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 Gameplay of Pokémon#Mega Evolution. Redirected (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Stone[edit]

Mega Stone (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 indication of significance for the subject of this article. It's only another item in the world of Pokemon and carries no value in an encyclopedia. I'm surprised there isn't a speedy deletion criterion for articles such as this. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gameplay of Pokémon#Mega Evolution. Pburka (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this article should be kept. User:Gimala

The criteria for article creation is notability. The subject of this article is far from meeting that criteria. There is no indication of importance or significance anywhere in the article. A redirect would be plausible, but this definitely cannot act as a stand-alone article. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Plausible search term for someone looking for information on the subject, but there's nothing here to merit inclusion based on notability.kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:59, 30 September 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) Ethically^Yours! 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Belfrage[edit]

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

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

I understand that there is a potential language barrier here but I've been unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently satisfy GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think he is notable. According to Expressen in 2013 "During the 70- and 80s he was one of Sweden's greatest tv- and radio profiles". Since the top of his career dates back to the 79/80s, much of the contemporary coverage of him will probably not be online. Iselilja (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Iselilja (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My Swedish is ropey, but from what I can tell, the top four hits for his name are all coverage about him in reliable newspapers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Ritchie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable, per WP:GNG,.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added two major news articles, one focused on what he's doing now he's turned 65, with a look back at his career, plus some info from both. There is a lot of news coverage in Swedish, much of which makes the point that he's had a very prominent career. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 30 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revival in Nagaland[edit]

Revival in Nagaland (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 article cites no sources and repeatedly asserts religious beliefs as facts. There has been a POV tag on it for more than two years, but nobody has cared to remedy the article's flaws. I therefore propose that it be deleted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's a mess. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the reliable sourcing is scanty, but even if someone finds enough to justify notability, they'll have to start from scratch with this article, which is as far from encyclopedic as it gets (I'm guessing it will be difficult to find reliable sourcing for the workings of the holy spirit). Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge with Christianity in Nagaland. (See my reasoning in later comments. The following comments were for my keep opinion). Regardless of the lack of sources, the subject is clearly notable and interesting. There will be sources. There is content in the religion section of the Nagaland article, though with a lack of detail as to how the unique situation described there (a population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists) arose. This article would be the proper article to contain that missing content, not the Nagaland one. There is also a flock of invalid delete reasoning. "Article is a mess" is not a reason to delete - it is a reason to work on the article! The content that led to the pov tag could have been easily changed at any time during those two years, enabling the tag to be removed. Why did the proposer not try to do it rather than include himself amongst the "Nobody has cared"? "Nobody cares" is not a reason to delete! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at removing and rewording the pov text, and I have removed the npov tag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that an article based on reliable sources would be appropriate, and that the event (or series of events) is notable if it occurred. But in the absence of even a single reliable source, merely changing the religious affirmations into more neutral statements doesn't solve the article's main problem, which, as I see it, is the lack of verifiability. Even without direct claims regarding the Holy Spirit, the article as it stands now remains largely a matter of religious witness, because its remarkable assertions must be accepted on faith. If it's deleted, anybody who's willing to perform the necessary research can create a new, verifiable article, whenever they like. But there's no reason for an unverifiable article to remain as a place-holder until somebody gets around to doing that. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that lack of sources are an issue. But that really is now the main issue with the article, since there are sources out there that verify that the subject exists in some form. Is lack of sources alone a strong enough reason to delete? Here is a starter source: [1], mentions a "revival movement", and the Nagaland Christian Revival Church growing out of it. It also mentions things covered in the article: "personal encounter with Christ", and "missionary outreach", etc. It cites a source: "Churches of Indigenous Origins in Northeast India", by O. L. Snaitang, Delhi 2000. And this webpage talks about "the great revival", dating it to the 1970s [2]. And this one points to an origin in the 1950s [3]. However, I have just noticed the existence of this article, Christianity in Nagaland, which for some reason was not linked to the Nagaland article (I have just added it as a "see also"). Maybe a merge with this article would be more appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the existence of Christianity in Nagaland makes Revival in Nagaland utterly redundant, and adds to the arguments in favor of deletion. That article, too, needs better citation to authorities, as the bulk of it is completely unsourced; but it does at least have some references, which appear (without checking) to be reliable.

The fact that "there are sources out there" is irrelevant. We are not free to write an unsourced article—as the author of "Revival in Nagaland" seems to have done—in hopes that someday somebody will come along and fill in some references to works that are "out there".

