they have not responded. Morwen (Talk) 11:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps the first half of the article deserves a closer look—the members of the family described in the second half certainly aren't notable, neither individually nor collectively, but I am not sure that the same can be said about the first (older) half. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratzd...] 05:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the family members are undoubtedly notable. In those cases the material can be inserted in their individual articles when created. However, their is precious little establishing notability of them as a family. They seem to have been senior figures in government, but not a royal line themselves. All the references are either not RS or are shortish descriptions of individuals in biographies etc of more notable persons. That is not enough in RS to have a family article from what I can see. SpinningSpark 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. With eight keeps I'll speedy this (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aad Nuis[edit]

Aad Nuis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no information shown and no proof of notability Redsky89 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't understand what information is not shown, its just a normal biographical stub. As for notability, [7] says he was the Deputy Minister of Culture. [8] says he served in both the senate and the house. (Note that I'm using Google translate for translating these). Legoktm (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article provides useful basic biographical details. --Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Take another look at the article and you'll see how ridiculous this nomination is. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Secretary of State for Culture and Media and Minister of Education, Culture and Science", obvious keep. Article should be expanded though, but that's no reason for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ministerial office clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN criteria 1 and 2. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this article about a notable deceased person. Though there are indeed better secondary sources out there than these obituaries, these articles written after his death indicate positions of notability [9], [10], [11]. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johann George Tromlitz[edit]

Johann George Tromlitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no information what so ever only info is that they played the flute and was a composer Redsky89 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you follow the Interwiki link to the equivalent German article (always a good WP:BEFORE step), it in turn takes you to the article on the subject in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie: see this. Clearly the English Wikipedia article could benefit from expansion, but that is for normal editing; the ADB page establishes notability AllyD (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Using the Google Books link above also immediately brings up the 1991 Cambridge University Press edition of the subject's "The Virtuoso Flute-Player". AllyD (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of sources in GBooks that indicate that the subject was an important flautist, and having a book about him published (in 1961) should tell you something about whether or not we should have an encyclopedia article. The nominator's deletion rationale contains no valid reason for deletion. --Michig (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – has entry in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak, per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Broadwell[edit]

Scott Broadwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Texbook case of WP:BLP1E. Failed WP:CSD#A7. This should be deleted or redirected to Paula Broadwell. Toddst1 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable outside wife, who may also qualify as a BLP1E. Jokestress (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not even all that suitable as a redirect. Hairhorn (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beat me to it . Yes, non notable spouse of person involved in affair. Buggie111 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E and then only by proxy WP:NOTINHERITED. Kooky2 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Rai[edit]

Anil Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:PROF, WP:BIO etc. Further it is written like an advertisement. Bharathiya (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete. Buggie111 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEnot notable.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Reads like an advertisement and entirely primary-sourced. Even if he has some notability not shown in the present article, we're probably better off just deleting this and starting fresh. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:ADVERT, WP:GNG. —Theopolisme 03:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion was clear that the subject did not meet site guidelines for an independent article. A significant portion of those opining favored merging to the Lazar article, however, I consider that position to have been overcome by the lack apparent agreement that there is no content here to be merged. Under these circumstances, a redirect is not needed to preserve the attribution history, and the title is an implausible search term. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Element 115 in popular culture[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)).

