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 Nomination withdrawn without any non-keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Mann[edit]

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

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Even the corresponding article in Hebrew relies on a single source. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a brigade commander, especially of such a famous formation, he probably meets WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER, since he commanded a famous formation in a significant event. Hebrew footnotes go to one source, but the article lists and uses more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Mann was involved in creating multiple important units that formed the IDF. His career spans a lot more than just what is currently in the article. The Hebrew Wikipedia lists a few sources, but just one inline source. I will add as much information as I can to the article, although acquiring some of the necessary sources might take some time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – I have expanded the article as much as I could with the sources currently available to me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Subject now has evidence of WP:GNG. Anyone is welcome to speedy close the discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg demonstrations[edit]

Hamburg demonstrations (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 has to go on AfD now, because someone PRODed it before, and I somehow cleaned up the article. I think this topic is important, and it would be a shame if we would lose an article about it on Wikipedia (even as a stub). Therefore, I suggest Keep. Alex ^{discussion ★} 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikify We have many articles about ongoing news events, but this article needs serious help. It is not clear what the scope of the article is, in regards to a timeline, or anything else other than the events are taking place in Hamburg. I think it should be completely rewritten to comply with Wiki guidelines.PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This has many sources given at the bottom, but is such a mess it is impossible to evaluate. I'm going to see what I can make out of it, and have put on an In use template to forestall other admins deleting it in the meantime. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I've rewritten the article completely based on the sources that were listed, and am now adding German sources (only English-language sources were listed). There is a German Wikipedia article on the "danger zones", which I have linked via Wikidata, and from it the article now has images including maps. The level of press coverage (including international attention) and the statements in more than one reliable source that this is the worst rioting in Germany in many years appear to me to put this across the WP:NOTNEWS threshhold. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is in shape now. Hafspajen (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Alex and Hafspajen. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:12, 7 February 2014 (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 that the article was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A10. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Heister Reid[edit]

Mary Heister Reid (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)

Created the page with misspelled last name, Heister. Have added relevant info to recently created article with correct name. Cotedesneiges (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This page could have been redirected to Mary Hiester Reid without taking this to AfD. The misspelling seems to be a plausible enough search term. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't understand this AfD. What is the reason for the proposed deletion? freshacconci talk to me 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. I've nominated this article for speedy deletion asn there is already an article for Mary Hiester Reid under the proper spelling. Perhaps an admin can userfy this article and whatever relevant info is there can be moved to the older article. freshacconci talk to me 19:51, 4 February 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Love[edit]

Future Love (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 song did chart, but it was a very low position on a chart that was only around for a couple years. Varsity Fanclub does not seem to be notable, and the Kristinia DeBarge version does not meet WP:NSONGS. Prod declined because deprodder thinks that charting is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It made Number in a 100 chart - bit like me saying I've done a marathon because I walked a hundred yards. There are 3 references, 2 for Amazon (I shall never understand how a spamlink is a reference) and a confirmation it actually made 100. The rest of the article is unreferenced padding. I would change my vote if more independent references were found - that would establish some kind of notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete didn't chart high enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, charted dismally on a bunch of minor charts. Does not otherwise appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of pogrom[edit]

Definitions of pogrom (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)

Pointy POVFORK based on original research. See original deletion discussion and Talk:Pogrom for this editor's history. See also related AFD from same editor. Note this article was AFD-deleted once before under 'Definitions of Pogrom' with a capital 'P' - nice try. Zargulon (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no reason to overturn the previous consensus, and this article appears to simply be a subset of the old article. I'd need to see compelling reasons why the old consensus should not apply to change my vote. Wieno (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this editor be investigated: Very suspicious editing history. Had made 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Then immedietaly after being accused at the other AfD, makes 100+ edits in seven hours (more than he had made in the preceding seven years) like some kind of pro editor. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from creator - the previous discussion has nothing to do with this article. The scope is now so narrow that all of the concerns raised before related to the material removed. I explained this here User_talk:J04n#Definitions_of_Pogrom.

The article which was subject to the previous discussion is here

This article is a simple list of definitions for a complex word. It is following precedent articles such as Definitons of genocide. Why would that article be ok and this not?

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF, it will save a lot of time. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Oppose A useful list and timeline of the variety of definitions of a complex word. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Isn't this more the domain of Wiktionary? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki. Otherwise, WP:FORK would make us delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Transwiki. I agree with Bearian. Even if it's useful, it's not encyclopedic. Definitions belong on Wiktionary, and Pogrom already has a perfectly workable definition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was notified on my User Talk a few days about this, and I decided to wait and see if there might be new perspectives I hadn't thought of before commenting here. But, the same arguments that took the previous version of this article to Delete still stand. Fundamentally, WP:NOTDICDEF, which is policy, still applies. Making an article out of numerous WP:NOTDICDEF violations doesn't solve the issue. I thought briefly about suggesting the article be renamed to List of definitions of pogrom but per WP:LIST the individual list items have to be generally worthy of their own Wikipedia articles, and again per WP:DICDEF there cannot be individual articles for each of the items in this list. As I mentioned last time, this is an interesting list of sources, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article. If this comes back again for a third time I'm afraid I'd have to recommend WP:SALTing the target. Zad68 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional articles to an AFD nomination nearly four days after discussion began is clearly inappropriate and presumptively disruptive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bundling: Per guidance at WP:MULTIAFD, I am also nominating the following related pages because the rationale for "transwiki-ing" this article appears to apply exactly to the content of the below (lists of different people's definitions for a word). Since Multiafd suggests "debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion", I leave it to other editors to decide whether we are near enough to the start here. To my mind if we choose to transwiki all these type of articles, we should try to ensure we have had as wide a discussion as possible: Definitions of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Definitions of logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Genocide definitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Once, per your linked guidance at WP:MULTIAFD, you are presumably doing this because you feel ''all of these articles should be deleted together". While as nominator I don't personally endorse this bundling, nor the deletion of these other articles, it's at least now clear that even the creator of Definitions of pogrom wants it to be deleted. I'm glad we were able to establish that so uncontroversially. Zargulon (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. I am ambivalent here; so long as the community reaches a proper consensus I will be happy. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Once, can you try to explain why you would nominate articles for deletion if you are "ambivalent" about whether they should be deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oncenawhile please read the first example at WP:POINT and withdraw these other nominations. What you are doing is highly disruptive. Wieno (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] ALL of the editor comments have focused on the question of whether an article listing definitions of a word is appropriate for wikipedia.ALL of them. A wider discussion is needed to ensure we reach a broad consensus on what is a wikipedia-wide question. (PS - the nom clearly has his own wp:point to make. And you are yet to provide an explanation regarding the question raised regarding the your edit history.) Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Once, all of the other editor comments have focussed on the question of whether Definitions of pogrom should be deleted. That is the sole appropriate subject for posts on this page. We understand you wish to have some kind of "wider discussion". Could you please explain why, despite the many places on wikipedia and elsewhere where it would be appropriate for you to start one, you have chosen to try to start one here, where it is not appropriate? And also, again, why you have nominated three articles for deletion despite being "ambivalent" on whether they should be deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oncenawhile should face a topic ban at some point if he can't help himself from creating these very POINTY POVFORKS. It's simply tendentious editing. Wasting everybody's time per usual. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For complex concepts, this seems pretty useful. It is well referenced, so what's the problem? At best, the only idea I have is to rename this to list of definitions of pogrom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. I'm also concerned that there could possibly be copyright issues involved in the wholesale quotation of definitions taken from other sources in the way it is done here. It is one thing to include brief quotes from non-free sources in an article otherwise written by Wikipedia contributors, and another thing entirely to create an article almost entirely from such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP is not a dictionary. But these are meaningful definitions, illuminating the various view on the subject, and will be helpful to our readers. It could be used a a section elsewhere, but will stand on its own. Every book on pogroms has containsed a discussion of that author's and other people's definitions, so the relevance of all of these is in fact sourceable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you tell us a bit about your background DGG? You must be a scion of pogromology indeed to have been exposed to "every book on pogroms". Zargulon (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not make this personal. I have no doubt that DGG has seen quite a few books in his day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol. Zargulon (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Well sourced, but also room for expansion with additional secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, who is a well-known librarian off-wiki, and a well-respected Wikipedian. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I'd be happy with a keep or transwikification. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Look at Oncenawhile's behavior following this AFD. He put up AFD notices on the following pages, but they actually linked back to THIS page!!!

• Definitions of fascism [1]
• Genocide definitions [2]
• Definitions of logic [3]

This behavior either is very inept or is deceptive and puerile (well its puerile either way). This editor does not appear mature or level-headed enough to be editing on such matters on which s/he gets so easily exercised. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please uncollapse the box above, read the ANI (now archived), and see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#MULTIAFD_-_.22near_the_start.22.

And please stop with the personal attacks. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (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 Pogrom. First off, there's not enough WP:TROUT in the ocean to handle this AfD properly. Basically, what this comes down to is can Pogrom cover this material adequately, or do we need a separate list article (and if we do, what should that be called). I don't know if this is a POVFORK or not, but regardless, a distinct list doesn't seem to be required. Merge the material into Pogrom, and leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events named pogrom[edit]

List of events named pogrom (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)