In any event, surely one article on Christianity in Nagaland is enough for Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that, instead of continuing to defend "Revival in Nagaland", Tiptoethrutheminefield might do well to consider turning his or her energies to improving "Christianity in Nagaland".J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Jdcrutch might do well to realize that I brought up the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article. If Jdcrutch had properly researched the subject BEFORE initiating this AfD perhaps he too would have discovered the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article and proposed a merge with it at the start of the AfD, rather than (as he now does) present the suggestion of another editor as if it were his own. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of claiming Tiptoethrutheminefield's idea as my own, particularly since I disagree with it. Regardless of the existence of "Christianity in Nagaland", "Revival in Nagaland" should be deleted because it is unverifiable. It was written originally as religious witness. Its only reason for existing was to proclaim the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. Tiptoethrutheminefield's efforts to neutralize its POV merely leave it a tepid assertion of effects without causes, still without reference to published sources. There is no point in a merger of the two articles because there is little or nothing in "Revival in Nagaland" worth preserving that is not already present in "Christianity in Nagaland". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia; as such, the lack of sources cannot be excused by stating the topic is "interesting" and will eventually have sources. If enough reliable sources eventually exist, the article could be recreated at that point in time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is actually not a valid reason. It would only be valid if it was asserted that the lack of sources means the subject is not notable, or does not exist. Articles that have no references can still be fully compliant with Wikipedia policy as long as there is a reasonable expectation that the material they contain is supported by a published reliable source or sources. I think we have that reasonable expectation because I have given a few sources that verify the subject does exist, and is notable. But we don't have sources to back up most of the specific content in the article. I mentioned earlier that the existence of the Christianity in Nagaland article is now making me think that a merge may be the better option. However, I am not yet altering my Keep opinion as I hope continued discussion here might lead to more sources being found. Without them, a merge would be difficult, unless we were to transfer it all, complete with fact tags. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most Wikipedians would side with my reading of the policy, versus your statement Regardless of the lack of sources, the subject is clearly notable and interesting. There will be sources. There either are source or there aren't sources. Refer to the first paragraphs of WP:V and WP:GNG as it pertains to the use of sources to establish the notability of a topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see footnote one on WP:No original research - sources are not required to justify a subject's existence, but there should be a reasonable expectation that sources exist. However, I agree that most Wikipedians might not understand the nuance of that. But I have given sources that indicate that the article's subject, a revival in the 1960s of Christian belief in Nagaland, happened (though maybe not quite in the manner described by the current content of the article). And I have given the argument that any reasonable person would accept that the situation that this created (a local population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists, inside a country that is overwhelmingly Hindu) is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote Tiptoethrutheminefield cites does not apply here. The sentence immediately following that footnote says,

The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged . . . .

and virtually every assertion of "Revival in Nagaland" has been directly challenged. In fact the entire article has been challenged with the "Sources" tag, inserted nearly a year ago. Even if the article were presumably verifiable, which most of it is not, even as it now stands, those challenges require verification, which has not been forthcoming, even after deletion was proposed.

I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield that the topic is notable (assuming verifiability), but it has been sufficiently covered in another article, Christianity in Nagaland, which Tiptoethrutheminefield him- or herself first called to this forum's attention, and which is at least partially supported by references.J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subjective arguments about what a reasonable person thinks is notable are not related to Wikipedia's actually notability policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have changed my vote from keep to merge (with the Christianity in Nagaland article) because I think it is unlikely that there are going to be sufficient usable sources to justify a separate article. Regarding the above comment, we should beware of rule-book wavers. This article IS about a notable situation, (a local population that is 95% Christian, with 75% being Baptists, inside a country that is overwhelmingly Hindu), but it would be best to cover it in the main article, now that we are aware this main article exists. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bulk of the article content has already been covered in Christianity in Nagaland. However, articles are not kept on the basis of fascinating and interesting stories but strictly on the basis of notability.Wikicology (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article seems to be very short and even lacks WP:RS to establish notability. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:11, 27 September 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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer, born 1996) (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 notability as per the Football Project guidelines. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: So this article is still here, I can remember voting for it to be kept some months ago, anyway winning a professional CAF award is a claim of notability. I admit that he is yet to play in a professional league but I believe the coverage on this young star is significant enough for him to remain on Wikipedia. Anytime Nigeria lose or draw a game, major stakeholders starts to advice Stephen Keshi to include him in the squad as stated 1, 2, 3 and 4. He is also a recipient of Member of the Order of the Niger as stated here. I understand that my argument might not really carry weight, that is why I will hope that this discussion ends as "no consensus" because I believe it is just a matter of time before he clearly meets WP:SOCCER. Darreg (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. The article is not significantly different from the one deleted following this afd on the same subject. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added a few more information on his career in the media, can you all take a look at it then review your votes? Thanks. Darreg (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is pretty WP:TOOSOON, Sadly the young star hasn't played in a Fully professional league. Obviously fails WP:NFOOTY. Wikicology (talk) 00:00, 2 October 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murarka College, Sultanganj[edit]

Murarka College, Sultanganj (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)

From what I can tell its just a unit of a college, which was also apparently previously deleted. Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We generally keep degree-level institutions, which this is. It was founded as an independent college and became a constituent college of a larger university twenty years later. However, it is still an autonomous college. We haven't yet deleted the article on (e.g.) Christ's College, Cambridge, also a constituent college of a larger university, have we? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-well I'm unfamiliar with this school so I couldn't tell exactly what this was-I was not sure to put one up to be honest until I read that it was deleted before. Wgolf (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted as a WP:COPYVIO, not for notability reasons. It probably shouldn't have been deleted at all, as the subject is clearly notable; the copyrighted material should just have been stripped out. And there's therefore no reason why it can't be recreated without the copyrighted material. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withrdawn-Well thanks for that-I would of left it alone had I known any of that ha. But as one comment had on the user page was "Why recreate a article that will be speedied again" so yep! Wgolf (talk) 15:22, 25 September 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.