Element 115 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A vague article about a fictional 'element' supposed by conspiracy theorists to be somehow linked to UFO propulsion. The 'popular culture' title seems to be a guise for claiming notability for an otherwise non-notable topic: there are no sources cited which actually indicate it has any real significance as a subject of popular culture AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pretty self-explanatory why this needs to be deleted. Can somebody see if this is a candidate for speedy deletion? --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article is plenty of reliable sources for all its current content. The references are right and plainly related to the article and its contents. The topic (Element 115 related to UFO’s, conspiracy theories, to fiction, etc.) is completely notable in many popular cultural references as anyone can see easily checking in Google. The arguments used for this nomination are totally incorrect and without any fundament. They apparently were done by whom never really read the references or more probably never had interest enough. Also the sequence in which this nomination happened reveals a complete lack of good faith (for instance this can be seen just checking the absurd summaries in ‘’Element 115 in popular culture’’ article left over there by nominator). And obviously this article is not completed, it is just being written in its beginning; task that should be also continued by whom started the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should be also continued by whom started the article"? I don't think Wikipedia has such a policy... Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was meaning good faith/will. Nonetheless Wikipedia has explicit rules for cases pretty much like yours. Please read Creating "In popular culture" articles – item 3. Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am actually looking at this article often – that's why I edited it several times. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable lunacy.Not even notable pseudoscience Edison (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge in Bob Lazar and mention in ununpentium changed: Cyclopia^talk 10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) As weird and lunatic it is, it seems it is indeed a notable conspiracy theory/fringe theory. Several book sources linking element 115 to UFOs can be found -this means that the theory is widely discussed. Among these, some seem to discuss the theory from an outside point of view: The History And Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements: A Reference Guide, page 360: "It seems that element 115 (ununpentium) caught the interest of the UFO conspiracy- theory culture of pseudoscience. One advocate stated that the "sports model" of a flying disk used ununpentium-1 15 for fuel that "stepped up" to ununhexium." -unfortunately this is seen in the Gbooks search results but full page is not available. Another book on scientific discussion of UFO theories discusses the element 115 theory. --Cyclopia^talk 23:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) - However it seems that the origin of the theory comes all from Bob Lazar and it is nearly always discussed in context to his theories. Therefore a merge seems appropriate, with a substantial paragraph there. Being element 115 and ununpentium both nearly the only reasonable search terms for the theory, and being element 115 a redirect to ununpentium, I think a mention there is necessary, making it clear the real and fictional element 115 have completely different properties, and linking to the main mention in Bob Lazar. --Cyclopia^talk 10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the material found by this search is almost exclusively referring to Bob Lazar's conspiracy theory regarding 'element 115' - there appears to be nothing of any real significance beyond this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of more attention, it seems you are right. I will edit my !vote accordingly. --Cyclopia^talk 10:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also, nominating an article clearly in the work less than 24 hours from its creation sounds a bit bad form to me. --Cyclopia^talk 23:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bob Lazar and Delete (no need for redirect) to Ununpentium (via Element 115). No reason why there can't be a "popular culture" section added to that article. The sources would seem to justify a small section covering references to it in various conspiracy theories and the like. I don't think they are enough to justify a strangely-titled standalone article though. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:It seems to be the idea of Bob Lazar so maybe it could be merged there. It has nothing at all to do with the real element Bhny (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be totally inappropriate because "Lazar" only is related to "UFO/some-conspiracy stuff". Keep in mind that Element 115 in popular culture article encompasses a number of cultural references such as UFO’s, conspiracy theories, fiction, games, "popular" science, etc. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well in that case, my merge suggestion wouldn't work. Merge... somewhere else. If not, Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Materials science in science fiction, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the contrary. May be not the best solution, but for while your thought about a merge section in Ununpentium is feasible. The problem would be to have a section too big over "Ununpentium", because this could happen eventually (regard the scope of this theme). Materials science in science fiction article also suffers with the same problem and others, for instance "fiction" and "UFO" are not synonyms at all, as well as "fiction" and "conspiracy theory" have distinct meanings. Therefore this latter article is pretty inappropriate. The best solution in my opinion is keep the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..."fiction" and "UFO" are not synonyms - Noooooo! Don't feed the trolls! Ha ha. Having a look at Materials science in science fiction, there's already a substantive section on this topic. If any more is added to it then a ((main| tag would probably be justified, with a standalone article. Hmm... What to do? What to do? Stalwart111 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us your grammatical dictionaries and other reliable sources demonstrating your claim and may be we will think about. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think something was lost in translation. I was trying to be funny, thus the "Ha ha" at the end. They are, of course, NOT synonymous. My point was that pointing that out, specifically... Anyway, never mind. Was meant to be a joke. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Sorry also, my stupid mistake.Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good, no worries! . Stalwart111 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article was made entirely of content moved from Eka-bismuth's additions to Ununpentium#Popular culture, so the result of the discussion here would probably also have an impact on that section of Ununpentium. (However, this has nothing to do with the real element, and so probably shouldn't be merged there.) Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a new article, Transuranium elements in popular culture, which would explain the popular culture of all transuranium elements. As it stands, there is not enough to write about for each element to have its own popular culture article, but when combined, there is certainly enough, and each element would only need a summary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might accumulate lots of unsourced entries, though. For instance, plutonium has most probably been mentioned a very large number of times (which is why such a section doesn't exist in the Pu article – see Talk:Thulium#Fiction). Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of this article isn't on the topic of Element 115, but is more related to Bob Lazar himself. That information can easily enter the Bob Lazar article. Also, Materials science in science fiction contains even more popular culture references to Element 115 that are not listed here. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not correct. Element 115 has a lot of cultural references (read above). It is expected all these stuffs to be eventually incorporated in the article. Regarding this, makes little sense to create/merge another article still bigger than this and even adding other elements. The best solution still is keep it. Eka-bismuth (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, element 115 has many cultural references. The question is whether many of them are notable enough or just trivia. Materials science in science fiction gives even more that don't satisfy the criteria at WP:IPC. The element 115 UFO conspiracy theory, while mentioned in one external source (which is giving an overview about the elements in general anyway), doesn't seem to have had any real-world impact either. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you want to mean; nonetheless...: First that notability is a fact (-meaning: existent in this topic and- as we can see already showed above), secondly your latter observation really doesn’t matter: that is, while the contents are originated from legitimate references and right related to the article, as plainly is the case, Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of these contents (this would be equal to enforcing bias therefore avoiding any possible bias). Just like that. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of these contents"? What do you mean by that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be equal to enforcing biasOkay,... anyway the above thought was about avoiding bias. Do you want to frame the contents of the articles according to your own subjective opinion? We expect not. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making sense. Am I right in assuming that English isn't your first language? You seem to have problems in making yourself understood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Eka-bismuth: Your definition of "bias" seems to include notability tests... Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little better now? Next time I will do some revision ... Eka-bismuth (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit your comments after they have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry. I thought I was doing what you both were asking. I am still learning the "wikiprotocols"; may be after some years hopefully I will do better. Eka-bismuth (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No – by this definition, removal of non-notable things is equivalent to enforcing bias against them. BTW, it's better if you don't edit the comments once they've been replied to, but simply use strikethroughs so that the old version is still visible. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are sliding over rules which belong to Wikipedia’s common sense. So, may be you should stop to ask me better explanations about these, and read for yourself the Wikipedia’s rules. Anyway here is a replay of these two points: "Notability is a fact (-existent in this topic and-), it was already showed above." Other thing is: "Wikipedia does not discuss the merit of content (therefore avoiding any possible bias) since this content is originated from legitimate references and plainly related to the topic." Eka-bismuth (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating something that doesn't make sense doesn't make it more understandable. I'll ask you again: is English your first language? You seem to have a poor grasp of it - and editing an English-language encyclopaedia clearly requires competence in the language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not third-party sources (i.e. sources which are not related at all to the topic they are covering). That is the reason for the lack of notability of this subject (a reason given at Wikipedia:Notability), and not whether the sources are reliable. If we were to follow your definition of bias, then we would have to include every single popular culture reference because they can obviously be found in sources related to their topic (but cannot be found in third-party sources), as not doing so would be enforcing bias against them, which would be absurd. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of third-party sources is very useful to any article (in fact you should include them in your next contributions to this article), however this is not a prior condition. Articles without third-party sources are also totally acceptable (as you know). Eka-bismuth (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability: "...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Double sharp (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will! Thanks for this clarification (I have appreciated it). Nonetheless I guess this refers to finished articles. If such rule was ruthlessly applied, then the whole Wikipedia would be unfeasible (remember: sometimes just ignore all rules). For instance think about the stubs and most new articles; in fact currently this article is almost a stub. Also remember that although I had previously agreed (and I still do), were you who agreed to this new article and created it at recent past. Eka-bismuth (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a finished article – see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Double sharp (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent note! That's exactly what supports and certificates my point. Eka-bismuth (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't permit content that doesn't meet our policies and guidelines, even if an article would be very short without it. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Transplutonium elements in popular culture or transuranium ones. Oppose merging back into the ununpentium article (ununpentium has nothing to do with the "element 115" used in popular references). Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, more widely, Chemical elements in popular culture (which would allow all the elements)? Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, such a list would attract a lot of one-off mentions in video games, conspiracy theories, etc. that have never been covered by external sources. That's why we don't have any popular culture sections in elements articles – see Talk:Thulium. Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• copy material to Bob Lazar and delete This is, quite blatantly, a component of a fringe theory, and not popular culture. Lazar's theory should be documented as such in his article, but this article needs to be deleted because its subject (that is, pop cultural material) does not exist; it's a WP:COATRACK to hide that this is a real crackpot theory and not fiction per se. Mangoe (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even putting aside that it is very poorly written, it does not even come close to passing the standard for notability. King of Nothing (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