Pointy POVFORK based on Original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom and Talk:Pogrom for this editor's history. See also related AFD from same editor Zargulon (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons mentioned above.--Galassi (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not especially useful seeing as no reasons were given. Zero^talk 23:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean, if anything? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, WP:POVFORK and WP:OR are links to Wikipedia pages. They are not arguments. Explain why it violates WP:POINT (what point is being made and why is it disruptive?). Say which article covering similar material this is a WP:POVFORK of and explain why this one and not the other one deserves the "POV" description. Specify what WP:OR is involved in writing the article, and why that can't be corrected by editing instead of deleting. You can't expect to be able to nominate articles for deletion without doing any work. Zero^talk 00:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, I think you getting distracted by focusing on me - what "work" I should do, or what I can or can't "expect" - rather than whether the article should be deleted. Violation of WP:POINT, WP:POVFORK and WP:OR are grounds to delete an article. If these were being violated very subtly I might feel I needed to go into detail. However, in this case I feel they are being violated blatantly, and I don't feel the need to go into detail. Some other editors agree; you apparently don't. Suit yourself. But if you are going to edit this page, please focus on the merits of the article rather than my work ethic. Zargulon (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your nomination focussed on a particular user, I find your response unacceptable. Zero^talk 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Zero, my nomination focussed on deleting the article "List of events named pogrom". Please try to stay on topic. Zargulon (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, understand that people here can read. You wrote "related AFD from same editor" and "this editor's history" (linking to WP:POINTY). Those are about the editor and the last one is a clear accusation. You can't even tell the truth about words of your own right in front of our noses. Zero^talk 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your interpretation of my remarks, they "focussed" on explaining why the article should be deleted. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks in advance Zargulon (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nominator has an obligation to make a case for deletion, not just to provide some wikilinks to other pages and remarks about a user. The deleted article Definitions of pogrom looked nothing at all like this one, so that discussion is entirely irrelevant. This nomination should be closed forthwith as improperly formed. Zero^talk 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - it's your link which is "entirely irrelevant" - the link in my nomination points elsewhere. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a deletion discussion of another article and called it "original deletion discussion" as if that discussion was about an article like this one. It wasn't. I linked to a copy of the deleted article as a courtesy to readers so they can look for themselves instead of being misled by you. I am struggling to see a good-faith explanation for your behavior. Maybe you can provide one. Zero^talk 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your new objection actually makes sense and I have changed the nomination accordingly. Zargulon (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator should be investigated for violation of WP:CANVAS. Apart from the obligatory notice to the article's author, the nominator sought help from 7 editors who can be reasonably expected to agree with the nominator: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Zero^talk 23:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Well, no, and I'm happy to be "investigated" but this is not the place to make such requests. Please stop using diversionary tactics, it just wastes everyone's time. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just be clear about this. I've been an administrator for almost 10 years and I take the rules about administrative action very seriously. That's why I decided, on the basis that I sometimes edit on subjects related to pogroms, that I shouldn't immediately block you. If I was "uninvolved", I would not have hesitated. Canvassing is the curse of the AfD board and must be treated severely. I still might file charges against you. Zero^talk 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, please save your posturing and try to come up with some sort of opinion on whether the article should be deleted. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rename List of pogroms - agree with nominator that this appears to be a POV fork. If you believe a broader definition of pogrom should be used to determine what is listed as a pogrom, take that up on the main page. Wieno (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC) After reading the rename suggestions I agree that a list of pogroms is a useful page to have on Wikipedia as long as its not being used to POV fork away from the main-page consensus of what constitutes a pogrom. I think in this case there seems to be enough interested editors to keep the same consensus operating on both pages. I'm willing to help out with that if need be. Of course I guess this means I'm not doing a very good job as Zargulon's sockpuppet, eh Oncenawhile? Wieno (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I wouldn't mind if a List of pogroms article existed, I still think it is both more in keeping with guidelines and intrinsically more sensible to delete. That doesn't prevent a List of pogroms article being created later, where the content can be properly vetted for WP:RS and WP:OR as it is introduced. Simply renaming has the undesirable effect of sanctioning the current content. Zargulon (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this editor be investigated: He has a very suspicious editing history. 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, could you try to explain what argument you are making against the deletion of the article with this statement? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations are right here, bud. I commented on both entries because they are right next to each other in today's AFD log. So unless you feel you have enough evidence to ask for an investigation, I'd ask that you withdraw your completely uncalled for personal attack. Wieno (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of pogroms and get rid of the silly entries (e.g. Limerick Boycott). There are pogroms, and there's no good reason not to have a list of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that would be acceptable to the article creator, since it would entail removing exactly the items from the list which he is trying to make the WP:POINT that they have been called pogroms by someone sometime. It is usually better to delete POVFORKs which are unlikely to be made compliant. We can then see if he or anyone else wants to create an article according to your suggestion. Zargulon (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose / Keep: A list of pogroms is a worthy topic for any encyclopedia. To Clarityfiend's point, the name follows the article List of events named massacres. That name was arrived at after much discussion over the years, because there will always be some events for which the label (e.g. massacre, lynching, genocide) is disputed by one side or the other. For those disputed events, calling the article(s) "events named" is therefore consistent with wikipedia's neutral voice. Let's disucss in more detail in an WP:RM at the article as soon as this deletion discussion is over. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OR, it will save a lot of time. Thanks in advance.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm a bit confused by the nomination. Is this purported to be a POV fork of Pogrom, or something else? Pogrom does not contain a list, so in either case the solution would be to discuss and edit this one to make it neutral if, in fact, it is POV. Category:Pogroms has existed since 2008, so the practice of classifying certain WP articles on events as being about "pogroms" is not limited to this list nor is it the product of one editor. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a fork of Pogrom, with clarification. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't be nominating this article if it was a list of pogroms. However, it is a list of "events named" pogrom, the aim being to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DICDEF and most of all WP:UNDUE by creating an article with a highly ambiguous title specially designed for material that doesn't satisfy these guidelines. If I haven't explained clearly, I recommend you take a look through the Talk:Pogrom to find out more about this guy's WP:POINT. Zargulon (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So after it's renamed to List of pogroms, what would come next? postdlf (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We would repeat the argument we had at Talk:Pogrom, with Once trying to adduce his favourite, originally-researched "definitions" of pogrom to get the list to contain events which validate his political opinions, and everybody else trying to restrict the list to what reliable sources describe as pogroms. Not that I'm a crytal ball or anything, it's just an educated guess. Zargulon (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's the worst editor ever. How would that be relevant to this AFD? We don't delete content to deal with problems with editors or on the notion that content is prone to editor problems. See WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. If there are persistent problems with one editor ignoring consensus, then you deal with it by discussing, and if that doesn't work then by reverting, and if that doesn't work then by administrator intervention by request at the edit warring noticeboard or ANI. postdlf (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This AFD nomination is based on WP:POVFORK. POVFORKs are created by editors, so you could say they all involve 'problems with editors', but that doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them. Once's editing history is relevant only because it helps substantiate that this is a POVFORK. Zargulon (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That really just seems like a WP:VAGUEWAVE. You haven't made the claim that the mere act of listing pogroms is inherently POV, and there is no list at pogrom so this isn't a POV duplicate spin on content that already exists. So the solution to me still seems to fix the list, as is the case with most POV problems. Particularly given that you claim this is one lone editor's work and there is a strong consensus of multiple editors who disagree with his approach...so fix it. Remove anything from the list that you would not put into Category:Pogroms and add anything in that category structure that's not already in this list. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The List of events named pogrom isn't a fixable List of pogroms article with the wrong name, it is a different article. It sounds to me like it would be more consistent with your perspective to recommend delete without prejudice to creating List of Pogroms. Zargulon (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So for you it comes down to a WP:TNT argument? You should've led with that. Could you elaborate as to why this page is unfixable (without saying "this one editor will interfere")?postdlf (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually said exactly the opposite - I don't want to blow something up and start again on the same thing. I want to blow this thing up, while allowing something different that people apparently want, List of pogroms, to exist. Zargulon (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if there's literally anything in that list that will make it to the final page, then it's probably best to keep the page history, no? Wieno (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There may not be a "final" page. A page should be created by someone who intends to edit it, not by someone who merely believes it should exist. I don't think there is such an editor for a putative List of pogroms page at this moment. I am not really interested in editing a List of Pogroms (except to make sure it is WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:DICDEF compliant, and Oncenawhile apparently isn't either. Oncenawhile has been keen on storing deleted material in his userspace in the past, and that seems to me to be an adequate and appropriate way of preserving the current contents of this article, particularly seeing that it is mostly his work. Zargulon (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oncenawhile has to stop already with these ideologically motivated POVFORKs that waste everybody's time. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; a pointy fork. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, please could you explain your perspective in more detail? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointy because pogrom is a poorly-defined loan word laced with geo-political loading and connotation; it appears to be used primarily in political mud-slinging matches. It's a fork because of the existence of List of genocides, List of events named massacres, etc. Note that genocide and massacre both have settled, fixed, widely understood meanings which don't vary between national variants of english as pogrom does. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sourced version your first sentence should be included in the Pogrom article, allowing this article to flow from it. This article should not consider that point though, but rather act as a wholly uncontroversial sub-article of Pogrom listing all those events where the pogrom tag has been commonly used. It's also worth noting that a number of the events in the list are exclusively known in English using the word pogrom - e.g. those that occurred in Tsarist Russia between 1880 and 1906. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some national varieties of English, maybe. The official NZ encyclopedia doesn't use the term, calling it persecution in Tsarist Russia from the 1880s.[11] Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does appear to here. Wieno (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for entry in to list is based on WP:weasel wording, a clear WP:REDFLAG that this is a WP:POVFORK for those who do not have time to look at Talk:Pogrom. Useful, reliably sourced, encyclopedic lists don't contain subjective criteria such as "one of the commonly accepted names includes the word pogrom" whose sole purpose is to circumvent WP:RS and WP:OR Zargulon (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you say so before?! If that's your problem then change it in the article. That wording just comes from List of events named massacres. Noone is stopping you from changing it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, I've now said this several times, but it would really help if you took a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. It would save you so much time in making arguments which are explicitly refuted by major WP guidelines. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems encyclopedic when compared with the similarly named page, List of events named massacres. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cirt, please could you explain your perspective in more detail? Zargulon (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge -- Pogrom properly applies to the persecution of Jews in Russia. A List of Russian prgroms would make a useful article, but I would suggest that the new article should be limited to events in Russia between 1800 and 1914. The rest should be merged into the list of massacres or should be eliminated completely. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like an ideal compromise to me. Zargulon (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea but needs wide discussion as it would imply wikipedia consensus that the only events that should use the name pogrom are "events in Russia between 1800 and 1914" (to quote from Peterkingiron). Such consensus would mean a full overhaul of the article Pogrom (which currently applies a much more open policy for events named in the lead), and would mean renaming more than 30 articles which use pogrom in the title but don't qualify under this definition (many of these are linked in this list article).

It opens the question of how we could achieve a real wikipedia consensus on how to use the word pogrom throughout the encyclopedia. It would be a valuable achievement if we could do it.

For the moment, the way this list article is written (and its name "events named") reflects the breath of the way the word pogrom is used throughout wikipedia in more than 50 articles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's restrict this discussion to whether or not List of events named pogrom should be deleted, Once. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. How about List of anti-Jewish pogroms? I don't think there's much controversy, for example, that the Kielce pogrom constitutes a pogrom. Wieno (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is ok by me too, although I'm not sure there's any demand for such an article. Zargulon (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well as I understood it, your main objection to the article is not that a list of pogroms shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but that including events targeting non-Jews would allow the article to POV fork away from the accepted definition of pogrom at the main article Pogrom. Presumably if anti-Jewish was in the title, then it would make it very, very difficult to fork the article away from consensus. And then we could add a redirect from List of pogroms to this article. It seems that by the consensus definition, while not every event targeting Jews is a pogrom, every pogrom targets Jews. So such a rename should presumably get rid of like 80% of the problem, no? And while we're at it, does Oncenawhile have any objection to this proposal? Wieno (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article "pogrom" which you link to states in the lead that "The word is now also sometimes used to describe publicly sanctioned purgative attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups", and then mentions a number of non-Jewish pogroms. This list article simply follows that usage. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an 'objection', Once, and if so, what exactly is it? Zargulon (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indentifying factual inaccuracies in Wieno's description of the article Pogrom. These inaccuracies invalidate Wieno's proposal.

If you are asking for my view here, it is that "pogrom" does not have an accepted definition (per many scholars who confirm the same that I can provide on request). So across wikipedia we have two options: (1) Agree via consensus a specific definition for the word and apply such usage across all articles, or (2) Follow RS for each usage across wikipedia (ie so if a reasonable number of RS use the word for an event, so do we). This list article follows (2), which is currently what is implemented wiki-wide. If Wieno wants to move to option (1), we need to gain consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so be it, Wieno. Thanks for trying. Zargulon (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article isn't a list of Pogroms, and my objections have nothing to do with who is the target of one event or another. I advise against a rename because of a lack of demand, and I certainly wouldn't accept a rename without a complete purge. While some of the events might find their way back into a putative List of pogroms or even List of anti-Jewish pogroms, the structure and basis for the page would have to be completely different. Zargulon (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zargulon, no other editor here has any idea what specifically you object to in the article. Even Wieno seems to have the wrong end of the stick, which is very surprising... We know what your objections are not, so perhaps you could now tell us what your objections are - in detail. What do you think a list of pogroms should look like? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, what are you talking about? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you a question. To rephrase: If wikipedia is to include a list of pogroms, what format would be appropriate in your view? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, it would include only things that all reliable sources which list the pogroms include in their lists. I hope this is clear enough for you to now answer Wieno's question. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you propose we would ignore WP:RS referring to selected events as pogroms if we couldn't find a list of pogroms including said event? I read WP:LSC differently.

Can you show me examples of other lists in wikipedia which would qualify under the criteria you propose?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Now please either make on-topic contributions for this AFD page or desist entirely. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me simplify for you. Above you proposed your preferred criteria for the list: "include only things that all reliable sources... include in their lists". My question is can you point to other wikipedia lists which apply similarly stringent criteria? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me simplify for you. This is the WP:AFD page for List of events named pogrom. Edits on this page should address the question of whether or not Lists of events named pogrom should be deleted. Please do not stray from this topic to make your WP:POINT, it is an abuse. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I see you've worked out that your suggestion to change the criteria in the list undermined your suggestion to delete the list.

Perhaps we could refocus on my earlier point focused on the AFD: "no other editor here has any idea what specifically you object to in the article". In other words, why delete when we can just change the criteria through discussion at talk?