 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard_William_Paul

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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lê Văn Sơn[edit]

Lê Văn Sơn (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)

Well this is the final article that remains from the one who made pages for the under 18 team (and ironically the first one he made) it was up for a prod but a ref was added so now a AFD. Wgolf (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:06, 26 September 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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Éder López Carreras[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 25 September 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 Osram#Traxon Technologies. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traxon Technologies[edit]

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. POV forks are not the way to resolve content discussions, especially not with borderline BLP vios using iffy sources. It doesn't really matter what the creator calls it. No proof was given that this merits a standalone article given the standalone notability of the topic, although I suppose that might change in the future. For now this stands as a collection of opinionated criticisms on a living person by sources that don't seem to meet WP:RS, and which we should not be helping propagate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations[edit]

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations (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)

1- Not nearly enough WP:RS coverage, most sources used are thefederalist.com (see thread in WP:RSN) and Twitter.

2- Ongoing RfC about whether this content should even be mentioned in the original article (see TP section)

3- Definitely fails WP:NOTABLE big time. Gaba ^(talk) 15:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Content being appropriate or not for the primary BLP is not the same as it being appropriate as a standalone article. See Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism for a similarly blogger-ginned-up controversy. Sources include Daily Beast (newsweek), Wapo, and while twitter commentary, twitter from notable individuals. This isn't the biggiest event ever, but it does pass the bars of notability as an event. That said, it may not belong in the primary BLP article as part of the BLP weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it does pass the bars of notability as an event", I'm sorry but where is that bar? A blog post in The Volokh Conspiracy and a single article mentioning it in The Daily Beast? Are tweets now considered notable media coverage? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is this a joke? There's a serious argument that can be made about a possible brief inclusion in the biography. A entire separate article, especially while the original inclusion is still debated, is an obvious POVFORK. a13ean (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a WP:POVFORK, and we should attempt to arrive at consensus on the Talk page of the main article about how to handle the issue before creating a new article. Also, much of the "sources" are blog posts and tweets, which may violate WP:BLP. Certainly fails WP:NOTABLE, at least until it gets more widely reported. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iselilja (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Iselilja (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete RFC is still divided on main article inclusion. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge It is not a POVFORK as has been stated and the article is well written. Granted, it has not recieved a whole lot of attention as of now, but considering the allegations and the lack of evidence to refute those allegations, I don't see this Genie being put back into the bottle. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy Delete. I think it's very clear per POVFORK and also GNG that this should not be a stand-alone article and there is BLP concerns about having the article up at all. If a concensus forms at the main Tyson article to include the allegations, this article could be redirected or merged, but currently these allegations aren't even mentioned in the main article. Better to take discussion at that article whether anything (and if so, what exactly) about the "controversy" should be included. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously, as the author, I would say Keep. A note - this article is not a POV fork, it is a content fork, which is allowed and encouraged by Wikipedia. I originally began this article in an attempt to draft a neutral section in the main article and, though keeping it as short and factual as possible, I still felt it was too long for a section in Neil deGrasse Tyson and better as a standalone article with a brief summary in the main bio, which I proposed at the article's talk page. For those who claim it is a POV fork, what is the POV being expressed? I did my very best to write it according to WP:NPOV guidelines, and all potentially controversial facts are sourced to the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, and to verified Twitter blog posts of notable individuals with knowledge of this topic. I would welcome any specific examples of POV wording, or of facts detailed in the article which are not adequately sourced. I haven't yet seen any specific critique. Kelly ^hi! 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So far as notability concerns, I felt that this topic was as well-sourced and interesting as many of the other topics in the biography, such as the speculation about his particular brand of atheism, though ultimately that notability will be up to the community to decide. My opinion was based on the sheer number of notable individuals who had discussed the allegation, including Tyson himself. I also should have mentioned that I did include Tyson's response to the allegations as even-handedly as I could. Kelly ^hi! 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an acceptable content fork, it is an expansion of highly contentious material that many editors feel violated WP:UNDUE even when it was in the original article in abbreviated form. That is, by definition, a POV fork. That doesn't mean that anyone is necessarily saying that the content is poorly written or intended to push a particular agenda. But it is a well established principle on Wikipedia that presenting material well out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources and its significance and notability as per those sources, even when written fairly and neutrally, still violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard or seen that definition of a POV fork, do you have a policy source for that? Kelly ^hi! 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what I said is consistent with the language at WP:POVFORK and WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "well established principle" to weight issues IS to create a fork. Consider the example cited in the WP:WEIGHT policy of flat earth concepts not being includable the earth article due to weight issues. The solution the policy illustrates is not to simply scrub and censor the encyclopedia of flat earth ideas... the solution is to create a fork, as Kelly has done here. Saying that discussing fabrication allegations in a fabrication alligation article is giving it undue weight is ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "principle", such as it is, most certainly is not compliant with WP:BLP as regards living subjects' biographical content. The policy directs: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It does not direct editors to fork the views of minorities to their own, poorly-biased articles where they have disproportionate weight and impact. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The WP:BLP policy does not allow for such a fork (for "tiny" viewpoints, where "tiny" is not explicitly defined), whereas the WP:WEIGH policy does. This may all boil down to whether this is a "tiny" viewpoint or not. Reasonable editors can disagree on that. Marteau (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of adjudicating "tininess". Nor is WP:WEIGHT relevant if it is in conflict with BLP; where other policies and guidelines conflict with the BLP policy, it is always the BLP policy which triumphs. And that policy also says: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects" (emphasis mine). It says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." All of which can rightly be a matter of discussion as to whether this merits a minor inclusion in the parent article. None of which permits the creation of a fork exclusively to give prominence to the allegations. This simply is not the way we are to handle allegations regarding living people. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The standard in WP:BLP for forking IS "tinyness" of the minority opinion. And I agree, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". What thas says is that we, as editors, and our encyclopedia, should be non-partisan in our edits. That does not mean partisan events should not be included in the article... that means text about partisan events occuring in the world needs to be documented without bias. It is certainly possible to write about a biased event in a non-biased manner and that is what the sentence you quoted means Marteau (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "tininess" of the opinion, I could not find a single source that claims Tyson was telling the truth about the Bush quote. Kelly ^hi! 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The single most common criticism above is that this is a POVFORK. I actually read WP:POVFORK and it is not. Although people did object to including the information in the main article, most of the objections to including it were that it had not been mentioned in reliable sources and that it is not notable, not POV concerns. (Some of the sources were considered unreliable because they were biased, but that isn't the same thing). We do need to have reliable sources, but this is not a POVFORK. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed..." That's exactly what is happening here. It's a WP:POVFORK - not of the entire article, but of this topic. Can't get the material you want into an article? Well, just create your own! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation would mean that creating an article using material that has been deleted for any reason whatsoever would be a POV fork, since the deleted material is content and someone disagrees that it should be in the main article. I don't buy that. It makes a lot more sense to interpret "disagreement about content" to mean factual disagreements, not disagreement about anything whatsoever. Disagreement over content, then, would not include notability issues. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Given the controversy over inclusion in the main article, this separate one is inappropriate. General Epitaph (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is controversy fabrication. We don't need to create an article every time a biased blogger tries has a bone to pick with a celebrity. Not notable. --Shabidoo | Talk 16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Neil deGrasse Tyson as a noteworthy situation with coverage in reliable sources, or keep if people are going to continue to keep it out of the main article. There wasn't enough coverage earlier this week, but that has clearly changed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus ultimately reached for the main article is that it's not notable enough to merit inclusion there, then your Keep for this separate article would not make sense. General Epitaph (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Our guidelines demonstrate it's notable enough, which is ultimately what matters. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any judgement on whether it is or isn't notable enough, but rather that the consensus is what matters. General Epitaph (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What additional coverage are you referring to? Adler's blog post went up Monday. The National Review and sundry bloggers are continuing to bang the drum but I'm unaware of other recent additional coverage. Am I missing something? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple mentions at the Washington Post now, we also have coverage from The Daily Beast, National Review as you note, and The Weekly Standard, all of which would be reliable for this information in any other form. We were correct when it was only The Federalist discussing this to not have it in the article or have it as a stand-alone. We're incorrect in not including it now, as this story is getting wider press. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...multiple mentions at the Washington Post now... Really? I'm aware of the Jonathan Alter blog post on the Volokh Conspiracy (a source that is editorially independent of the WaPo, but hosted on its servers) Are there others?