copy material to Bob Lazar and delete I agree completely with Mangoe (talk)and to quote him "This is, quite blatantly, a component of a fringe theory, and not popular culture. Lazar's theory should be documented as such in his article, but this article needs to be deleted because its subject (that is, pop cultural material) does not exist; it's a WP:COATRACK to hide that this is a real crackpot theory and not fiction per se.". King of Nothing (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge contents to materials science in science fiction and Bob Lazar (but not ununpentium), then delete per AndyTheGrump. Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Delete, as there's nothing non-trivial to merge that's already elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my role in the creation of this article: Eka-bismuth originally added this material to ununpentium (where it clearly doesn't belong, having nothing to do with the real element 115), and I moved it to this separate article (which Nergaal suggested in WT:ELEM#Ununpentium). I did not write any of the content of this article. Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is not only about Lazar. It is about cultural references of the Element 115. Lazar is just one topic related to the topic. Keep in mind that Element 115 in popular culture article encompasses a number of cultural references such as UFO’s, conspiracy theories, fiction, games, "popular" science, etc. Besides, this article is just beginning, it is not complete; in fact it requires wide expansion. Eka-bismuth (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite sure there are many one-off mentions of this particular element from video games and other sources, some of which can be found at Materials science in science fiction; however, these don't satisfy any of the criteria found in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and are just trivia that shouldn't be included even in that article. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously future contents should be included in the article only when suitable to the guidelines. However till now the criteria that support the current article are satisfied. Furthermore regarding those mentioned policies; they state that your manifestos done in this debate counteract repeatedly the WP:IPCA policy (item 3; last paragraph). Eka-bismuth (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content in this article is either trivia or is already covered elsewhere (i.e. Bob Lazar), and is written more clearly there anyway. WP:IPCA is not policy, it is an essay; besides, people are already removing what they perceive as trivia from the article in an effort to take responsibility for it and prevent it from being bloated with trivial, non-notable references (WP:TRIVIA, WP:IPCEXAMPLES), and are being reverted by you, with edit summaries like "Added back text and references, which were widely/unconstructively corrupted or removed to fit personal opinions. Please see WP:BIAS." that reflect a lack of understanding of policy (you are acting as though you owned the article, and you've also stated that "Bands with albums released are notable", which is not correct – see WP:CSD#A7 and WP:NM) and also that you don't actually read the essays you link to (WP:BIAS is about systemic bias on Wikipedia, not bias against popular culture topics). Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Chemical elements in popular culture or Fictional references to chemical elements or something like that, with two main sections (1) Fictional elements (with subsections on Unobtainium, etc) and (2) Actual elements (with subsections on UUP, etc). Then each real element could have a wikilink [[Chemical elements in popular culture#Ununpentium|Ununpentium in pupular culture]], and if any element has a large number of references, the section can be relatively short with a reference to the fuller article. In this instance, there certainly doesn't seem to be enough information for Element 115 in popular culture to deserve its own article, but if you take this one with all the others, then there certainly is something notable and interesting about popular culture, without saying anything interesting at all about science. YBG (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article in question, lasting this debate, has been repeatedly blanked on several parts. As well its text has been distorted to reflect subjective opinions without the use of any reference. Therefore, it is highly recommendable to check the summary and get the original version (as it was in the beginning of this debate, for instance). Eka-bismuth (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the AfD notice states that you cannot blank the whole article, and not that you cannot blank any part of it. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Anti-gravity, which discusses a range of claimed anti-gravity technologies. There are a wide range of candidate merge/redirect targets, but since this article is about its use as a fictional anti-gravity technology, a specific merge here seems better than a general merge to fictional elements. Ununpentium is the other major target, but maybe we don't want to add imaginary properties to an article on a real element. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the harm in it exactly? The pretext for getting rid of it seems to be the usual "it's not notable" subjective judgement. What is not notable to YOU may indeed be notable to somebody else, it's high time some editors start seeing the world past the ends of their own judgemental noses, and stop patronistically trying to decide on everybody else's behalf what they're allowed or not allowed to read about. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective--you are welcome to start a broader discussion about those consensus criteria (or how they are applied), but for now they are what they are. Here, we are discussing whether Wikipedia should host that information on its own separate page. Articles about WP:FRINGE, disproven ideas, and all sorts of total nonsense are welcome if they are notable fringe/disproven/nonsense in their own right. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the more agreed concrete standards there are, the less it will be a judgement call or personal whim when disagreement arises, if something is 'notable'. I see there is a Notability Noticeboard for advice on this, I wonder what their take would be? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also changing my response, per Cyclopia, to merge, and mention on ununpentium. Eka-Bismuth should not be faulted for inexperiencedly creating a a non-notable article, because he didn't create it - it came about as a result of editors who didn't want it mentioned anywhere on ununpentium, and moved it. On consideration, I think it deserves about one sentence on ununpentium, including a link from there to Bob Lazar. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want it deleted because there's no such subject. Lazar's nonsense isn't pop culture; it's bad science. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:HARMLESS. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think the article should have a link to the real element 115, BTW – this "element 115" has absolutely nothing to do with the real element 115, except in name. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not up to Wikipedia to study or interpret whether cultural references have some current scientific background or are just nonsense. For all cases of topics: scientific, fringe, .., pop, fiction, myths, such articles are totally acceptable to Wikipedia and to any good encyclopedia. Besides articles, as current policy (WP:ALSO), can link all kind of distinct topics even those with remote associations. Eka-bismuth (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. If not delete, then merge somewhere...but where I do not know. 75.147.120.1 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The notability of the topic in question was already evidenced. This was clearly manifested and demonstrated with factual examples by editor Cyclopia. In a conclusive way he provided general and specific examples; thus more than sufficient to certificate that the topic is really notable and that therefore the article should be kept in own space. Eka-bismuth (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few scattered mentions in passing in books on other subjects, and the occasional video-game reference, are unlikely to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Where is the in-depth coverage required? The only significant sources seem to refer to Lazar's claims - and they can quite adequately be covered in the article on Lazar. Or are there any sources unrelated to Lazar's claims that actually say anything specific about this imaginary substance? What can an article say beyond "book X mentions it, and video game Y does the same" - that isn't notability by Wikipedia standards, it is trivia. So far, the article says next-to nothing about the substance at all, and if all that can be said is covered by the trivia on 'Ununpentium' in the materials science in science fiction section, there can be no justification for an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a starting article (72 hours of existence?). At this condition shouldn’t be expected a great article with all possible cultural references. It’s true that for now that Lazar’s claims still are a preponderant content. But this can change as much new material is added over time. And if Lazar is crazy or the substance is imaginary, these things are not up to Wikipedia to judge. However obviously there are also cultural references in works of declared fiction such as books, films, etc. Keep in mind that Wikipedia leaves the judgments to the reader's free opinion. Eka-bismuth (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You need to provide evidence that there is