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once, could you please indicate where you believe I made a "suggestion to change the criteria in the list", whatever that means. Or perhaps we could focus on whether this article should be deleted. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename. A progrom and a massacre are by definition not thesame things even if, in both cases, it ends with several people dead. A list of historical massacres AND a list with progroms are very usefull. This article should be renamed by removing "named". It does not include all progroms and should be expanded and worked upon but its still very usefull.Stepojevac (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Siwe[edit]

Tom Siwe (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:NFOOTY. Article was proposed for deletion, but the proposal was removed, as another user claimed an article in a Swedish local paper would give notability according to WP:GNG. The listed article [12] is about a single football match in a semi-professional league. It is in the nature of local papers to write about local stuff like teams and players in non-professional leagues. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2014 (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/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the criteria for WP:GNG is that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". A reliable source is defined as "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.". There is no criteria that I'm aware of that precludes local sources. The same source has other features, such as [13]. Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the words significant and "reliable sources" (latter in plural). Further, the news paper article is not about the player, but rather about a single match where the player appairently played well. WP:GNG does also state that "'[p]resumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." When there are notability criterias for football players, and the player fails those criterias, and the player not is notable for other extraordinary events, it is a long shot to regard the player as notable just because of being briefly mentioned in a paper. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call name in the headlines of articles, a mention in a match report. With multiple articles on very different dates, it's not a single match. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Would want to see much much more than one mention in a headline of a vary brief article to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only source I can find apart from what has already been mentioned is this short article where his transfer from Heerenveen to Jönköpings Södra is announced. Swedish is a language I understand, and there is nothing in those three articles that is even close to the "significant coverage" that you need to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:35, 6 February 2014 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Lallet[edit]

Christophe Lallet (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)

According to the info given in the article, Lallet have never played any matches in a fully professional league. It appairs to be a failed notabilty according to WP:NFOOTY. The article have been proposed deleted, but delisted. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2014 (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/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:35, 6 February 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dima Zales[edit]

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

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

Article about a new author that cannot source its claims. Given sources are own web sites or blogs. Fails WP:AUTHOR at all, not one of the mentioned books has a reliable source or an article. All in all a promotional article. Ben Ben (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. His books are for sale on Amazon and other common online book stores with hundreds of public reviews. The article is definitely written with a NPOV. One reference leads straight to an article about the book in the magazine MarieClaire - Phillips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.21.186 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found an article on the books on Womansday. I'll add the reference - Phillips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.21.186 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Wieno (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) as I agree that he does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Wieno (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you wait for some agreement before you actually nominate the article for speedy deletion? Either it'll get deleted before this discussion finishes, which seems like a run around the process, or it won't, in which case I don't see the point.—Neil 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD and Speedy Delete have different thresholds. In this case I feel it fails both thresholds so I nominated for speedy delete too. If it doesn't meet the lower A7 threshold then an admin can delete it quickly and it doesn't need to continue to take up space and time on AFD for the rest of the week. If it does meet the A7 threshold then it can await the results of this discussion to see if it meets the notability guideline. An AFD nomination does not preclude speedy deletion if the criteria for speedy deletion are met. Wieno (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. In that case, speedy deletion is usually aborted if another editor thinks the article doesn't unambiguously meet the criteria. In this case, I think the article does make a credible claim of significance—that Zales is a published science fiction author—so I'm removing the tag. I still don't think Zales is notable, but, as you pointed out, that's a separate issue.—Neil 06:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per your change, I've adjusted from a Speedy Delete to a Delete. He does not appear to be a significant enough author to meet the notability guidelines. Wieno (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've checked Google and LexisNexis and I can't find any substantial coverage (Phillips, that would be articles of, say, 500 words or more—one-paragraph reviews don't quite do it.)—Neil 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hi, I wrote the article in question (therefore I admit I may be biased). I actually wrote it because I searched for Dima Zales having read his book but nothing came up. I would like to say that I think he is notable given his high sales and the exposure received on such popular mediums and the fact that his books have been translated into German also. Cheers Lachlan.00 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Lachlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.149.100 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Neil, I think coverage by the likes of USA today, Woman's day magazine and Marie Claire Magazine need not have to be some specific size. Using Woman's day as an example - the other articles in the their "Lit Fix" are about the likes of Nora Roberts, E L James etc. Just like Marie Claire usually covers the likes of JK Rowling etc. If it is a matter of finding verbose reviews, I included a couple and > 20 more are available, from different size blogs and publications, if that would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmidTheSea (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC) — AmidTheSea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I disagree. First, USA Today, Woman's Day, and Marie Claire are the only reliable sources we have. laurendawes.blogspot.com, Book Bliss, and Emma Michaels are all well and good, but they're not a factor in notability. Second, the notability guideline says that the mere presence of sources isn't enough; the sources need to have "significant coverage" of Zales. We can argue over the definition of that, but in this case size very much does matter.—Neil 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I was trying to make was that if Marie Claire puts a book on their Summer Read list, the prestige offered to the book is transferred to it's author. As in, if someone talks about Harry Potter favorably, that makes JK Rowling more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmidTheSea (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I take your point, but on Wikipedia it doesn't matter what Marie Claire thinks about the book; all depends on how much it writes about it. Even if they called it the best book of the century, it wouldn't help us unless they actually wrote at least several hundred words explaining why—we can't use our own perspectives and knowledge when writing an article, so unless reliable sources like Marie Claire give us some, we're out of luck.—Neil 13:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that WP:AUTHOR says that a notable book only makes its author notable if the book is so notable that it's the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or multiple full book reviews. In essence a book can be Wikipedia-notable without being notable enough to also give its author notability. I don't think the few book reviews cited are enough to warrant making this author notable. Wieno (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the interesting thing is that "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is pretty much what's needed to make a book notable, so you could argue that, by the guideline, any author of a notable book automatically becomes notable themself. At any rate, neither is notable here.—Neil 13:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is exactly what is going on here, so I don't think it would be fair to question these books notability. I just added RT Book Review and ebookmeter.info (for German version of the book). Otherwise, why would it be mentioned at all by USA Today, reviewed by RT Book Review and recommended to read by Woman's Day and Marie Claire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmidTheSea (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion. In this case, WP:AUTHOR may be relevant, but the general guidelines could be applied also. No one in this discussion so far has made an argument that this article complies with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, and I have failed to identify the kind of sources required in my reviewing them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is written with a NPOV, sources major media - if the author is relevant, why else would it fail the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.220.3.101 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of Single-purpose accounts and Unregistered Users in this Afd - two different IPs from the same Universitsy, one is writing and deleting on User talk:Lachlan.00 too. How comes?--Ben Ben (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see that he meets WP:AUTHOR. Specifically, the coverage in the reliable sources seems to be mostly about his books rather than about him as a person. I think his books might be notable, but not the author at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 10 February 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Kurdistan[edit]

Syrian Kurdistan (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)

As per the 2nd AfD for this article, the term Syiran Kurdistan does not exist, except in Kurdish parties propaganda. Historical and established maps for the area do not extend Kurdistan into syrian territories, although Kurds do live with other ethnicities in some Syrian areas, but those areas are not cllaed Kurdistan. Among others, here are some maps that show Kurdistan area:

• File:Kurdistan1920.png
• File:WholeRegionSevres.gif, Kurdistan shown in dashed area
• File:Umgriffe Kurdistans.png

Article with tons of misleading information, including unofficial names for cities, poorly referenced material at best. As per the conclusion for 2nd nomination, I suggest the deletion of this page and redirecting it to Kurds in Syria, which already captures more information than this controversial article, and it is in line with other articles in the series (Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Iran, etc.). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

A few points:

1. The term Syrian Kurdistan DOES exist. It is used by most Kurds and Kurdish sources and by some media outlets in place of or in combinaton with Rojavayê. Google Books shows at least 200 publishes sources for the term Syrian Kurdistan 1

2. Kurdistan as an geographic area is not recognized officially. Therefore it is very hard to determine the borders of Kurdistan. Roughly speaking where Kurds are they(the Kurds) consider it Kurdistan. Since there are Kurds in Syria it is fair to say that Kurdistan does extend into Syria. The first and second map you mentioned illustrate the situation of almost a 100 years ago. The third doesn't list a date but it shows Kurds living in Syria. If you have to use a map for reference I suggest you use CIA map which is probably the most reliable right now.

3. If you see misleading or poorly sourced information I think it's better to remove it or add a template to the page instead of deleting the whole page. Which is how we usually deal with it.

4. Redirecting the article to Kurds in Syria is not a viable solution or alternative. The article Kurds in Syria deals with the Kurdish population in Syria whereas this article deals with an geographic area. Living in this geographic area are a lot non-Kurdish minorities(Christians, Yezidis) which the article Kurds in Syria doesn't deal with. This article also has a Geography and culture section that the article Kurds in Syria doesn't deal with.

5. Redirecting this page to Kurds in Syria is not in line with the other areas as they all have their own articles: Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan

Deleting the page isn't really going to fix anything. This article might not be the best written but deleting it now means no one will got the chance to expand it and improve its quality. ~ Zirguezi 21:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

Well, with all due respect, I have to disagree with the nomination. The aforementioned term does appear frequently in independent non-Kurdish sources. I have provided a brief list below.

Notable News Outlets

France 24[14], The Economist[15], Russia Today[16], Jerusalem Post[17], AlJazeera[18], Hurriyet Daily News[19], Al Arabiya[20], Huffington Post[21] are using the term.

Academic Books

The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development, By W. Jwaideh, 2006. (p.144) [22]

Historical Dictionary of the Kurds, By Michael Gunter, 2010. (p.218) [23]

The Kurds And the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, And Iran, By Denise Natali, 2005. (p.53)[24]

The Yezidi Oral Tradition in Iraqi Kurdistan, By Christine Allison, 2012.[25]

Primitive Rebels Or Revolutionary Modernizers?, By Paul J. White, 2000. (p.220) [26]

Arab Spring and Arab Women, Edited by Muhammad Olimat, 2013. (p.147) [27]

Self-determination in the Middle East, By Yosef Gotlieb, 1982. (p.104) [28]

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Class, State, and Nation in the Age of Globalization, By Berch Berberoglu, 2005. (p.58) [29]

Scholarly Articles

1) Modern Communications Technology in Ethnic Nationalist Hands: The Case of the Kurds, By David Romano, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique / Volume 35 / Issue 01 / March 2002, pp 127-149.

2) Small-area XPS and XAES study of the iron ore smelting process, By G. M. Ingo, S. Mazzoni, G. Bultrini, S. Fontana, G. Padeletti, G. Chiozzini, L. Scoppio, Surface and Interface Analysis, Volume 22, Issue 1-12, pages 614–619, July 1994.

3) Turkey and the USA in a Bipolarizing Middle East, By Lenore G. Martin, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Volume 15,Issue 2, 2013, Special Issue: Turkish–US Relations, pages 175-188.

4) Effectiveness of psychotherapy for traumatized refugees without a secure residency status, By Michael Brune, Francisco Jose Eiroa-Orosa, Julia Fischer-Ortman, Christian Haasen, International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, Vol. 10 Iss: 1, 2014.

5) A Geopolitical Analysis of the Activation of the Shiite Geopolitical Factor within the Syrian Conflict GeoSystem, By Ioannis Th. Mazis, Michalis Sarlis, Regional Science Inquiry Journal, The Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, Vol. V, (2), 2013, pp. 125-144.

6) The Syrian Cauldron, By Yury Fedorov, Security Index: A Russian Journal on International Security, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2013. pp.83-88

7) The Kurdish spring, By Michael M. Gunter, Third World Quarterly, Volume 34, Issue 3, 2013. pp. 441-457 Vekoler (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of France 24, your other sources talk about Kurds in Syria, not "Syrian Kurdistan". Your contributions clearly show your bias. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His contribution are irrelevant. Instead of attacking him personally you should counter his argument with your own argument. Here is the term Syrian Kurdistan being used in the articles he listed:

• The Economist: "what they call Western Kurdistan—Syria’s flat"
• rt.com: "The body - The Cizîre Canton of West (Syrian) Kurdistan - will have its"
• jpost.com: "of entry into Syrian Kurdistan."
• aljazeera.com: "want in Western/Syrian Kurdistan, which by now"
• hurriyetdailynews: "prospect of a “Syrian Kurdistan,” which seems"
• huffingtonpost: "groups in Syrian Kurdistan have"

~ Zirguezi 22:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As nominator says, this topic is established in published propaganda. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2014 (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. None of the keep votes make a compelling argument that the subject meets WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 04:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitmer Historical Association[edit]