Also, the Daily Beast piece was from last Friday, the Weekly Standard article pre-dates that, so your statement "There wasn't enough coverage earlier this week, but that has clearly changed" seems unsupported by your examples. I'm wondering what I'm missing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider multiple mentions at a blog hosted at The Washington Post as multiple mentions, yes. As for the timing on those articles, I was wrong on the timeline, and it appeared to be notable as early as last Friday. The timing is not the issue as much as the sourcing is worthwhile. Really, it belongs in the main article. If editors will continue to stand in the way of it being there, a subarticle for the noteworthy information is appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Swordfish pointed out above, that is the definition of a POV fork. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the POV being expressed in the article? Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second this question. No POV is being expressed, it's a neutral accounting of a noteworthy situation regarding an academic. That the people raising the issue have a POV is granted, but there's no POV being asserted within the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your questions in my response to Kelly above. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to think this specific article is pushing a POV when it's simply documenting a notable situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of NPOV to disproportionately over-represent the significance of this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll note that my preference is that it be merged before being kept. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple mentions? There's the Adler post. What others? Are you counting the comments? I'm still only seeing one post, and BTW the Volokh Conspiracy is not a WP:NEWSBLOG since it is editorially independent of the WaPo. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A blog bully trying to tear down a living person with over-the-top hyperbole. Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No basis for a separate article except as a manufactured attack page. The issue may or may not warrant a paragraph in the main article, but this article is inappropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Referencing is utterly inadequate. Twitter, The Daily Beast, and PJ Media are not the way to reference this sort of article. Further, as a contentious allegation originally voiced by The Federalist, its own articles on the topic are not independent coverage. The Adler citation is misleading as presented, making it appear as though this topic received coverage in the Washington Post rather than in The Volokh Conspiracy blog; from its own description: "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." There are inherent due weight and notability concerns here, and an argument can be made that this is unacceptable prima facie under the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious POV fork. Nuke from orbit on BLP grounds. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This grossly fails WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AQFK.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POVFORK to sidestep RfC in main article: source reliability is being debated in RfC, notability is being debated in RfC, let the RfC determine the fate of this content. Lingnik (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious POVFORK, isn't and probably never will be independently notable. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously as proposer. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep In the current RfC for whether this issue should be in Tyson's article, the issue is WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. These policies point out that, for example, mention of flat earth concepts do not belong in the earth article because flat earth ideas are a distinct minority viewpoint and including them in the "earth" article would be undue weight. The policy does not advocate this minority viewpoint be scrubbed from the encyclopedia... no, because the policy links to the flat earth article itself. The solution to WP:WEIGHT issue is in fact to create a fork, which is what is being proposed here. WP:BIO issues will be addressed in this fork by ensuring that it is well sourced... using WP:BIO as an argument to avoid mentioning this issue at all is a misapplication of WP:BIO. People who are arguing that this Tyson "Our God" issue should not appear in his article due to WP:WEIGHT, and are also arguing against discussion in a fork, are simply proposing censorship, in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Marteau but "..this Tyson "Our God" issue..", is not an appropriate commentary and takes strength out of your argument. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't think he was sarcastically referring to Tyson as "Our God." He was referring to a quote allegedly promulgated by Tyson which had George W. Bush saying "Our God is the God who named the stars" Phillip A (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Marteau (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-direct to the main article until such time as the RfC there concludes. If concensus is for exclusion of fabrication allegations in the main article due to weight issues, then link to this fork from the main article. Discussing fabrication allegations in an article devoted to fabrication allegations cannot be called undue weight. Marteau (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not easily personally offended - however, for those above claiming "POV" or "attack page", I would appreciate either providing some evidence or backing off the hyberbole. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the Paul Ryan marathon time incident. This received a great deal more attention at the time (actual newspaper articles), and eventually ended up as two sentences at Paul_Ryan#Personal_life. I personally suggested a much more cautious wording which did not imply any intent. Note in particular Milowent's comment which implies (in my reading) that it would be absurd to make an article about this. User:Arzel appears to feel very different about this case though. a13ean (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't beleive you would compare this to Paul Ryan. It is, however, a pretty good example of the hypocritical nature of much of the press. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing me as precedent is always very persuasive, I believe. I just went looking for Rand Paul kidnapping of female student in the name of Aqua Buddha and Fareed Zakaria plagiarism controversies and couldn't find them either. These things seem notable in the heat of the news cycle, but usually sort themselves out as not meriting a separate article. We don't create articles on every stretch of the truth by George Will either. And for the record, I am not a Neil Tyson Truther. And e/c add: You disagree that Paul Ryan deceived the entire American public with his marathon times and mountain climbing accomplishments? How can he live with himself?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as based on POV-pushing bollocks peddled by third-rate bloggers with no credibility whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that the WaPo had 3rd rate bloggers. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – As others have said, this is clearly a WP:POVFORK for a non-notable event. Also probably a WP:BLP vio for lack of WP:RS. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious POVFORK, Also fails GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All the sources are either Sean Davis of The Federalist, or references to him. The debate is currently raging on the main biography on whether this supposed "scandal" is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia at all. I think it's obvious it doesn't need its own page. Therefore, delete per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:FAILN Phillip A (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