significant coverage of 'element 115' other than in regard to Lazar's theory - just saying that such coverage exists isn't sufficient (the Google search above simply finds Lazar-related material - and that can go into our article on Lazar if it needs to go anywhere). And with regard to Wikipedia not judging whether "Lazar is crazy", read WP:FRINGE - there is no question of any Wikipedia article ever presenting his claims as anything other than wild speculation that doesn't accord with scientific knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I can tell enough notability was already provided (doesn’t matter if Lazar’s stuff is for now predominant; no article should be expect to start already finished). However you can easily find other cultural references besides Lazar. For instance in the science fiction TV Seven Days, the Element 115 is many times utilized as grounding for the plot of several episodes; among them for example: Episode 9 – "As Time Goes By"; and Episode 21 – "Born in the USSR" at seasons 3 and 1. But please realize the main point: in a Cultural reference doesn’t matter if its topic (in this case: Cultural references of Element 115) is based on fiction, fantasies, or reality. And yes; Lazar´s claims are simply allegations (thus, not scientific studies). Obviously his claims cannot be regarded scientific unless they had been presented through scientific research (which is not the case – well, I am assuming that there is no public scientific evidence). Nonetheless understand that this aspect (i.e. science or not) is irrelevant to articles on cultural references (pop). We are not supposed to use this criterion (science, fiction, .., myth, or fringe) to nominate an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia’s policy doesn’t allow bias on any topic. In fact Wikipedia´s policy embraces all kinds of topics, including the fringe stuff. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet again failed to cite a source for your assertions - and clearly don't understand basic Wikipedia notability requirements. It is not sufficient that the subject of an article is mentioned in a source. It needs to be described in sufficient detail in secondary sources to enable an article about it to be written. The Seven Days episodes are a primary, not secondary source - and in any case, the series references to 'element 115' are clearly based around Lazar's own accounts. If Lazar's claims get incorporated in to SF TV shows, they may possibly merit a mention in the Lazar article, but they are no evidence that 'element 115' has any independent cultural significance. (Incidentally, the Seven Days article is completely lacking in sources, and useless as a reference). If you wish to claim that 'element 115' has cultural significance beyond Lazar, you need to provide citations to demonstrate this - citations to material that describes 'element 115' in sufficient detail that we can say something about it beyond the fact that it is mentioned in some TV show or other. An article that consists of nothing but a list of occurrences of the phrase 'element 115' is pop culture will fail entirely to demonstrate that the subject is remotely encyclopaedic. Articles need meaningful content: so far you have failed to demonstrate that such content can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you have repeatedly failed to realize that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Apparently you are now focused in other cultural references to Element 115 besides Lazar, which is acceptable. What is not acceptable is a demand for that article finding right now such completeness. Currently that article is almost a stub, and as everyone knows commonly articles needs months, or many times years of editions made by a number of distinct editors, until it achieves such near condition. However you request that right now. May be instead these demands you could use better your time rereading for example essays like Articles must be written where this point is a lot better explained than here. But let’s relax a little with some fun now: You said: - and in any case, the series references to 'element 115' are clearly based around Lazar's own accounts. Well, if such claim made by you is true then we can conclude that you have in hand a secondary or third source that allowed you to reach such conclusion. But as you have nominated the article, then such thing is pretty unlikely. So the other possibility (if we accept your claim) is that as matter of fact the "element 115" is a very popular topic, (or else, how the TV series would know such information?). See, therefore unwitting you stated that the topic is notable. Other thing: the element 115 in the TV series has a fictional role which is distinct of those claimed by Lazar (therefore unlike of that by you implied. Suggestion: <re>read the scripts). And at last: that article, as it stands, it owns meaningful content. Eka-bismuth (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And still you fail to cite any secondary sources to demonstrate notability of 'element 115' as a subject of popular culture - or that even tell us what 'element 115' is beyond what Lazar says. Anyway, I've made my point. Everything that can be said on the subject can either be covered in the Lazar article (and the Seven Days article if we can find a proper source that actually says anything meaningful about it), or is trivia that doesn't need coverage anywhere. This isn't a UFO-watchers' blog, or a SF fansite, and encyclopaedic articles can only be written about subjects which have meaningful content beyond 'it is mentioned in a TV show'. Rather than quoting obscure essays that don't mean what you think they do, how about reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". If the 'concise summary' is "the TV series mentions 'element' 115 in several episodes", and the reception is "...well, nobody seems to have said anything about it, as far as we know..." it isn't significant - so the subject isn't notable, because nobody has noted it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eka, please also note that WP:AMBW is a user essay (an opinion). WP:BURDEN (part of WP:VERIFIABILITY) is a policy. Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress (also an essay), but a plan to undertake steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (adding everything else) does not circumvent or eliminate our responsibilities to step 1 - "it must be verifiable before you can add it". That includes the verifiability of notability. Please also have a read of WP:NOTPOLICY. Stalwart111 02:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I detect a huge WP:BITE here. Now, it looks like Eka-bismuth is not acquainted with our maze of policies and rules -and this is completely understandable. I'm here from 2005 and editing WP has become more and more daunting -no wonder we don't attract any more editors. So please let's all keep cool and let's try to be constructive. Now: It is true that almost all sources discuss the theory in relationship to Bob Lazar (it seems there are a couple works citing it without referring directly to Bob Lazar, but it seems it all originates from the guy). As such I can agree that 1)the title is misleading and 2)with further thought, a merge to Bob Lazar seems most appropriate (I'll go change my !vote). I would also discuss, however, a mention into ununpentium: it is true that the two things are distinct, but many sources on the UFO-wackyness refer to it as ununpentium, and Element 115 redirects to ununpentium. Therefore, them being the most appropriate search terms, I'd add a brief (1-sentence?) section there making it clear that the theory has little to do to the real, known chemical element, and linking to the Lazar page. --Cyclopia^talk 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Our comments should be seen in context - there has been an ongoing discussion with Eka, also, on his talk page where he has professed a general understanding of policies and a determination to learn more. That process is ongoing and we have made a few suggestions. There has probably been some frustration on both sides because of the language barrier but I think we're getting there. Stalwart111 11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks Cyclopia, you caught perfectly well my main point in this debate. That said by you is the big picture of this debate. That article is meaningful and acceptable in my opinion, however my capital concern in this debate always was to show, for the current community, how now Wikipedia rejects new articles and as well throws an avalanche of policies over fresh editors through contrived demands (i.e. ignoring some policies and embracing only those which are convenient for it). Yes, at some point all articles need to become featured, but meanwhile we also have to be constructive, patient, and use fairly the rules. However, as got clear here, the most acceptable new editors are those who say delete anyway, and never do other kind of contribution besides removals of unsourced contents (just forget the adding of references). A radical and pressing change in these attitudes (and likely policy as well) is necessary. Without such changes what future Wikipedia do has ahead? Not a pretty one for sure. Eka-bismuth (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eka-bismuth, you're welcome. But keep in mind that a bit more humility on your part would help too. Just keep in mind that all the policies etc. we have are the result of years and years of ongoing discussion and consensus, so don't jump on challenging them too quickly. If someone points to you about policies etc. you surely have to read them and you are free to counter-argument the way they use them, but also keep in mind most of more experienced editors know probably better what is the meaning of those policies and guidelines. This of course doesn't mean you can't disagree -it just means it's worth paying attention.