John Whitmer Historical Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a relatively small organization of about 400 members, confined mostly to " the Midwestern United States and the Mormon cultural zone in the Western US". They publish some books, a newsletter, and an academic journal. However, according to WorldCat, none of these publications is held in more than a handful of libraries, nor is the journal indexed in any selective database. Google Scholar shows only very low citations rates for articles published in this journal (despite t having been around for over 30 years). The article mostly consists of lists of people that have received some awards (all of them rather minor, as far as I can see, with award amounts of $1000 maximum and going down to $250), lists of people that have given lectures at events organized by them (judging from the photo provided, only attended by a few dozen people), lists of meetings, lists of publications, etc. All of this is sourced to the society website and publications, there is not a single independent reference. Some of these people appear to be notable (given that they have articles on them), but, of course, notability is not inherited. I failed to find anything beyond some blog posts in a Google search. Unless somebody else is able to find independent reliable sources, this fails to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sorely lacking third party sources. The article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for what it's worth, here is a (reliable?) independent source. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's published by a respectable university press, so I guess it's an RS. Whether this is enough coverage to show notability, I am less sure. Whether it is to be regarded as independent is also questionable, given that the author, Jan Shipps is a past-president of the society. --Randykitty (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has been around since 2004 and has a fairly large "what links here" collection. With so many what links here it would be relatively easy to find third party sources.Americasroof (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please actually give examples of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES . LibStar (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested sources - Lipstar - Just doing googles on the first three names in the opening paragraph comes up with this and this and [30].Americasroof (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. We need actual reliable sources see WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for those Google searches. Would you care to tell us which one of those hits actually constitutes an independent reliable source discussing this group in depth showing notability? --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background - - I come to this because of it was listed in Missouri list of deletions. This historical society is probably the definitive source for historical writing about the LDS (Mormon) sect that believes that the LDS church should be headquartered in Independence, Missouri at Temple Lot as LDS founder Joseph Smith proclaimed rather than in Salt Lake City (which was decided by others after Smith's death). This group is relatively small but it still has a strong historical pedigree including Smith's son Joseph Smith III being the Community of Christ first leader after the split from the Salt Lake City sect. This particular historical society is based in the church's college at Lamoni, Iowa (founded at a time before the group made a move to return to Independence). Even though this group is small, it has strong legitimacy of importance.Americasroof (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations to the nominator for bringing this interesting test case here. Although I am inclined to a weak keep the result will probably be weak either way as this scholarly organization is not a major one. The length of the article is too long for the importance of the organization, perhaps stubbify? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep -- I too agree that this is a good test case and thank Randykitty for bringing it up. I disagree that the Google Scholar counts are relevant because GS citation counts are not reliable indicators of notability (particularly along the borderline) for the humanities (this has come up many times) and are especially low for journals that don't appear online (for free or pay), and retrospective citation counting for pre-2000 issues has barely begun in the humanities. The lack of indexing of the journal in selective databases and the low WorldCat holdings are of more concern for me, though the independent notability of the journal is not the main discussion here, so 27 library holdings for their journal isn't so low as to vote delete in itself. Nor is the size of the prizes a concern -- many humanistic societies give tiny cash awards with the prestige of the prize being the actual award (PEN Poetry award is something like $500; the American Musicological Society's top award comes with $500 or $1000 only, but is worth tenure in itself). These are responses to delete opinions which cause me to reject it, but I haven't given a particularly good reason to keep yet, and I can only give a Weak Keep rationale: 40+ years of existence, 34 years of annual meetings, and frequent president rotation meets the desiderata of an established organization, so definite keep there. Size: low in relation to major organizations but of a size that seems large for the small subfield they research on (which would definitely be accepted as a respected discipline) so I'd say Weak Keep there. Influence and RS demonstrating it: not absent but just below a notability level; I'd say weak delete there. So I go with the tie-breakers which aren't in any printed WP guideline (which don't evaluate the article itself) but I think is important: is the article blatantly promotional in its current form and does its inclusion improve or hurt the encyclopedia? I'd answer "no" to the former and "improve" to the latter. The article could be trimmed (though the list of speakers and presidents does help the notability), but I would not "stubify", but remove the lists and tables. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- What the above posters mean by their use of the term "test case" is this discussion about developing a possible SNG for academic organizations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here.[31] Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- An academic society specialising in the study of a denomination is certainly worth having, even if it is small. Possibly however, we should in principle have one article covering the society and its journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One further argument in favor of deletion: not only is the society small, it is not even national in scope (let alone international), as their membership is "split roughly equally between the Midwestern United States and the Mormon cultural zone in the Western US." --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this scope would be too small for just about any organization except when the regions that it encompasses represents where the vast majority of the research on a topic is happening, which may be the case on Mormon history (Missouri and Utah primarily), so while if the article is kept it should not set a precedent that organizations with this small a scope should be kept, it doesn't argue for deletion in this case for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment from relisting Admin In the absence of an established SNG that covers this subject, it would be helpful to focus more of the discussion on whether sufficient reliable sources exist to meet the General Notability Guideline, if it can pass WP:GNG, that is all that will mater in this case. If it doesn't pass GNG, arguments in favor of keeping it still need to be considered, and it could be a test case, but we need to figure out consensus on GNG first, and note that trying to keep the article if it does fail GNG wont be easy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Frankly, I don't think there is much doubt that this fails GNG (and indeed nobody has argued yet that it does), but if that were all that counts, we wouldn't need an SNG... --Randykitty (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Randykitty, even though we disagree on this AfD -- part of the question of discussion is to what extent do scholarly societies fall under the WP:PROF guidelines (there are few criteria there that apply, but the general principle that these are people are organizations that have notability through their publications, etc. beyond what tends to be written directly about). This article is a test case for the types of sources that are RS for scholarly organizations and how much coverage is necessary in those sources to be notable. Maybe everything would've been easier if we had started with organizations that clearly fail or pass before working on such a hard case, but it's what RK found and the discussion that has emerged has been fascinating to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to recognize reliable sources which establish the notability of the article's subject. Also, almost the entirety of this article is without citation and inappropriate for inclusion anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to a short section in John Whitmer. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this section and added it to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think there is much hope that out of this debate will emerge a procedural algorithm that will allow a reasonable decision to be made by editors who are not familiar with the world of scholarship (say, an editor who specializes in sports articles). Perhaps special allowance may have to be made for enterprises that are in the same business as Wikipedia - the accumulation of knowledge- and WP:IAR. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• I still say Keep -- Despite its name this is not a society celebrating John Whitmer, but a small academic society researching a narrow specialised subject. I suspect that it is the only society devoted to its subject, Mormon History, and thus not merely locally significant. The disticntion needs to be between societies that are actively encouraging and disseminating primary academic research (which should be classed as notable) and those that are merely educating or entertaining members by regugitating information that is already well-known. I should add that I am not a Mormon and take little interest in their affairs. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (striking second boldfaced vote -- one bold vote per user even after a relist. WP rule, n.b. I also voted keep above, so not a suppression of views) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I would dearly, dearly love to say that this historical society were notable, because groups like this are the lifeblood of the study of local history. But despite that, I can't find any substantial secondary coverage of the group that would indicate they meet the WP:GNG. Darn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - this is not a local historical society; it is a group affilaited with the huge, world-wide LDS church. FWIW, I am a Trinitarian. 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Not really, it originated in the Community of Christ, a much smaller offshoot of the LDS church and studies their history in particular. --Randykitty (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2014 (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mullikin[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by apparent COI IP without comment or explanation. Non-notable racing driver; fails WP:GNG, WP:NMOTORSPORT. A driver who competes at local tracks only is rarely notable and there is insufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. simply WP:TOOSOON, when he makes it to the NASCAR "big three" then it can be recreated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources are inadequate for establishing GNG and he seems to fail WP:NMOTORSPORT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the claim to notability here is NOT his driving record - it's that he's an gay driver in a very male-dominated, testosterone-laced motorsport. As such, the need to fully meet the motorsport requirements are not applicable ES&L 09:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not, however, remove the need to meet the WP:GNG - which is not met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability - fails NMOTORSPORT by a wide margin. He is a local driver in a mid-level division. I am familiar with the level at this track since I attended an event the La Crosse Fairgrounds Speedway in 2013. Surely there are many gay drivers at this level in America. Don't meet GNG. Royalbroil 03:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the Keep arguments, then he is strictly notable as a gay person, not as a racing driver. He misses the mark racing for notability by a wide margin. If he were racing in one of the big three NASCAR touring series (Cup, Nationwide, and Truck), then he'd have one sentence of content about his racing career. "Mullikin raced at La Crosse Fairgrounds Speedway in the sportsman division from 2008 to 2014". That's it. See fellow Wisconsinite driver Travis Sauter for a comparison. For readers who don't understand NASCAR, there are probably tens to hundreds of thousands drivers in the United States who race at a higher level then he does. Why is he listed in Category:NASCAR drivers when he never raced in any NASCAR touring series? He didn't even win a championship in the lowest local series that NASCAR keeps track of? The minimum for that category needs to be someone who toured. Does anyone else see that he probably wrote the article for himself (User:Jmullikin11)? And I have inclusionist tendencies. Royalbroil 13:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What secondary, reliable sources have you found to evidence this coverage, since none of it is currently in the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously doesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORT and I don't see evidence he meets WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the subject does meet GNG although the article needs clean-up work, but that is not a reason to delete it. A perfectly acceptable short article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still no reliable sources in the article. Where are the reliable sources that prove WP:GNG is met? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider interviews with the BLP subject themselves perfectly reliable. I found a few other sources after only a few minutes so others are available as well, in addition to the race results that he's been in. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not how reliable sourcing works. The work the interview is published in has to meet the reliable source criteria, which I'm almost certain none of the current sources do; there is also no breadth of coverage. "The race results that he's been in" are in local series only and contribuite nothing to notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article is kept I will work to improve it, I do think at least some of the present sources are fine. No evidence those blogs are falsifying rather mundane information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's also not how the reliable source criteria works. If it's a newspaper or magazine "blog", then it can be acceptable. Other blogs are almost never reliable sources no matter how factual they may be, because the fact they are factual cannot be verified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're mistaken but it may not matter at the point. Many blogs are perfectly acceptable and most news organizations have an official one as well as staffers who maintain their own. In any case let's see how this deletion effort goes first. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wikipedia's notability criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I find the arguments advanced under "Keep" above to be unpersuasive. It is asserted that there are sources that confer notability, but nothing substantial has been provided. I don't think he meets the WP:GNG at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete I’m still trying to understand the notability criteria, but so far as I can tell (and for what my voice is worth), this person has not received substantial coverage in secondary sources. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest structures in Kosovo. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Kosovo[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not cite any sources, is made up of original research and violates Wikipedia:FUTURE by listing structures that have not yet been constructed (and probably never will be). Furthermore, a merge to the similar List of tallest structures in Kosovo is inappropriate since the three structures described in this article are listed there as well, albeit that article is also completely unsourced. I think deletion is the best course of action. 23 editor (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you're not claiming this list is original research just because it does not internally contain citations, because that would be incorrect. The important issue is whether the content is verifiable, such that reliable sources exist that could be eventually added to the article. So unless you're claiming that these buildings are made up, or that their height is unverifiable because no RS has ever measured them, let's strike the OR claim. As for WP:FUTURE, you need to focus on the first sentence of that section, which refers to "unverifiable speculation." In other words, if reliable sources have reported on a construction project and what it will consist of when completed, then WP:FUTURE is not offended because that information is verifiable.