That sources refer to Davis is natural, seeing as he lit the proverbial fire that got the whole debate going. Whether you agree with Davis or not, any discussion about this issue must begin with him. However, sources are making their own assertions independently of The Federalist such as the Weekly Standard who asserts "nothing about this anecdote is true". They say that independently of The Federalist and without qualificaiton. Marteau (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to a single sentence in Thefederalist.com. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as "Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations" is a sort of idiosyncratic title, I don't see the value in a redirect to his main biography. If the subject isn't notable enough for its own article, I favor deletion instead. Phillip A (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this wouldn't work. This sources fails criteria #2 (and possibly a couple other criteria) of WP:SELFPUB. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Povfork of a non-event that barely, if at all, warrants weight in the main article. It's sourcing blogs, a podcast and freaking TWITTER of random people who aren't publishing stories because magazine editors and newspaper editors don't consider it a story. Alsee (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you mention are only used for some of the minor "meta" aspects of the story, such as interviews with Davis discussing the origin of his interest in the topic and the reason for his research on Tyson. There are plenty of mainstream sources discussing the allegations themselves, along with plenty of notable people. Kelly ^hi! 08:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for those concerned about sourcing, I've beefed up the references and added additional sources, though I believe most of the new ones simply reinforce the ones that were already used. Kelly ^hi! 09:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV for of a non-notable event which is covered chiefly by unreliable partisan sources and blogs. I also suggest this is a particularly egregious violation of WP:BLP considering it was removed from the original article as a BLP violation. Second Quantization (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources include The Washington Post, The Daily Beast (formerly Newsweek), Physics Today, and The Tampa Tribune. Can you specify the nature of the BLP violation you are alleging? Kelly ^hi! 10:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the Physics Today piece says Neil deGrasse Tyson has come under conservative attack and calls them all attacks. That's all it says about it. Those attacks are the entire basis of this very article. Secondly, the sources in use in this article are twitter, "a conservative and humor-driven U.S.-based Political Blog", a conservative opinion magazine and a minor conservative website. Thirdly, the Volokh Conspiracy is editorially independent from The Washington Post as you are aware. So no, the post is not a source. Fourthly, the Tamba source is a right wing blog (it's even called "The Right Stuff" where "Jackson provides insight into the evolving human condition from a distinctly conservative point of view"). So basically no, your sources are terrible and it's an attack page, where the only reliable source just said conservatives have been attacking NGT, and not much else. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my count is correct I see 4.5 keep, 2.5 merge, and 21 delete so far. Considering that this is a WP:BLP attack piece, it would be swell if an admin gave this an early close. Alsee (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the BLP violation? I don't want to tiresomely repeat myself, but I keep seeing that asserted with no examples or evidence provided. Kelly ^hi! 11:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the tally of the vote but the multiple good reasons given for deletion. Speedy delete is reasonable. --Shabidoo | Talk 11:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters the fact that you tried to source it with a pile of random TWEETS blogs a podcast and Volokh Conspiracy are all gross violations of WP:BLPSPS. Yes, Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy is directly prohibited because it is explicitly not under Washington Post editorial control. But lets set aside that and just look at the best sources. WP:BPL sets a much higher standard than normal for including negative material in a Bio article at all, much less trying to spin off a Bio-attack piece. WP:BLP is "firm about the use of high-quality sources", and WP:WELLKNOWN italicizes multiple high quality sources before we can even consider including it. There is currently an RfC underway discussing whether the existing sources have sufficient high-quality weight to justify inclusion in the main article. They do not remotely support a spinoff article. Your spinoff article probably should have been blanked or speedily deleted under WP:BLP. You can't run off an make a spinoff article just to evade the policy-based objections in the main article. But the main problem here seems to be that you want Wikipedia to tell the WP:TRUTH about this, which is a sure fire way to lose Wikipedia policy arguments. On Wikipedia it doesn't matter if the story is true or not. Wikipedia reflects what Reliable Sources say, and we only do so in accordance with proper weight for inclusion and weight for quantity. Alsee (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pile of random tweets? I'm not seeing that. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion about the blogs at the WaPo but I believe WP:NEWSBLOG would apply in that case. In any event, there are multiple other sources. And I don't get where the WP:TRUTH accusation is coming from - is it simply because I've written an article? But the fundamental question I have is, exactly what is the nature of the WP:BLP violation you are claiming. The article basically boils down to a few main details - 1) Tyson attributed a quote to Bush, 2) Davis wrote about it 3)Other public figures stated that Bush never said it. That's it, and those central facts are sourced in accordance with WP:RS. There are other sources for non-contentious facts, such as the history of the news story being written, but those are not contentious. One of the blog sources is to the response from Tyson himself, which would be unfair not to include. So could you please specify how BLP is being violated or the subject of the BLP is being harmed? Kelly ^hi! 12:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to your other points, The Volokh Conspiracy does not meet the conditions described in WP:NEWSBLOG. Despite being hosted by the Washington Post and, confusingly, sharing its masthead, The Volokh Conspiracy is an entirely independent blog over which the Post exercises no editorial control (as described on The Volokh Conspiracy's about page, in fact). It isn't a blog-format column published by a news organization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way the Post would continue to host a column like The Volokh Conspiracy if it violated the newspaper's standards of conduct and journalism. Kelly ^hi! 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." "... we speak only for ourselves, and not for the institutions that employ us." That's unequivocal. Second Quantization (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to violate standards of journalism, the Post would dump them in a heartbeat. Kelly ^hi! 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping yourself by continuing this fiction that the Volokh Conspiracy equates to the WaPo. They make it abundantly clear that they are not a part of WaPo, have sole editorial control, and speak only for themselves. Your prediction that it would be dropped by WaPo if it did not meet, what you call, “standards of journalism” is an opinion. They cannot be independent of WaPo editotial control and inherit the Wikipedia mantle of RS held by WaPo. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additional sourcing from John Aziz of The Week which was published today.[4] Kelly ^hi! 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Several of you have mentioned notability. It is clear, from WP:FAILN, that articles that do not meet notability criteria should be either merged or deleted. The notability criteria for events can be found at WP:EVENTCRIT, and read, in part,