Now, I personally agree that Wikipedia nowadays leans on the deletionist side, especially among many experienced editors. It stems from a slow but steady evolution towards a quality-over-quantity mindset, which I find noble, but that has been pushed too forward in my opinion. In fact, if you see my userpage, you'll notice I am not exactly happy with this state of things. However, Wikipedia works by editors' consensus, and to twist arms is not going to help anyone or anything. So, in short, it's politics. But it has to be changed from the inside, with civility and willingness to compromise. And whatever happens to your article, don't be sad or bitter. It's still a great project, and you can contribute constructively in many ways. --Cyclopia^talk 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your words were appreciated much more than I can tell you. Don’t worry, in my mind, that article never was "mine" – Besides, before all this I saw in some debates how newbies and their new articles were regarded. In fact I jumped into this debate article expecting to find exactly what happened and hoping to find commentaries like yours. My major goal was this: a calling for change. My capital goal here was successful achieved, and I had a good time. Probably I will continue lacking humility but I will think about, and I will certainly read your page.

And accenting a little more my points about new articles: for this specific case editors will find other cultural references, which highlight element 115 (but not related to Lazar) in the following secondary sources:

Tag: <Next sections need expansion. For your personal satisfaction, (yes, I do know that the burden...) editors can research and fill the rest of the ISBN’s number, as normal constructive editors would.>

Fiction:

ISBN: 14259… ISBN 142595930X

ISBN: 05953… ISBN 0595311873

ISBN: 15519… ISBN 1551973103; by Cynthia J. Duke; title: Element 115. This is an exception; not only fiction, it widely explores 115 though also includes Lazar’ conspiracy theory. I am on the fist pages, yet can be said it is a testimonial on the topic.

ISBN: 14389… ISBN 1438916388

ISBN: 14116… ISBN 1411621522

Popular products:

ISBN: 076243… ISBN 0762438118 (very tasteful)

TV/film/comics:

ISBN: 144021… ISBN 144021283X

P.S. These isbn's are real and this list of sources was cropped to fit the goals of this debate. The contents of these sources were carefully inspected to confirm their relevance. Also third-party ones were found but as those implied Lazar, then they were excluded from this list. Eka-bismuth (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This a discussion relating to the proposed deletion of a particular article. Given that you are now apparently stating that "My major goal was this: a calling for change", and that right from the start you have been aggressive and hostile to everyone who has disagreed with your misinterpretation of policy [12], I have little option but to assume that your efforts here are not sincere - and will suggest that other contributors make the same assumption. Policy debates are not conducted in AfDs, and we aren't going to play stupid games searching for sources you claim to have already found. If you wish to become a regular Wikipedia contributor, you will have to conform to policy, or argue for changes to such policy in the appropriate place - if you aren't willing to do this, I suggest you find another forum for your obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel AndyTheGrump has been a bit too grumpy in this debate, I have to say I agree with the gist of his comment. We don't play silly games, Eka. I ask you to be humble for a reason. --Cyclopia^talk 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. All and any debate involves much more than its pure theme. All debate is always an opportunity of improvement of the system. And all debate is deeply involved in policy be it directly or not connected to the subject. Besides, the article in question was, in an evident way, argued and defended sincerely/restlessly by me. Not only this, I also offered that what was so demanded (partial but still available somehow). Nobody would do that without genuine interest in the article. Eka-bismuth (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could even agree in principle but 1)at this point, it's just trying to play smart-ass 2)if it's so, why such poor things like the ISBN game? It's almost trolling. I lent you a hand. Don't disappoint us. --Cyclopia^talk 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well; I believe steadily that the article doesn’t need of such confirmation because sooner or later eventually the editors very likely would use these sources anyway (even if the article was merged or deleted). However I do that right now most for you, Cyclopia.

Following the same above sequence: ISBN 142595930X, ISBN 0595311873, ISBN 1551973103, ISBN 1438916388, ISBN 1411621522, ISBN 0762438118 and ISBN 144021283X. Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The information in the article is not about element 115 per se, nor is it about popular culture; rather, it discusses some conspiracy theory concerning a UFO propulsion system. (That the alleged system happens to make use of element 115 is a rather tenuous connection.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I quite agree with other editors that there is no "popular culture" involved -- even if Eka-bismuth were not quite mistaken that the essay including WP:IPCA constituted an "explicit rule," which it does not -- and that there's no particular useful content to merge.

  That being said, I'm completely opposed to an early closure of this AfD, and am quite startled that AndyTheGrump is proposing one contrary to all the rules and customary practices of AfD. WP:SNOW not only is for an unambiguous result, it moots (however much this part of the essay is routinely ignored) that if anyone strongly objects to snowballing, a particular discussion is probably a poor candidate for it. Since there's scarcely plurality for one delete/merge option over the others, WP:SNOW is wholly inappropriate. Ravenswing 13:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think in other fashion, and understand your present opinion, yet I’d like to emphasize attention to the list of references on 115 (sorted by distinct themes) recently given. It indicates that the topic has more material, as well as this can be solidly expanded beyond Lazar’ stuff and, most important, that Element 115 owns also notability in other cultural themes. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No new references have been added to the article. I am quite willing to examine any that are. Ravenswing 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point should be clear that I have stayed here not only fighting for helping that article but also for the whole Wikipedia. And shouldn’t be confused my boldness with an inclination to non-attendance of current policies. But in fact that’s the hard part of who wants to do something about. Something must be done and yet we need do that change using the current policy which on the other side we recommend to change; such it is the puzzle. Besides, as is natural, we have those who are satisfied as things are. But the reality is: right now Wikipedia keeps mostly closing its doors to newbies and their article’s new contents; i.e. www.wiki is therefore closing its doors to the world. Essentially it is walking to its tomb. Apparently many editors who support this current policy, in my opinion are aware how that situation is bad but are somehow in denial. And unfortunately is likely that some editors mistakenly believe that this situation (closed doors) is good for them because they feel themselves powerful; they feel that can impose what they subjectively want to Wikipedia. These latter ones of course are enjoying an imaginary power, yet ephemerally using the flaws of Wikipedia’s policy to enforce their own opinions on articles and people (this is not only my perception, indeed there are statistics and essays about the big impact and spreading of bias within Wikipedia – sorry, I don’t remember the links). That’s the present reality; it is a serious situation. And extreme situations demand unusual measures; measures such as the steps made in this "atypical" debate; i.e. we need to find solutions out of the box and implement such solutions. Some editors may have caught in surprise with this singular Afd, however does not seem that Wikipedia has some policy against deepening a debate until the policy’s bones. There is no trolling here, because trolls don’t reason for helping Wikipedia as has been done over here. I let go some harsh commentaries made by others because I think all editors around need a little more of time to digest the non-orthodoxy done here, as well because some rare brave editors sought to bring moderation to the debate. I don’t think we had any silly game but actually an innovative demonstration of reasoning where at that point in the end we could also verify that (and why) consensus can become an erratic aspiration in a debate, and that the article after all indeed has distinct cultural references. Needless to say we cannot expect that this debate rescues Wikipedia to its days of glory, but hopefully it can be, among other free initiatives, more one referential starting point. Eka-bismuth (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It is a regular feature at AfD that (especially inexperienced) editors aggrieved that their pet articles are being deleted pen essays similar to the above, claiming that Wikipedia's failure to suspend its notability criteria and other rules and guidelines in their favor is a sure harbinger of the encyclopedia's doom. In point of fact, the notability criteria are not "subjective" - they've been painfully hammered out over a decade's time. There is no "crisis" requiring "extreme measures" - and somehow, those "extreme measures" always do seem to boil down to "Let my article stay on Wikipedia" - if a horde of casual users from the days when Wikipedia was the Next Big Internet Fad are leaving the project in the hands of those who seriously care about maintaining and improving it, well and good.

  Your insinuation that your article is the victim of power-mad haters is easily refuted. Go look at AfD for any given day; there are about 80-120 articles put up daily. You will see the same editors cropping up over and over again, in AfD after AfD ... voting to Keep sometimes, voting to Delete other times. These discussions aren't dominated by folks highly invested in the subject matter, but by average Wikipedians who seek to apply the rules and guidelines in standard fashions. No one here is Out To Get You -- you haven't been on the encyclopedia two weeks, and what foes could you possibly have made in that time? No one here is Out To Get Your Article -- I have no stake or interest in what elements do or do not get articles, and I'm sure that in like fashion there aren't many physicists or pseudoscientists commenting here. All this is is another AfD. Ravenswing 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As said, many ones deposit faith in the present system. But they (good faith editors, as seems to be your case) shouldn’t be confused with incidental haters (who for sure exist too). About the AfD(s) motif, I hope to have made clear in this debate some of the structural conflicts concerning it. Issues which were a recall for some editors, a demonstration to others, a hint to others, or ignored by those who either don’t want deal with them or are too immersed in the ordinary routine. For the latter ones, a suggestion, "start to use a telescope rather than a magnifying glass." Yes, Wikipedia owns great pearls, and also yes, it has been improved over the years, there is no doubt about that, but unhappily that doesn’t mean it is quite resolved. So is that the issue is a world observation and an inside Wikipedia’s worry (I should remember those links).Eka-bismuth (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure proposal[edit]