  That said, this probably should just be merged into List of tallest structures in Kosovo, which could be refactored to separate out stats for buildings and note which ones are under construction and are expected to rank high when completed. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ENK Complex Prishtina and WTC Prishtina are probably being built (judging from some Youtube videos), but I have not found any reliable sources talking about them. The other thing I want to point out is that all the content of this article can be found at List of tallest structures in Kosovo. Does it even make sense to merge this article to that one since this is the case? Personally, I think it's better to delete this and get it over with and let List of tallest structures in Kosovo be the main article when it comes to documenting well... the tallest structures in Kosovo. 23 editor (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it makes sense to separate out buildings (which are inhabitable) within the larger group of structures (which aren't necessarily inhabitable), but whether or not that is handled by another table or just a column (as the list currently does) is another question. So ultimately you may be right that there is nothing to merge. If there are enough, we do maintain separate lists, but it's obvious here that there just aren't enough buildings to merit keeping them separate. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to support the redirect then? 23 editor (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest structures in Kosovo.--ELEKHH^T 23:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:CHEAP. This is hardly a list - it's too run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War journalism in Kosovo[edit]

War journalism in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article looks like an editor's sandbox. It is nothing but a largely unsourced essay filled with original research. It hardly makes sense and is largely incoherent. 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an essay, and Wikipedia is not a place where essays can masquerade as articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article in its current state is definitely not suitable. James^x12345 21:23, 6 February 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Colucci[edit]

Michele Colucci (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 lacking independent, non-trivial support for subject. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article, and the related Mylawsuit.com have been created and edited by two accounts that are working in tandem. Probably not socks. Assuming as much good faith as I can, they are apparently part of some college project that teaches students how to market, and they're using Wikipedia as their platform. One of the accounts, User:Stanfordpandabot, is probably blockable as a role account (you need to look at the history of his userpage and how he has reduced the number of people he claims to be editing for down to just him) and also because it has "bot" in its name. At worst, they are using Wikipedia to promote Colucci and her company (she has an affiliation with Stanford). The other account, User:Vindeniträden, has a WP:FAKEARTICLE on his user page, again with a connection to Stanford, the subject of which is even less notable than Colucci.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for these comments. I was not aware of the policy on userspace pages, and now that I have checked the policy, I’m about to correct my userspace page. (I was using it as formatting practice because I’m new to Wikipedia.) Stanfordpandabot was the account I created before realizing that only one person may work on each account, and I have stopped using Stanfordpandabot since then. Please feel free to remove it.
• I am in the process of updating Michele Colucci to include more references to her important contribution as a female entrepreneur.--Vindeniträden (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your explanation. We can't remove accounts, but I've indefinitely blocked the other account, as much for the username violation as for anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that’s fine. Provided that my current account is not in violation of any policies, I would appreciate if you would please lift the auto-ban on my IP address—please see my userspace talk page. --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the Stanford connection, yes, I am a Stanford student studying women in entrepreneurship and the bias against women in this field. As part of this coursework, I have read about Michele and her important work as a pathbreaking woman in entrepreneurship, for which she has received the significant recognition the article cites. Yes, I discovered Michele partly because of her Stanford connection, but I am not affiliated with her and have no interest in her inclusion on Wikipedia except as an important female figure in entrepreneurship. I have re-reviewed the criteria the other administrator cited, and I still think Michele Colucci meets the criteria cited above, making her suitable for inclusion as a notable person, both for her recognition as a female entrepreneur and for her contribution to film. --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vindeniträden asked me to come here and participate, along with several other people who haven't edited this article. The wording was neutral, and I can't particularly understand why we were picked; it doesn't seem to be a WP:CANVASS violation. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to find editors who seem to have some knowledge of this subject. Thanks --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You also asked Kevin Gorman. These are all experienced editors, and I'm not particularly concerned that they won't exercise independent judgment, but I'd famliarize yourself with WP:CANVASS anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, thanks, I followed Nyttend’s link to read more about WP:CANVASS. --Vindeniträden (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; apparently no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sourcing is good, e.g. the patent (can't dispute that she holds the patent), but it's not substantial. Nothing here that I see is completely independent of the subject. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Pinethicket (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added an Authority control template to the page with VIAF and LCCN data and a WorldCat link. — Hebrides (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I, also, had found and added one or two other references (please see edit history). Not sure whether they bring anything new and worthwhile into the discussion. --Vindeniträden (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Source Suggestion—I found an additional source, [[32]], that might provide a useful reference. I can incorporate the source myself, but I’d like to invite some other editor with an independent perspective to consider whether the source makes sense to cite on the page. --Vindeniträden (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything depends on context, but a blog is not generally considered a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep in view of additions to the article since the comments above were made: as well as the references cited, she has VIAF, LCCN entries plus WorldCat; she's also mentioned in two books in connection with The Skulls II. — Hebrides (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2014 (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 moved to draft space. While consensus is against keeping the article at this time, I note the improvement that it's experienced over the course of this discussion. Moving this to draft space will allow the author and other editors to further demonstrate notability. And if it goes stale, a trip to WP:MFD will be in order. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly O[edit]

Kelly O (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 "street photographer" lacking non-trivial coverage. References are mostly examples of subject's work. No non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her work is not trivial—Kelly O has been documenting contemporary life in Seattle for 15 years, publishing hundreds of portraits in the weekly newspaper. This prolific body of work captures what regular people look like and how they behave, which will certainly be a valuable resource for future researchers looking for photos of typical Seattle residents from 1998 to the present. Her work should be seen on par with photographers such as Michael Lavine, who documented the Seattle grunge scene in the late eighties and early nineties. Sarahmirk (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The articles are by her, not about her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sarahmirk, Reddogsix was not intending to make a personal assessment. On Wikipedia, people say work is trivial if the source mentions the person but is not about the person. The It Gets Better piece is "trivial" for example, because it is about the It Gets Better Project and only mentions Kelly O as a photo credit. An article interviewing Kelly O about her directorial experience making the film or a presentation of her views of the project, for example, would be non-trivial. For the article to be kept it is supposed to have some sources - probably two - in which someone writes about Kelly O herself. The Stranger drunk article seems like one of those, because it is a feature written about her and her art show. It is a bit questionable because it is published by the paper employing her, but if there were other good sources, I think this would contribute to proof of notability. Perhaps it counts as half of a source. The Bold Italic Piece is written by Kelly O herself, so that one is out, and while the Seattle PI piece is published by a major newspaper, it says that it is a press release so presumably it too is her own promotional material which she created for herself. On her Italic profile it says that she "helped Dan Savage start the "It Gets Better Project," which recently won an Emmy Award", but since this is her self-authored profile that is not a source. However, if you had another source which acknowledged that she was a key contributor to that project and that she has some credit in getting the award, then I think that would establish her as notable. What do you think are your best sources here? Do you think that this person can meet these kinds of criteria? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for your comments, all. I am looking for additional sources now that show her significance. In the meantime, here's a question: Shouldn't gallery shows be proof the significance of an artist? In Kelly O's case, two gallery curators have seen her work as significant enough to grant her solo shows. —Sarahmirk (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery shows are not proof. Reviews of gallery shows are, when they are not written by the artist, published by the artist's employer, or written by the gallery in which the show is hosted. If you have reviews of her shows by a journalist working for another publication then yes, presenting those would probably establish notability under the general notability guidelines. The idea is to check to see if anyone wrote about her without having a personal or financial interest in promoting her. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I’m trying to understand the notability criteria better, but this article seems to me to cite almost exclusively the person’s own work, which does not qualify as a secondary source. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As an uncredentialed photographer and bar scene blurb writer for an alt weekly with no reliable third party sources making assertions of notability she fails all relevant notability guidelines. GraniteSand (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unremarkable street snapper, no evidence of significant independent sources. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello all. I fleshed out this entry with a couple more significant gallery shows, a portrait she took that was featured in national media, and a Portland newspaper's story about her retrospective gallery show in 2010. I think this latter source speaks well to her significance as a rare and distinctive Pacific Northwest contemporary street photographer. Sarahmirk (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that you really understand the notability guidelines for biographical articles so I'd suggest reading them. It's clear that your think O'Neil does cool work. It's clear she had her photos shown in galleries. It's clear that she's known in her little corner of the Seattle photog world and, through her time at The Stranger, rubs elbows with some people who are notable. It's also clear that some of her pictures have received dissemination outside her immediate media market. What none of these things establish is that she meets our notability guideline; there are literally tens of thousands of photographers who essentially meet the same criteria. An early indicator of a problem is the references section, it's packed with second rate sources that don't meet the litmus on reliable sources, especially for a biographical article of a living person, one of the more stringent criteria we have. As someone who seems to follow her work I'd say just keep an eye out and bear in mind that a lack of notability can be transient and that anytime in the future, when she receives substantial third party coverage asserting her notability or receives an inherently notable award for her work, then you can revisit this. GraniteSand (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What GraniteSand says seems in aligned with Wikipedia practice. The Portland State Vanguard source does seem good to me because it is about Kelly O, in a good newspaper, and not written by her affiliates - that makes one source. The Ladies' Choice gallery mention is both trivial because it is not about Kelly O and just a mention, and it is an advertisement for the gallery. The Mohave source does not mention Kelly O at all. The Jodi Jaecks breast cancer articles are about Jodi Jaecks, and only give a photo credit to Kelly O, so are not about Kelly O at all. Wikipedia guidelines say that to be in Wikipedia, multiple sources have to cover the subject of any article. Right now I count 1-2 weak sources covering this person. Also, information not backed by good sources has to be deleted. Just 1-2 sentences in this article are coming from the good sources. Any more sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling out the requirements, GraniteSand and Bluerasberry, I appreciate your time and help. I feel like someone's body of published work should count in some way toward their notability—not just what people have written about them, but what they've made themselves. However, I understand that's not in the notability guidelines and I can why: artists aren't significant just because they're prolific. But that requirement makes it hard to add people to Wikipedia who haven't sought attention or awards, who have just been doing their art and flying below the media radar. /philosophical tangent. I will dig around for a second solid source akin to the Vanguard article. Sarahmirk (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:CREATIVE, which gives a few guidelines on the notability of creative professionals. Maybe one of those conditions applies? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, presumably this was written as part of the Women Artists Editathon last week. There's a lot of work gone into it and some of the comments above are a bit harsh. I'm surprised a photographer who produced a gallery of 100 testicles hasn't had more coverage! One more meaty news source that isn't from The Stranger would convince me to recommend a !Keep. The Portland State Vanguard describes her as having "made a name for herself" and "famous" for her newspaper column. Maybe the article can be moved to the author's sandbox, to allow more time to find sources? Sionk (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this was written in the Art and Feminism event. The comments above are typical for Wikipedia and while blunt and accurate, they are also discouraging to new users. I assure you that everyone who commented cares a lot and is expressing gratitude in their own way according to the culture here; after all, they are volunteering their time to review this and are on hand to help. Moving to the sandbox was a recommended option until a few weeks ago per Wikipedia:Userfication. Now there is a new procedure described at Wikipedia:Drafts. Support move of this to Drafts. The advantage of putting this in a draft is that if someone in the future tries to recreate the article, they will find this draft. People using search engines will not otherwise see this article. Whoever closes this can simply move this to the draft mainspace. I agree that with another good reference and removal of unacceptable references that this article could remain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting this in the draft space is the right move for now, Sionk and Bluerasberry. I agree that it technically does not meet the notability requirements. I have tracked down another review of the artist's work, but it's in a defunct art magazine of which there is no online archive. :/ However, I'd like to be able to revive the entry in the future when Kelly O gets more press and can meet the notability requirements. Thanks for your help and patience on this. Sarahmirk (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bekim Berisha[edit]

Bekim Berisha (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 a really notable figure in any sense of the word. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Other than a few news reports from Croatia and Kosovo, not very many reliable sources can be found mentioning him on the web. A search of his name doesn't turn up anything of substance on Google Books. The article itself doesn't cite any sources and one of the pictures in the article is from Facebook and is credited to a relative of his. The creator of the article, Vranina99, has only made one edit on Wikipedia: the one used to make this article. 23 editor (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2014 (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/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—This article cites no coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having sources in the article is not a reason to delete (barring a BLP, which this is not). There is no requirement that sources be in an article; WP:V only requires that such sources exist and be in some way verifiable. (Also there are, now, sources in the article). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as sources can be found. If the article is accurate, he was a brigadier-general (albeit promoted posthumously) and has been considerably honoured within his country, including being appointed a Hero of Kosovo. He would therefore qualify both under WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO. But we do need sources to authenticate these claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now satisfied that there are sufficient sources to verify the claims and thus keep the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I was able to verify the basic claims of notability from a Croatian source, prune some junk, and add a few more factoids as well. It's not far from the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it is, and if I could read Albanian, I'm sure it would be possible to find. Just clean up the puffery. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. General officer rank clears WP:SOLDIER, and from what is available there is enough here to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 6 February 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dranias[edit]