...not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).
...
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

I think it's clear that the "enduring significance" of Sean Davis' allegations is by no means established at the present time. If this controversy ends up changing how Americans view celebrity science communicators, or something like that, then it might warrant its own article. But not now. That, above all else, is why I advocate deletion as recorded above. Phillip A (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I don't think it's applicable here. The article is a content fork of Neil deGrasse Tyson's biography, and he is certainly a notable individual. Kelly ^hi! 15:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an acceptable fork does not exempt an article from notability criteria. For example, the article on Shakespeare's religion is acceptable, not simply because William Shakespeare is a notable person, but because the question of Shakespeare's religious beliefs has received significant scholarly attention. (If I created Size of Shakespeare's feet, I think it would be deleted.) I don't think you can make a serious argument that this article is in fact a section of the main Tyson article spun out for length, but even if you did, there is still the question of WP:UNDUE weight, especially when we're dealing with a WP:BLP. Phillip A (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: this is a BLP violation, covered up by a conspiracy theory, stuck into an urban legend that was actually repeated by the subject, slathered in racism, and wrapped into paranoia. Seriously, this is about as bad an attack job as I've ever seen in seven years. On top of it, every source is a blog, tweet, letter to the editor, or conspiracy website. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the racism? That is a pretty inflamatory remark and sounds like a red herring. Arzel (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the racism. But yes...the paranoia and urban legend...that's a nice touch! I would add college-prank to it. --Shabidoo | Talk 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do in fact consider these allegations notable, but they all could (and should) fit comfortably in one or two paragraphs on the Neil deGrasse Tyson page; a separate article is pointless. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable stuff indeed. Only the alleged Bush quotation is potentially worth including in the main article. According to a statistician, four fifths of this article is below average. Paul B (talk) 19:40, 25 September 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. That's what the consensus was even prior to Squeamish Ossifrage's impressive rewrite of the article on 29 September 2014‎.  Sandstein  19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory[edit]