Note. Since at this point the result of this AfD seems clear, and little is likely from continuing beyond more nonsense from Eka-bismuth, I have asked that this AfD be close per (WP:SNOW): see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Could an admin please close an AfD early to prevent further strife? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please let's not do that -process exists for a reason. You can't read what will happen in the future, in theory it is very well possible that some other editor brings novel arguments for either side, even if I myself see it as unlikely. --Cyclopia^talk 01:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have agreed that a brief mention is warranted on some article, but ultimately the divide seems to be whether somewhere on ununpentium is a reasonable place, as I agree it is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, then, someone could suggest a specific set of closure parameters and editors could subsequently indicate whether they Support or Oppose the parameters. Given the discussion has not resulted in a clear consensus (about the merger target), perhaps suggesting a specific merger target will allow a consensus to be established/indicated. For what it's worth, my suggested wording would be - Proposal - that the majority of content be merged to Bob Lazar and a brief mention of the subject be included at ununpentium (supported by sources) with appropriate references (and links) to Bob Lazar. Stalwart111 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Stalwart's proposal accurately sums up what a number of us have said, so I'd support it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support too. --Cyclopia^talk 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about, "Delete, and agree to discuss on Talk:Ununpentium how much (if any) mention to give it?" ... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONEWAY it would be grossly inappropriate to give this fringe theory extra promotion by including it at Ununpentium. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree based on Jamaican Bobsled Team clause --Nouniquenames 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on mergers. As it stands, there is nothing in the article to merge. What little it actually says relates exclusively to Lazar's 'element 115' claims - and it says nothing about them that the Lazar article doesn't already say. Regarding any 'non-lazar' pop culture material, we have yet to see sources (properly) cited which demonstrate any meaningful encyclopaedic content at all, and it would seem that any that exists will be firmly in the SF/fiction category which is already covered in the Materials science in science fiction article - though the 'Ununpentium' entry would be better renamed as 'element 115', and the material already there needs proper sourcing and/or removal of trivia before more is added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The main issue I see is that, whatever the merits of including any of this material (I think a sentence in Lazar's article is sufficient), the title is misleading, and I think deliberately so. This isn't popular culture; this is a crackpot theory. We need to break the pretense by deleting this article outright. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to assume good faith, as the phrase 'in popular culutre' in wikipedia tends to be used for miscelania and trivia. YBG (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "This isn't popular culture; this is a crackpot theory." - Being a crackpot theory is irrelevant for deletion. After all we have an article on homeopathy. What counts is how notable or not is the theory. --Cyclopia^talk 18:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not irrelevant. The point is that this article is really about "Element 115 in Lazar's theories"; it doesn't have anything to do with popular culture. Therefore there is no reason to leave a redirect from here to anywhere, not because of a lack of notability, but because there is no such genuine subject. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge or delete The title is misleading. It's a coat rack on which has been hung content about Lazar. I suggest merging a small piece to Bob Lazar if it can be reliably sourced. At the moment the article appears credulous. Someone needs to take a lot at these sources, I'm skeptical of the reliability of The Mammoth Book of UFOs. From her own website, the author says about UFOs "it may not be quite what people have come to believe... And behind many cases of encounters with 'aliens' there does seem to be contact with an otherworld, perhaps an intrusion from other dimensions. " If the other sources are equally dubious, it should be deleted. What's the extent of coverage in "Here Be Dragons: The Scientific Quest for Extraterrestrial Life", it's claimed it's mentioned on page 186, I don't have that on the preview but page 187 has nothing about Lazar or this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Bob Lazar article already covering the content, this article can be deleted. Unlikely redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not merge. Insufficient sources for a fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: In particular to give the opportunity to develop a consensus on what the merge target should be

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 04:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• A request for those proposing a merger. Given that the only material in the article as it stands relates to Lazar's claims, and is already covered (in more intelligible English) in the article on Lazar, can they please let us know what it is that they consider to be a candidate for merger? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump - to be clear, I've made no particular comment about how much should be merged. I am more than happy to accept the actual volume of merge-able content might end up being zero, as the Bob Lazar article already includes most (if not all, as you contend) of what should be included.

@IRWolfie- - it's inclusion at ununpentium is neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned it's like including a mention of The Da Vinci Code in the Rosslyn Chapel article. It adds not much of anything...