Nick Dranias (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 is little more than autobiographical WP:SPAM. Sources are mostly primary and or from politically biased sources and fail WP:RS. Article was previously tagged PROD which was removed along with various maintenance tags. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the subject might possibly be notable. Is someone who is a director at a reasonably important think tank, who (if I read the article correctly) litigated a case that went onto the Supreme Court, notable by Wikipedia standards? I don't know the answer to that. If so, then the next step is to seek good references and modify the article. That's something that I can help with. But if a person with these attributes does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability, then the article should be deleted. James Cage (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orientem, there is no basis for your claim that sources are from "politically biased" sources. What political bias specifically do you perceive? Also, how can it be simultaneously autobiographical and from politically biased sources. The sourcing was provided because James Cage (I believe) previously questioned whether I was well-known or published. James Cage, I do not know who created this original posting, but the definition of "notable" is one that encompasses excellence, not just fame or generally accepted greatness. To have this posting removed on the grounds that I am not "notable" without some clear standard by which to assess "notability" would tend to undermine my work and standing in the fields of my expertise. I was surprised to find the original wiki myself, but apparently someone or some group of people thought my accomplishments were worthy of notation. Perhaps it was the fact that I secured an injunction under the All Writs Act from the Supreme Court before certiorari was granted in a civil case, against a backdrop of a loss in the court of appeals, which has only happened about a half dozen times in the history of the Supreme Court (as far as I can tell from what is published). In any event, I think it was you who originally raised the somewhat insulting false assertion that I had only self-published in my various fields of expertise. To have this posting removed on the basis of a false statement that would tend to diminish my work in the fields of my expertise, was something that I could not let stand. In fact, your objection resulting in the notice of possible deletion led to a colleague of mine in another state to contact me with concern about whether your comment diminished my reputation in some way. I felt I had no choice but to update the site to prevent such an inference. Indeed, it seems to be a bit of a catch 22--someone posts me up on the wiki for a notable accomplishment, apparently does not maintain the site for several years, then someone comes along and says I've not published anything based on that, triggering a possible deletion for lack of publicity or publication, triggering concern about my reputation from colleagues, leading to me updating the sourcing to prevent damage to my reputation, and then triggering commentary that the listing is now too autobiographical. If there was a basis for the original posting being made and unchallenged for several years, I would think updating it would be entirely consistent with Wiki standards as well. §Nick Dranias — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDranias (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dranias, thank you for your spirited response to the AfD nomination. Acknowledging my own occasional fallibility I asked two respected editors of much greater experience than myself, USER:DGG and USER:Knowledgekid87, to examine the article in question and your points posted above and provide independent second opinions. Both kindly took the time to do so and their conclusions are posted below. Based on those conclusions and the concurring opinions of other respected editors, I stand by the AfD nomination as written. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—This article relies almost exclusively on one source (affiliated with the person the article describes) and LinkedIn. My understanding is that such sources cannot establish notability. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not true Vindenitraden. There are a ton of unaffiliated sources, Daily Caller, MSNBC, Fox News, CPAC, etc. The LinkedIn links are to the underlying secondary sources. Notability is clearly established.184.98.218.76 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)— 184.98.218.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete for promotionalism , but permit rewriting. Sometimes we can remove promotionalism by normal editing, but if it is a pervasive as here, it is better to make a clean start. The articles link to every individual case he tried, and every subject in which he is interested,and many of his TV appearances, is absurd--that sort of writing is characteristic of a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Listing every paper (or if not ever, such a large number of the papers) he published through his think tank and associated groups is appropriate for a CV, not an encyclopedia article. Similarly for listing all law journal articles: normally, we list the one or two most important. Nor is it encyclopedic content to just which state bars and federal district bars he is admitted. All this sort of information belongs on his website. Having removed sections 3 & 4, what's left? The detailed discussion of McComish_v._Bennett belongs it that article, and could be wikilinked, instead of devoting an entire paragraph. It's a noteworthy case, and it appears he was Counsel of record. I do not immediately see whether he made the oral argument before the supreme court. If he did, then that is possibly significant notability, to the extent there is third party comment on his individual work.. Nothing else in section 2 is really notable. Indeed, his claims to have won every case he brought to trial are the sort of exceptional claims which must have third party evidence, not synthesis from a list he has himself prepared. Section 1 talks primarily about his law school grades in particular courses. All this is advertising, and all this is full of peacock phrases and adjectives of praise and importance.

It is an extremely frequent fault of people trying to write promotional articles to overdo things. A short neutrally-worded article hitting the highlights only is much more likely to stay in WP. It seems to be almost impossible to get people with a COI to realize this, which is why we so strongly discourage COI editing. A few people do manage to get it right, Of all forms of COI autobiography even more than paid editing is the most likely to lead to bad articles. It especially is most likely to lead to bad arguments at AfD, because almost nobody can be objective and use the arguments that are relevant here when their importance is challenged. This is a remarkably clear example, & should be deleted accordingly. Had it not come here, I would have considered speedy G11, but since it is here, a more definitive decision is possible. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most if not all of the sources are primary, there are secondary sources but those do not mention Nick Dranias, the biggest issue I also see with this article is it's promotionalism per DGG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain as is This whole series of commentary and demands for deletion is objectionable and unreasonable. The whole discussion began with a false criticism that the person named in this wiki lacked evidence of publication and notability. Here is the original false critique: "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable." In response to this false critique, which could have been damaging to the person's reputation, additional primary sourcing demonstrating over 30 third party publications and numerous appearances on national media outlets was furnished. Then, after the initial false, defamatory critique was addressed, did further critiques arise ironically based on the sourcing needed to rebut the false defamatory critique. It would be outrageous if addressing and refuting a false critique with the demanded sourcing was, itself, a basis for deeming the post "promotional" and therefore grounds for deleting a post. It would almost seem to be a set up by a biased reviewer with a political agenda of his own. Further, this article was never created promotionally in the first place, it is not an advertisement, it is not politically biased, it is sourced to primary and secondary sources that show considerable notability, including repeated appearances on national television, featured presentations at nationally recognized institutes of learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.218.76 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain as is Here is an interesting quote from DGG's user page: "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable, and thus sometimes nominate these articles for deletion--occasionally even by Speedy. It is therefore advisable to include from the first more than minimal information: at least their major publications, their honors and awards, the most important work they did--with a link to the WP article on that subject." Working as a director of a major nationally-recognized think tank is clearly analogous to being a full professor at a major university. In fact, such work is probably more notable in the sense of generating wider recognition and public awareness. Given the essential similarity between the two positions, it is important to note that DGG has unfairly failed to apply his own asserted principles. He has criticized this Wiki for including the very information that he says is necessary to include to establish notability. That is called a contradiction and also suggests a personal bias for failing to apply a principle evenly and equally. DGG's assertion should be rejected.NickDranias (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain as is As to any assertion that Wiki's COI policy precludes the sourcing provided in response to a false and defamatory critique, that assertion is utterly meritless. Assuming Wiki wishes to minimize its liability to a cause of action for libel, this policy is clearly not applicable to completely accurate sourcing provided to address a libelous critique of a wiki page from a user. If it were, there would be no way for the subjects of wikis created involuntarily about them to correct libelous critiques. If there were not such ability, then Wiki would likely become jointly liable for publishing libelous statements because Wiki's own policy would preclude a remedy from the libel published on its site.NickDranias (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you are only allowed to !vote once in an AfD discussion, I have struck your multiple "retain" votes while leaving the original. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Policy wonk, appearing as an occasional talking head on cable media shows. Nothing notable in the slightest. This is an encyclopedia, not your Linked in profile. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG who has explained the situation exceptionally well. It's also one of the most blatant WP Autobiographies I've even seen on Wikipedia and hence a massive WP:Conflict of Interest (a term which every lawyer will readily understand). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but do not prevent recreation (salt), as per DGG and Kudpung above. I rather suspect that this subject is in fact notable, although i haven't trudged through all the forest of links to fully asses this, But even assuming that notability is conceded, (which not everyone here would agree with, it seems), the current article would need a drastic rewrite to achieve WP:NPOV, encyclopedic tone, and WP:DUE weight. If such a rewrite happens during the AfD i would consider changing my view, but I don't expect it. DES ^(talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Note that I added the PROD tag to the article and commented on another editor's comments above, so I'm not sure if I should also vote here. If not, please disregard.) The subject may have some notability, but if so I think it would be better to start from scratch, for the reasons that were very well stated by DGG. This article was written by an editor with a personal or professional connection to the subject. (Mr. Conservative - see Talk:Nick Dranias.) Most, if not all of the non-trivial edits to this article were made by that editor or an editor who states that he is the subject of the article. These edits are probably in good faith, but reflect many fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia. If this article is recreated, it will hopefully be written from a neutral standpoint, by an editor or editors without personal connections to the subject. James Cage (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree with recreation. I've been poking around those links and I am just not seeing much that would meet WP:N. Of course I would not preclude the possibility of recreating if there were a substantive change in Mr. Dranias' life that added to a notability claim. Perhaps he will be appointed to an important judgeship. But as things stand right now, I think any claims of notability are weak at best. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (regretfully because I don't like promotional articles) After digging into this a bit, he is a darling of the right with many reliable sources from NPR, MSBC, Forbes, Fox News, and a number more that I have added to the article. The article needs to be rewritten to conform to our standards, but he is clearly notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After looking at the article and some of the sources I found, it looks like the article is not that promotional. He really is notable for much of what he says. I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree I have been checking out the additional sources you have been posting (well done in your search btw), but remain unconvinced. According to WP:BIO it is not enough to be mentioned or even quoted in reliable secondary sources. One must be the actual subject of in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. The sources you posted are about other topics, which Mr. Dranias is closely connected to. They were not about him. And even then most of the sources provide only very limited exposure to Mr. Dranias. He is quoted here and there. But his space in those sources is mostly very limited and arguably trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I don't agree with his political perspective and could careless whether he has an article here, but in all of these sources, he is cited or interviewed as a national expert and that pretty much makes him notable. As one digs deep into a Google search more and more notable sources show up. I will take a few minutes and see if the is a notable source that goes into detail about him. I am One of Many (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is apparently a conservative policy wonk and one of the top persons at a policy think tank. For comparison, see Manhattan Institute for Policy Research#People currently affiliated with the Manhattan Institute which links to 30+ separate wikipedia articles for editors and fellows there. He has appeared on MSNBC programs and on conference panels with respected others. He has publications. Just because he started his own article and it was inappropriately self-promotional does not mean he is not Wikipedia-notable. I've edited the article to replace bare URL citations, to drop usage of LinkedIn self-published page as a source, and towards toning it down somewhat. Editor "I am one of many" has also edited it to add NPR source(s). --doncram 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article was not started by Dranias himself, but in its first version first version it seems to me to have been promotional and non-encyclopedic. However this is to be addressed by editing, not by deletion, IMO. --doncram 15:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Manhattan Institute list I just checked out the first ten people with WP articles from that list. All but one of them had unimpeachable claims to WP:N completely independent of their relationship with TMI. Many were academics who held high honors in their fields, others were former members of Congress or in one case had clerked for not one, but two Justices of the Supreme Court. I am sorry but being employed by, and a periodic spokesmen for a political think tank does not bestow notability as far as I am able to find in WP:N. Could someone please quote specifically the criteria that he meets from the GNG or BIO? I am not trying to peruse some vendetta here. But I am still not seeing where he meets our guidelines. If it can be shown that he does, I will concede as much. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AFD should not come down too wp:BITEY on a newbie. An insinuation at ANI (later at least partly retracted), that Nick Dranias is attempting sock-puppetry by IP postings, is b.s. The IP posts above are pretty clearly written by Dranias with no concealment. To Dranias: be careful, technical non-compliance with Wikipedia sock-puppeting rules provides an easy/effective excuse for administrators to block/ban you permanently, however unfair that may be. Best to post while fully logged in, and/or to come back and sign your post if you find you were not logged in. --doncram 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't get there from here. If the subject is notable, that hagiography is of little value in constructing an unbiased article. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks for the support and understanding from some of the folks above. I am just getting the hang of this process. Again, I did not create this wiki. I did not ask for this wiki. Someone else did. This whole chain began with the false and defamatory claim I only self-published, which caused a colleague of mine to contact me with the concern that the critique needed to be addressed. The sourcing was provided solely to remedy that false and defamatory claim. And now it appears that the source of the false and defamatory claim. This whole process is reminiscent of Kafka. A false critique is made, it is addressed with sourcing to remedy the defamation that resulted, and now a veritable menagerie of people start making groundless assertions about self-promotion. Heck, I must be a really bad self-promoter having never connected with this site before last Friday! Frankly, it is pretty weird to be in a position to defend myself as "notable," but come one! Why don't you deleters just honestly google my name. I've been quoted in books, cited by law reviews and journals, referenced in newspaper articles, given congressional testimony, engaged on Senator Durbin's targeting of ALEC, made the subject of a crazy full-on anti-center-right think tank attack by Progress Now and Center for Media and Democracy. I really didn't ask for that stuff, but it exists, lots and lots of it, and anyone who claims it does not has not done his homework. I challenge anyone to find more than a handful of "full professors" at major universities that have "enjoyed" similar notability. Now don't go and start adding that stuff to the page ;)NickDranias (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)184.98.218.76 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop trying to vote more than once, I have stricken the "keep" part of the entry above. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Tarc, I'm not trying to vote more than once. I didn't even know I was voting. I'm debating a bunch of people who are making unsubstantiated claims. Is this a majority rule determination? Or does there have to be merit to the delete opinions?NickDranias (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick if this article gets deleted I want you to know that it is not for good, the history will most likely be kept (contribution history), I feel that with a bit more time the article about you has the potential to be here on Wikipedia. As for article content I invite you to read Wikipedia's disclaimers if you wish: (WP:DISC). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad Orientum, why do you think this is an accurate statement, "being employed by, and a periodic spokesmen for a political think tank does not bestow notability as far as I am able to find in WP:N?" I am not exactly a janitor at the Goldwater Institute who pokes his head into a TV studio from time to time. I'm not a spokesman either. I'm a director and I actually develop and propagate many of the Institute's policy ideas. The job entails organizing academic forums, speaking engagements around the country, publishing, litigating, expert testimony. Moreover, Goldwater is not a "political" think tank, it is a 501(c)3 which cannot be political. It is a center-right think tank. Don't you think your minimization is an inaccurate representation of the facts? I do.NickDranias (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you say "Keep" or "Retain as is", it's considered a vote. If you wish to politely reply to someone else's comments, you indent it twice by starting off the line with two colons ::. Be aware, however, the subject of an article should not be editing it to begin with, and your arguments must be policy-based, not based on your personal knowledge of yourself. However, in your comments, do not simply repeat your previous arguments - we've seen them, and all members of the community are permitted to make policy-based arguments of their own DP 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, Here is an important part of the Wiki COI policy folks have not considered yet: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." That is precisely what I did by adding sourcing and specifics to rebut James Cage's original false critique that I only self-published and he could not find any significant hits on google. I suppose someone could claim that Cage's false critique was not part of the article, but the problem with that argument is that, according to my colleague, the article was flagged with that critique, which obviously incorporates it into the substance of the article. I see now that I am supposed to email people when I make those edits, but I don't know how to email yet and when I figure it out, I will.NickDranias (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The editor who claims to be the subject of this article accuses me of making "false and defamatory" claims on this page - terms with legal meaning that are often the subjects of lawsuits. On this page he has also brought up "liability" and "action for libel." This is prohibited, and for very good reason - this kind of stuff usually indicates an effort to intimidate. This behavior is the subject of an incident report (forgive me for not linking directly to the topic - I'm still pretty new here myself - scroll down to "Articles_for_deletion.2FNick_Dranias": Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you can see at the incident report, I defended that person and urged restraint, however, he continues to make legal-sounding accusations and continues to accuse me of libel defamation. To this unacceptable behavior, the editor now claims that I have "disappeared my user account" for some nefarious purpose, which is of course false and a reflection that the editor knows very little about Wikipedia. As I said, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, but I hope that the editor who claims to be Nick Dranias will pause and reflect on his actions here.