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

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

Per the discussion held here. There is no source covering this topic in a non-trivial way; it is not notable and not encyclopedic, and fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. Nearly All of the content and the uses of references/citations in the article are WP:SYNTH. Logos (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: That discussion basically says that a "fringe theory" is only a concept within Wikipedia itself, which is not true. See here: a search result for "fringe theory" that excludes results in Wikipedia still gives 23,000 results. And then see here: if we exclude both the Wiipedia domain and the word "Wikipedia" itself, we still have 14,000 results. On the other hand, let's consider for a moment if the claim is true: the article should stay regardless. Even if the concept had been born inside wikipedia, it has clearly grew beyond it. The article would have to explain the origin of the term, then... citing some reliable source, and avoiding self-references. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS and of course WP:VERYOLD Logos (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which relation can you find between this discussion and "VERYOLD"? Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little nuance blinks its eye from "..it has clearly grew beyond it", to imply age or something similar.. Logos (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "grow" can also be used for something that has expanded from its smaller origin. For example, "The shop's sales are growing". In that case, "grow" is not focused in the pass of time (as when we use it in relation to people), but in the expansion itself. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then there is WP:PLENTY as well, for "argument from size" cases. Logos (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, there's no relation with the discussion at hand. You claim that a "fringe theory" is a concept that only exists within wikipedia, and I pointed that that's not the case, regardless of the concept initial origin (by the way, I have yet to see some source making the direct claim that "a fringe theory is a concept that originated in Wikipedia" or similar; you just gave inferences from statistics). To reply, you point an essay that says that the size of an article is not in itself a valid reason against deletion; something that nobody has suggested here. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreteing/misprepresenting my comments on fringe noticeboard. My point was/is "fringe theory" is well-established only in wikipedia; existence of such a phrase for decades does not warrant its place in wikipedia. It should have been discussed/defined extensively in more than 1 reliable source (as is the case with pseudoscience). I guess the best way to prove the existence of any extensive coverage of "fringe theory" concept outside wikipedia (that is your side of the debate), is to present reliable sources. This side of the debate (that is the side of the "delete" & "merge") can't prove something's absence (your challenge about "a source making the direct claim that a fringe theory is a concept that originated in Wikipedia or similar" is quite interesting/stereotypical though). The burden to prove something's existence is on "keep" side of this debate. For something to grow past it should have a quantifiable property like size or age; you stated it was not the age you were referring to, then the only quantifiable property left was the size, so there is a relation between WP:PLENTY and your argument. And there is this: WP:ONLYESSAY. Logos (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the misinterpretation. You say that "fringe theory" is well established only in wikipedia, and that's precisely the point that I have refuted in my first post. The concept does exist outside of Wikipedia, and you haven't really proved that it originated from Wikipedia in the first place. Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite normal that you can't see, because you're changing/amending your point(s) very frequently. "Claiming that 'fringe theory' is a concept which only exists within wikipedia" is not the same as "claiming that 'fringe theory' is well-established only in wikipedia". The latter is/was my claim, not the former, but you claimed that I had claimed the former. You haven't refuted anything until now, you're just spinning. As I stated in my previous comment; the burden is on your side, not on this side (that is me or anybody supporting merge/delete). Logos (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fringe theory is an accepted idea, look at a dictionary or search on google. Also there is a whole wikipedia content guideline based on this idea, WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories). Also see [[Category:Fringe_theory]].--Mrjulesd (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read all the discussion, then come back. WP:NOTDIC but even dictionaries do not seem to have given a damn about it: [5] [6] [7].

"Also there is a whole wikipedia content guideline based on this idea, WP:FRINGE": it's really fun to discuss here. Logos (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How likely would it be that there would be a whole WP guideline on the concept, without it also existing in the outside world? Also you have answered about all the references on the web. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should spend some time on a sandbox before participating in AfD discussions, which might have hallucinative effects on you; there is nothing in those dictionaries (the links I've given above) about "fringe theory". Logos (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK don't answer my questions. But it would be ridiculous to have a WP content guideline on fringe theories without having an article explaining its meaning.--Mrjulesd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What policies and guidelines we have, and terms for use in practice do not themselves need to be suitable for a dedicated article in an encyclopedia, Second Quantization (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: well I disagree. To have whole content guideline based on the concept of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but to not actually explain the term in an article, is ridculous. For example, lets say you wanted deeper understanding of the concept of "Fringe Theory" so you can better understand the WP guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories? If no article existed you'd have to use google to try to look up the term. Wikipedia:Fringe theories only discusses the WP policy, not the origins of the term.

Also, having a WP content guideline based on "Fringe Theory" suggests to me that it is a notable topic to address, which must exist of WP. And a google search confirms this. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or merge with fringe science. The idea that this topic is the result of Wikipedians' novel synthesis is impossible to reconcile with the abundant literature on the topic. It is legitimately true that there is no certain means to distinguish fringe theories or fringe science, but the demarcation problem does not invalidate a topic. Nontrivial works that are germane include, but are by no means limited to:

• Dutch, Steven I. (1982). "Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science". Journal of Geological Education. 30 (1): 6–13.
• Friendlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Westview. ISBN 978-0813390604.
• Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226051963.
• Wertheim, Margaret (2011). Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything. Walker Books. ISBN 978-0802715135.