@Mangoe - agree. As I suggested in my original note, there should be no redirect kept (the title should be deleted). Stalwart111 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: My views are the same as what Stalwart111 has expressed in the comment immediately above. Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable fringe theory trying to masquerade as a topic in Wikipedia. Title is disingenuous as pointed out above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable fringe nonsense without substantial coverage in multiple relaible sources. Title is misleading, and contents are of zero encyclopedic value. There's basically nothing worth merging anywhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Element 115 (disambiguation)". The page is now a disambiguation page with band album names and video games and conspiracy theories. There is no coherent topic, just disambiguation. Bhny (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this content is trivia, anyway. The stuff which isn't trivia is already covered in Bob Lazar and should be there only (giving it a mention in ununpentium is undue weight). Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing to save not already replicated as far as I can tell. --Nouniquenames 17:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1905[edit]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1905 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Basically this is a big bag of "so what", this sort of thing happens frequently and there is no need whatsoever for a WP article about it. The incident - it's not even an accident - fails WP:AIRCRASH and if there is any long-lasting coverage to take it outside the realms of WP:EVENT and into meeting the WP:GNG I will (a): withdraw this Nom and (b): attempt to eat an anvil. YSSYguy (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, IMO this should be speedy deleted under WP:SNOW. YSSYguy (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. If it somehow becomes notable in the future in can be recreated. Hairhorn (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relatively minor incident, no fatalities, no injuries.. non issue. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the project guideline for notability as there were no injuries nor was there a written-off airframe. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This was a very minor aviation incident; no injuries or any reported damage to the aircraft. This fails WP:AIRCRASH guidelines for mentions in Airport, Airline, and Aircraft articles. It seems to easily fail stand alone article criteria as well. I am not finding anything on this on Wikinews either. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonnotable airplane skid, it's as if someone wrote an article on some car that slid into the curb -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now; at least don't speedy close and delete pre-emptively -- it is unclear whether where is serious damage to the aircraft. The photos I saw on the TV news showed the 737 resting on the No. 1 engine nacelle, which is not something "that's gonna buff right out". We'll know more later. MCB (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember WP:CRYSTALBALL. That something might be made of this is pure conjecture. WP:AIRCRASH does say hull losses are notable but for mention in airport, or airline articles. It doesn't automatically make them notable for standalones....William 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- in my own little bit of OR the photos I have seen show the engine well clear of the ground. YSSYguy (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. Minor accident....William 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events). bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a nice way of putting it. I might borrow that for some future AfDs! bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence that this incident warrants a standalone article, too soon to assume it is a notable incident. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a very minor incident, equal to a car ending up in a ditch during a snowfall. It is very non-notable and does not warrant an article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It does however fit in well in the template in which it appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2012 in so much that it is indeed an "incident", despite no injuries or hull loss... Perhaps the template should be renamed to simply "Aviation accidents"? mikewhitcombe (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so was that "keep because it was an incident"? The word 'incident' is in the template because events such as hijackings and bombing attempts are not accidents. There seems to be no further coverage of this event at all, and of the two websites that are the 'go-tos' for info about air crashes, it is only in the wikibase section of aviation-safety.net and Avherald doesn't mention it at all. YSSYguy (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can be recreated if it turns out to be something major. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a run of the mill incident. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe I should write an article about the time I fell off my bike? No. AutomaticStrikeout 21:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Joseph[edit]

Johny Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The person of this article is not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. NO reliable, secondary sources about the topic Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot  t • c »  12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - After an initial search, there is some newspaper coverage about him: [13], [14], [15]. I'm not sure if this adds up to meeting WP:GNG yet, I'll do a more detailed search soon. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the nominator may have a point about GNG, sources establish with confidence that Joseph was Chief Secretary of an Indian province Chief_Secretary#India per (as just one example) coverage [Here], and passing mentions [Here], and [Here] and [Here] and certainly elsewhere. This would appear to quickly establish notability per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians #1, regardless of how he meets or does not meet the GNG. Celtechm (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be wrong, but Chief Secretary appears to be an unelected position, and Joseph a civil servant rather than a politician. I'm not sure if WP:POLITICIAN applies to civil servants who hold a senior position within a state's government. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it wasn't clear to me whether Joseph's post was appointed or elected. I would argue that since the role is apparently appointed through an elected government, it may still be a political role? I would equate this to some US States where there are important statewide roles (Lieutenant Governor for example) that are appointed by an elected government. However, I think the specific notability guideline I cited (Like virtually all Wikipedia's English language guidelines) was written from a very Anglo/American-centric viewpoint. The guideline seems to lump together the way the role is obtained (elected or appointed) with the act of running a major government body like an Indian state government. In my evaluation, I equated Joseph's role with that of a US State Governor, who is de-facto notable. With all this in mind, I wonder how much of the inherent notability we apply to a politician like a State Governor should be because of the electoral process an how much should be because of the important role of running a state government. The guideline is certainly unclear on this point. My opinion was that the "Governing" aspect made him notable, whether or not he was directly elected. Celtechm (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2012

COMMENTJoseph's post is appointed not elected.does not meet WP;Politician.The post of governor already exists in all states and that is notable.Joseph is not notable and the article should be deleted.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• • Response I understand that as the nominator, this is your opinion. I also agree that his post was appointed. I still question whether we can dismiss the guidelines for POLITICIAN since, as I pointed out, the guideline was written with a viewpoint that makes the political and governance aspects synonymous, which, in the case of India, is not true. In the end though, I've decided that I think this person simply meets the GNG based upon coverage already listed above here, as well as other references I quickly found like [This], and [This]. You MAY have an argument about depth of coverage based on the references I've provided, but Notability is clearly established. Celtechm (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction to be made, as far as WP:POLITICIAN is concerned, is between government ministers and legislators on the one hand, and civil servants on the other, rather than between elected and non-elected officials. India separates these roles, so it is correct that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply here. Nothing that I have said here should be interpreted as supporting deletion because the general notability guideline, which does apply to this article, seems likely to be met. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I agree with Phil Bridger's assessment above. The article probably would not rise much above stub level since the impression I get from the coverage is that the subject is no longer in this position, but I think the identified coverage is sufficient for a small article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus in this discussion is that the article fails both the general notability guideline, and the subguideline for web based content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHWOnline[edit]

PHWOnline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not say why it is notable. Its only sources are a website checker and a dead link to the website itself. In addition, the article's history leads me to believe that it was created by someone affiliated with the site for the purpose of advertisement. 8ty3hree (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 11. Snotbot  t • c »  02:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing supporting the notability of the subject, PHWOnline. There's a few articles that support the notability of their product, Apostasy Zero, but if an article was created for the comic I don't think any of the content from PHWOnline would be used. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a website not passing WP:GNG at this time -- no reliable, secondary in-depth sources present or found. This 1UP interview looks good for Apostasy Zero material, but it's semi-primary, not the topic and doesn't establish notability. The reliable links from previous AfDs are about the site's products, not the site, so those don't help GNG either. Original kept AfDs links are not reliable and hardly in-depth. Since nothing is reliably sourced, I doubt anything can be used for potential Apostasy Zero article, so no merge. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see why we have to disturb a 3-year old page... Longbyte1 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."; "...has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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