Regarding the article itself, I believe that, despite the good work done by some of the editors posting on this page, the subject would be best served by starting from scratch. Thanks -- James Cage (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is also claiming that I made statements that I, of course, did not make - for example that I stated he was only self-published. My comments are recorded here, on the talk page of the article, and in the change comments themselves. James Cage (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Nick Dranias had a point. The edit by James Cage explicitly only stated that "I did a search for Nick Dranias on ProQuest and in Google, but did not find primary sources to replace the self-published sources referenced in this article. Even if all the self-published sources here were acceptable, they do not establish that the subject is notable....", which does not say all the sources were self-published. However, this prod edit by James Cage had edit summary asserting all references were self-published ("Proposed Deletion - Not notable. All references self-published, flagged as such since April. Several searches failed to find adequate references"). As editor Nomoskedasticy says at the article Talk page, what matters is that the references that were in the article "do not meet WP:SECONDARY. This is obvious in regard to the Goldwater sources that were the only references then on the article." However, cooling it is advised, and legal threats will lead a person to be banned from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No legal threats. --doncram 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I may have confused what is considered a "self-published source" in a Wikipedia article with what is considered a "primary source". (I'm still a little unclear - I need to read up on the link you provided.) If so, that reflects my newness to Wikipedia - I'm still learning. I never stated that the subject himself had only self-published articles, only had 50 hits on Google, or made any other statements that meet the real definition of defamation. Thanks for taking some time on this. James Cage (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is repeating his accusations of "false and defamatory" on multiple pages, including the article's talk page and his own talk page. His comments yesterday could be written off as an excess of emotion - I defended him and urged patience on the incident page yesterday. But, in my view, he is escalating and expanding his charges today, and it is increasingly difficult to see this as anything other than effort to intimidate. James Cage (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To the biographee: Cool it. Example (from above): Goldwater is not a "political" think tank, it is a 501(c)3 which cannot be political. It is a center-right think tank. So it's not political because it can't be and instead it's political. Please. Further, legal-sounding allegations will get you nowhere: if they're not laughed off, they'll be taken seriously. Really, it's not dignified for the kind of person the article portrays to get involved in this way. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the engagement, but the legal definition of defamation is "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone." Whatever the technical understanding among wiki users of the term "self-published," in my field it has a very specific meaning: A weird guy living with his mom spending $10,000 to get a printer to publish a few hundred books. Well, maybe that's the connotation. The meaning is that you are not published by a third party with publication standards. If anyone really googled me, he or she would literally find thousands of hits and possibly hundreds of publications. I don't say that to boast, but simply to underscore the lack of care that preceded Mr. Cage's critique of my work as "self-published" and only having "50" hits on google. Frankly, I would never have cared about this without Mr. Cage's critique being posted. Actions have consequences. I received a concerned email from a colleague who saw it and thought it damaged or if not corrected would damage my reputation. I think my editing actions clearly fall within the COI exception for defamation--even if Mr. Cage's intentions were pure, which I am now coming to believe is the case.NickDranias (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take my own advice, and stop checking this for at least a day, as comments like "actions have consequences" and repeated accusations of defamation coming from someone claiming to be a lawyer are causing me to lose perspective. But I never said the subject of this article only had 50 hits on Google. I only found about 50 hits on ProQuest, a database of news articles. My comments are, of course, available to anyone to review first-hand. Have a good Monday, people - James Cage (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm angry, and I shouldn't be adding to this. But the actual definition of defamation includes an intent to cause harm. See [[33]]. If the editor is the subject of this article, he is a lawyer, and knows this. He seems to be implying that I defamed him with pure intent, which is impossible. But he posts a self-serving and incomplete definition of the term in a forum for non-lawyers. He continues to repeat accusations that I defamed him to non-lawyers, who might not know the real definition. To his "actions have consequences" comment above, he adds statements like "everything is in the real world" at the incident page. I believe this is an attempt to intimidate me and the editors here. James Cage (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i noted further above, I think Dranias had a point that there was mention, in an edit summary, of all sources being self-published. That was about all references supporting the article being from the Goldwater Institute, it turns out. But Dranias' assertion of a "lack of care that preceded Mr. Cage's critique of my work as 'self-published'" seems to imply Dranias is interpreting there to be assertions that Dranias himself has only self-published works, when he does have law journal publications. I don't think James Cage or anyone else asserted Dranias has only self-published that way. Wikipedia:No legal threats specifically advises against using term "defamatory", as likely intimidating to most of us who are not lawyers. Take a break for a day or two, everyone, and i will too. --doncram 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – needs secondary sources, which there is a lack of. Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- there is a lack of WP:SECONDARY material about this person to support a proper biography. As someone who has published various items, there are various results to be found in searches, but nothing substantial has been written about him. Fundamentally fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a case where WP:COMMONSENSE clearly applies. If he is called to testify at the state and national level, then he is clearly notable (there are plenty of government documents to this effect). If he is asked to participate multiple times by the national news media, then he is notable. I think if we delete this article, it demonstrates more of a problem with our process of determining notability, than that there is no evidence that he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment interests me. The article says: He has been requested to appear before legislative committees and give expert testimony on a wide range of constitutional and public policy issues throughout the country, including Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah. But it doesn't source these claims, instead presenting a list of TV appearances and the like. I haven't looked at any of these, and am willing to believe that some show appearances before legislative committees. But are such appearances written up in newspaper articles or similar? (And if they're not, should WP bother with them?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, above, says that G11 would have applied and I agree. The section "Publicity and Media Engagement" is basically just a resume, whose language is unacceptably promotional (well, in an encyclopedic article, not in a blurb)--and the sourcing is unacceptable too. Secondary sourcing is required, even in the resume-style "Publications" section. Articles could be listed, if they can be proven to have made an impact of some sort; if they can't, they're just so many resume entries. The laundry list of references for the first paragraph are just so many mentions; I don't see any of them claiming anything important about the subject, so while they may verify that the subject works for this or that institute, but in a position that has no inherited notability (for our purposes), they can't help establish notability.

  I'll search some more, but have not yet found anything more than this on a Slate blog. So far, I'm leaning delete. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeing that there appears to be consensus towards deletion, it is just below being G11, and nobody is finding any sources would this be a candidate for a speedy close? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, about speedy closing. There is interest in referencing for legislative committee appearances, which is available -- in my browsing i saw i think both state and national appearances. And he did present a case before the U.S. supreme court i think. Personally i think he is notable, he is a person that a wikipedia reader would like to be able to look up when seeing him on a news panel, etc. It would be okay to strip the article down even further and leave it a mere stub, but the person is wikipedia-notable IMHO and, about closing, there is still development that can be done. --doncram 02:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Speedy close Not quite yet, but soon. Some editors are still searching for sources that would establish notability, But I do tend to agree that there is a clear and overwhelming consensus here. Also I again have to say that despite claims by other editors, whom I respect, I see no real evidence of notability as it is defined in GNG or BIO. Being a witness before Congress on some issues might be notable, I am thinking really major stuff like impeachment hearings or the like. But lots of people are called to testify before half empty committees for pure political theater all the time. So no I don't consider having offered testimony to Congress to bestow automatic notability. Likewise if Mr. Dranias was the actual lead attorney in a Supreme Court case and delivered oral arguments, I think that would work for WP:N. But as far as I am aware, that is not alleged. I would suggest we give this another 24 hrs in the interest of fairness. But if nothing that triggers a flashing neon sign reading "WP:N HERE" is found, then I think maybe it will be time to wrap this up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ABC News article states that "Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute ... represents three state legislative candidates challenging the law" (Arizona Citizen's Clean Elections Act), which was an important Supreme Court case. I am One of Many (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my humble proposal as the subject of this rather strange process, the comments above started before many of the third party references now shown on the page revealed my rather extensive national presence in the media, policy world, legislative world. Perhaps you should reboot the comments page now that so many new references were added to the page (I did not do it!). It would seem a bit like a rush to judgment when the facts now clearly contradict some of the premises of the earlier "delete" comments above. Just so you know, what is shown is really just the tip of the iceberg. I don't say that to be full of myself. It is just true. If there really is doubt about my leading a Supreme Court case, maybe google "Nick Dranias Clean Elections Goldwater Institute" and see what you find. If there really is doubt about my legislative testimony, maybe visit the legislative video archives of Arizona, Georgia, North Dakota, Missouri from 2011-14 and do a search on my name. If there is really doubt about third parties referencing me in media publications, maybe do a search on lexis-nexis with the words "nick dranias" in it. Or just don't search for the stuff, and declare I'm not notable. But if you do that, please delete the entire page and all of these rather silly comments. Don't leave a stub. I didn't ask for this page. I don't need it or a stub. I just want there to be no implication from whatever stuff you guys do that somehow my professional work is "unworthy" of wiki. NickDranias (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll do my best to make one last argument for notability in this case. The argument that I haven't articulated well is that the sum is often greater than the parts. In this case, we have a number of major news media sources that have requested his comments on are variety of political and legal issues. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't have MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, etc. calling me up to ask my opinion on such issues. So, why Nick? Because he is notable and I'm not. Is this argument based on policy? Indeed it is. In WP:BASIC we have If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. And this is what we have, multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage in these sources is not trivial because all of these sources are requesting his views on the topics of the articles. None of sources go into substantial depth but taken as a whole, they provide his political and legal views for which he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, One of Many, and I also don't get called up for my opinion, but the policy you're pointing at, correct me if I'm wring, points to multiple secondary sources, not primary, which is what we're dealing with here. If his appearances in all these media had been remarked on by others, we'd have a very different discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you are coming from Drmies, but I think the major media sources reporting on his views, interpretations, and opinions do satisfy our definition of a secondary source WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The "one step removed" is an issue for straight up interviews, but most of these articles appear to be syntheses of positions of several people, which I believe makes the reporting of his views one step removed. This is also an odd case. His views are reported in numerous places. He has testified at the state and federal level. He has been a lawyer in at least one import Supreme Court case, but there apparently isn't a good reliable secondary source article on him. That is why I think the main if not the only basis for notability is the totality of secondary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of Many, you were talking about his "media appearances"--those are primary. If you want to talk about secondary sources, that's fine--but where does the article have any that do more than mention him? This, for instance, contains two indirect mentions. This has him speaking at a meeting, as one of 25 (though of course it verifies his position--but that's not the most important thing). This, again, is very very skimpy. All these are just mentions, and if you want to argue that they add up, they a. can't be confused with links to his media appearances (primary) and b. have to be listed and weighed, really. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional, not notable, lack of WP:SECONDARY sources. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have not yet studied the references that are currently in the article, so I am not !voting for the moment. I would like to point out that much of the contentiousness of this AfD seems to stem from incorrect terminology. For example, the website of the think thank were Dranias works is not something that he "self-published". It is, however, a primary source that is not independent. As several other people have already noted here, we need secondary sources AND those sources need to be independent of the subject. Being a little bit more careful in a BLP AfD might have saved some drama. As for notability, WP uses that in the sense of "having been noted", which needs to be verifiable through secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Nobody here seems to deny that Dranias is a regular guest on TV shows and panels and such, I would assume that at least some of that has been covered. I agree that the original article, until a few days ago, was horrendously promotional and insufficiently sourced. Normally I would vote "delete" in such a case, because, like DGG said above, it is often easier in cases like this to start from scratch. Despite the hard work of several editors over the past few days, I don't think the article is beyond that "nuke it" stage yet, unfortunately. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dranias seems to be an activist to me, equivalent to many members of Category:Activists by issue, a category which overall suggests a left-wing bias in Wikipedia. I find no right-wing advocates there, at least not easily. (Category:Advocates seems to be about Scottish lawyers). I just read all of one of the Goldwater Institute's reports by Dranias, Recognizing Pension System Insolvency: A Catalyst for Lasting Reform, by Nick Dranias, J.D., and Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., which is a policy piece and an advocacy piece, pointing to specific legislative and legal strategies to effect changes that Dranias argues are good/necessary. It includes law case precedent discussions that seem "expert" to me (i am not a lawyer), and includes discussion of financial theory and practice that is perfectly competent (i have adequate expertise to evaluate that). I haven't read any of his academic journal articles. Based on this one piece, I am sure he is competent to give appearances on panels and so on about pension system reforms. He seems equivalent in importance to many activists in categories like Category:Anti-bullying activists. I know "other stuff exists" is deemed not a completely valid argument in this CFD setting, but it seems to me that there is a dearth of coverage on right-wing activists/advocates in Wikipedia. I think the article is fine now, better than many activist articles, and it would be best to keep it, especially as a service to media consumers who might wonder who is this person on a panel, much as they would wonder about some left-wing activist. --doncram 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For what it's worth, there are related Stephen Slivinski, Byron Schlomach, Darcy A. Olsen, and Thomas C. Patterson articles in Wikipedia about other Goldwater Institute staff / officers. First two not linked, latter two linked from the GI article, i think. --doncram 00:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep I probably qualify as "the right" but I've never heard of the guy before. there do seem to be plenty of sources that mention him. In addition to the ones in the article already, google, gnews, gbooks, and gscholar all return multiple hits for him. they might not be all in-depth, but at a certain point a pile of in-passing mentions gets you past GNG. The article does read like a resume and needs a bunch of work, but that problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE note to closer : I would recommend evaluating some of the sources yourself, and then applying appropriate weight to !votes which indicate there is insufficient sourcing. 'Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After all this effort and Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, the article still seems to have only one source that is both independent of the subject and his employers and in some sense about Dranias: the Arizona Daily Independent story "Goldwater’s Dranias joins Compact for America". However even that source has no information about Dranias beyond what's in its title — the content of the story is entirely about CfA. This is not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the editors who arguing for notability are engaged in Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. The argument for notability rests on the totality of the independent sources, since none of them go into depth about him. Given this approach to notability, then numerous sources are required to establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not referring to the arguments within this discussion, which I have not spent much time reading carefully, but rather to the fact that the article itself is puffed up with a high volume of low-quality sources, making it difficult to discern whether there are any high-quality ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final (probably) Comment There are a lot of issues with this article. But to my mind the bottom line remains that even piling up all the sources together (excepting the primary ones), almost without exception, they aren't really about the subject of the article. They are about other topics or issues, to which the article's subject is connected. That's a FAIL in my reading of GNG and BIO. That said, I don't think it's especially unlikely that Mr. Dranias will at some point pass the threshold for inclusion here. If/When the time comes my suggestion would be to put his name in over at AfC and see if we can get something that isn't such a wiki-train wreck. Regards the question of left leaning political bias on Wikipedia, I can't comment from personal experience though I have heard similar whispers. If it's true then we need to be vigilant that righteous articles about subjects of a political nature do not suffer from that. Just for the record, lest there be any suspicion of lefty political bias in my nomination, my own politics are several light years to the right of Mr. Dranias. And lastly I will say that I now agree with user:Knowledgekid87's suggestion that a consensus seems to exist and perhaps it is time to lower the curtain on this discussion. But of course that decision is above my pay grade and I defer to Admin. Unless something pops up that fundamentally changes the course of the discussion, I am going to bow out. I think what needed to be said, has been, by pretty much everyone with any interest. I thank all of the editors who have contributed to this discussion from which I, a still relatively new editor, have learned much. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm just not seeing enough independent coverage to pass GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • @ Randykitty and @Xxanthippe (and anyone else), I completely agree with you about this article not passing WP:GNG, but how are we to reconcile GNG with WP:PEOPLE and especially the section WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability? The question I have is whether WP:GNG tumps WP:BASIC for WP:BLPs? It is, of course, an open question whether the totality of sources does in fact satisfy WP:BASIC in this case, but I would guess that it is rare to have a case that pits WP:BASIC against WP:GNG so clearly. At this point, it looks like there is a consensus to delete, so I'm more interested in how people interpreted WP:GNG vs. WP:BASIC in this case. I am One of Many (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where the notion that "a bunch of trivial references adds up to notability" crept into wp:basic, but it's absurd. Or maybe it has been absurd all along, but it isn't an argument I've ever heard of until very recently, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Walsh. I reject this out of hand. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the sources are trivial since they are not "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing" as stated in the note in WP:BASIC. They are not substantial, however. I don't know if this is the correct venue, but my question at this point is whether BASIC is applicable in practice? How many insubstantial sources are required to establish notability? My gut feeling is that there is enough in this case, but I'm coming to realize that what is enough is far from clear. I think we are dealing with a very fuzzy criterion in BASIC, so I'm changing my "strong keep" to just "keep". I am One of Many (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's basically a résumé. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (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) buffbills7701 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interhealth Canada[edit]

Interhealth Canada (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 fails to establish notability for its subject per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. References seem to be more about other issues and coverage of the subject appears trivial. Previously tagged PROD with ref improve and notability tags. Article creator subsequently removed PROD and all maintenance tags. Article appears to run afoul of WP:AGENDA. See the creator's comments on the talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these insinuations are both untrue and insulting. The activities of this company have clearly been controversial in at least 3 countries, and have been discussed in the Turks and Caicos House of Assembly. They have been subject to scientific analysis in the British Medical Journal. "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are also the subject of a parliamentary enquiry in the UK.Rathfelder (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Rathfelder has now added quite a lot of meat to this article and is now well referenced and IMO demonstrates article's notability.--Penbat (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the current state of the article, it is clearly notable (though certainly requires a lot of cleanup). Wieno (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2014 (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 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dipanshu Tiwari[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)).

Dipanshu Tiwari (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)

Unsourced BLP that fails notability standard. Was PRODded as hoax, but PROD tag removed. gNews and gBooks searches turn up no relevant hits. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - also could not find any credible sourcing, the only extlink does not return any information on the subject name. Completely fails WP:V as it stands. Dl2000 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems likely to be a hoax. Biographical information has been changed rather wildly over the past days by the same small group of editors, e.g. sometimes this individual was born in 1988, sometimes in 1994; sometimes worth $20 billion, other times $20 million. The external link is a link to two articles about other people who also happen to be named "Dipanshu", and does not appear to be about this individual. So, absent some actual source appearing to substantiate the article, delete as likely hoax. --Delirium (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• improved quality -I want to tell my all friends that now it have been edited by editor..There can be problem in net connection of author or editor... Issus has ben fixed bu editor on this article.I am not agree for deletion of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.178.91 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia are you mad?-I am agree with previos user having iP 223.176.178.91 that this artical is now in improved quality. If you are deleting articles of very important person like dipanshu tiwari than whai is the mean of Wikipedia?...what users will read ?I am agree that this article had some issues but now these have been fixed This article named dipanshu tiwari is now improved and I am not agree with any user who is agree to delete this article..Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.37.171 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• An awesome and true article-Do not delete it.I am also not agree with those users & administrators who are agree with deletion of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.218.122.36 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hoax. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidence of the truthfullness-

.... Now i want to say that if you want to delete this article... Delete it but it is 99% true.. I am searching sources for more editing source for improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalini o Dubey (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You've conclusively proved that this article is a hoax: The Newspaper Clipping Generator --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Zemach[edit]

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

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

Notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC #1 (heavily cited, as shown by GBooks, GScholar, and Questia searches) and #5. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most sources are bound to be in Hebrew: "עדי צמח"‎.הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GS h-index of 12 is high for philosophy and passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Philosophy is a low-citation field making the citation counts difficult to evaluate but the pass of WP:PROF#C5 seems clear enough. I added some sources to the article (book reviews); this Google scholar search finds several other articles by others directly about Zemach's work, so I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 can be made in this way without having to resort to bean counting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't depreciate bean counting by means of citations. It provides a yardstick for comparing the wide variety of BLPs that come to these pages. Over time it has evolved into a fairly sophisticated form of analysis as shown by this present AfD where citation patterns between different fields of scholarship are taken into account. We will always want to know how many beans there are to count but we don't always base our decisions on them. Nobody has suggested that there should be an algorithm with input beans and output decision. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As you know, there are plenty of other AfDs where I've used bean counting arguments in favor of or against the subject. But I think that, when we can get a clearer picture by examining a smaller number of sources that go into much greater depth than just a citation (as in this case where we have some eight long book reviews and three paper-length responses to some of the subject's papers, not even counting whatever sources may exist in Hebrew), it is preferable to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deeper analysis is very welcome and strengthens the case for WP:Prof#C1 made by the citation data. This work should, of course, have been done by the nominator under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Per Xxanthippe and David. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini[edit]

Giuliano Mignini (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 reasons for him to be notable. Only a district attorney involved in Meredith Kercher murder. --Lenore (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuliano Mignini

Keep part of notable trial. Greatpumkin (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as his article indicates multiple notable cases including the Narducci homicide and the Bulgari case. The article is well-referenced at 50 citations.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mignini meets notability criteria as he was involved in both the Monster of Florence case as well the Meredith Kercher murder investigation. The fact that he was involved in allegations of scandal and misconduct in both cases is another reason to keeping the article. The article as mentioned earlier is well sourced and is not reliant on one source although it could do with a cleaning up to meet style requirements. --smrgeog (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plainly notable, as shown by the sources. Even if we entirely discount the Kercher case, he is arguably still notable for his roles in other cases: this is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Nothing significant has changed since the last AFD ended in a decisive 'keep'. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. Notable for more than one event. James500 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DroidMsg[edit]

DroidMsg (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)

There is no evidence that this app satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article is one review on a site called "The App Magazine", which does not appear to be very significant. (Also, the App magazine certainly includes paid-for features. It is not clear to me whether all of its content is paid advertising. Amongst other things, the site offers to publish a "Professionally Written and Featured App Review" for a fee of $100. However, even if it is not advertising, this one review in a not particularly notable source is not enough to establish notability.) The first few hits on a Google search for Droidmsg include www.droidmsg.com, download sites providing DroidMsg, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc etc, but nothing remotely resembling an independent reliable source. The article was deleted by PROD, and then restored after a request for deletion which gave as the reason "This page shouldn't be deleted because it is a free dating site", which is not a reason for non-deletion by Wikipedia standards. (The request for undeletion came from a single-purpose account with no edits not relating to DroidMsg. The creation of the article was by a similar single purpose account.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One review itself written in semi-PRspeak does not amount to in-depth coverage and I am finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sign of notability for this product. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, whose argument is pretty complete. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2014 (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.