The decision of whether fringe theory and fringe science are sufficiently distinguished from each other to warrant separate articles (as well as the quality of those articles) is an editorial matter, not an issue for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the references you listed might be about "fringe science" at best, not "fringe theory". I'm sure those books fail to cover "fringe theory" in a non-trivial fashion. Unnecessary splits should be avoided WP:AVOIDSPLIT; if not, it becomes more than an editorial issue -a matter of an AfD, to be more specific-. If "philosophy of science" (or any other recognised area of study), do not cover "fringe theory" in a serious manner (as with "pseudoscience"), then it is not more than an everyday trivial usage. The current state of the article does even fall under WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Logos (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find Blueboar's suggestion compelling: that this article's should serve as a categorical parent to topics such as fringe science and pseudohistory (finding significant discussion of pseudohistory as "fringe history" was trivial, and I can provide sources if required). I have struck my merger proposal accordingly. On the contrary, I find your dismissal of the sources I have already provided somewhat less persuasive. You will find that all of the above sources discuss the topic at some length, albeit admittedly while using varied nomenclature to do so. But neither am I particularly sympathetic to the argument that describing a theory forwarded by fringe science as a fringe theory constitutes a novel synthesis (and of the above, Wertheim, at a minimum, uses that precise phrase). As an aside, use of the phrase "fringe theory" dates back at least to a 1985 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer; it is not a novel coinage, nor one unique to this project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, age is not a factor: WP:VERYOLD Logos (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether we're on the same track. Using the precise phrase "fringe theory" is quite different than defining it extensively/sufficiently; the former is everyday trivial usage. If above sources discuss "fringe theory" at some length, why don't you add the relevant material into the article then. I'm sure everybody (including myself) will be happy to see those discussions -of which you claim the existence- from those sources in this topic's wikipedia article, rather than WP:SYNTHy citations and WP:OR article content/material. As WP:SYNTH states clearly, we can not use sources as references for the material which those sources even do not cover or imply. Logos (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware of sourcing requirements, and of the difference between passing use of a term and discussion of a concept. Conversely, I am aware that a source need not use the precise phrasing of a Wikipedia article title in order to be viable for referencing said topic (as confirmed by WP:TITLE); such a dichotomy is simply not what is contemplated by WP:SYNTH. Sources which discuss the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history clearly satisfy the requirements of applicability to a Wikipedia article on fringe theory. If your argument is that they do not, then we most certainly are not on the same track. Finally, whether or not I choose to take the editorial action of improving this admittedly sorry excuse for an article has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion of its eligibility for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No; you just seem trying to "abuse" (some might consider it as WP:GAMING) following statement in WP:TITLE/WP:RECOGNIZABLE in order to justify the inclusion of non-notable/trivial "fringe theory" concept, and to justify naming the article as "fringe theory": "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."

Sources which discuss the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history clearly do not satisfy the requirements of applicability to the Wikipedia article Fringe theory. In order for a source to be applicable/usable for Fringe theory article, it should have the extensive discussion and the definition of "fringe theory" concept. If the article in question were a list type, then the sources discussing the theories proposed by fringe science and/or fringe history would be applicable, just like in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.

As WP:PROVEIT states clearly; "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The eligibility for deletion is determined by WP:DELetion policy. If you present your claim (which states that some sources discuss "fringe theory" in non-trivial fashion at some length) as an argument to Keep Fringe theory in this deletion discussion, then I believe the burden is on you to prove it. Logos (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on an ground-up rewrite at this time; it will not be ready for several days, because I do not do slapdash research when I take the time to work in articlespace. However, since Logos's primary contention is that there are no sources which provide extensive discussion of a "fringe theory" concept, I will highlight the following two sources foremost, as they are explicitly concerned with providing a "fringe theory" definition (as part of an effort to improve the categorization of theories by level of acceptance):

• Dutch, Steven I. (1982). "Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science". Journal of Geological Education. 30 (1): 6–13.
• Duschl, Richard A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development. Teachers College Press. ISBN 978-0-8077-3005-8.

I trust that this satisfies the demand that I present satisfactory sources (insofar as my previous ones were still questioned). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For such a controversial subject, the sources better be online; so that everyone can check the related material. Otherwise, anyone can come and drop a source name here, as a proof for the verifiability; as is the case with the current material in the article. Regarding the Dutch's (who is an academic in geology) article, I can recommend this; where it is pretty obvious that Dutch's handling of "fringe theory" is not non-trivial.

"A useful classification scheme is that of Dutch (1980), who described a three-tiered hierarchical classification of theories: central, frontier, and fringe. Dutch (1980) classifies hypotheses as fringe theories; most do not stand the test of time and will be discarded. Some theories are supported but have unresolved inconsistencies and/or serious alternatives; these are frontier theories which constitute the mainstream thinking of a scientific discipline. Central theories are no longer seriously disputed, and form the foundation of a discipline."

It seems that he does not give an extensive definition of "fringe theory" concept, he just uses "fringe theory" phrase -together with central and frontier labeling- to label some group of theories hypotheses. So, "fringe theory" phrase was just used as a "tool" by Dutch; it was not the primary goal/objective of Dutch to deal with "fringe theory" concept in detail, which in the end makes that coverage trivial. Some other academic/scientist can come up with a different scheme of theory/hypothesis classification or labeling. Have mainstream scholars concurred with Dutch on such a classification/labeling? For example, an academic from a philosophy of science might object the classification of "hypotheses" as "fringe theories". That's why, we need to report mainstream view with reliable sources in wikipedia. A source reliable in some context might not be reliable in another WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Logos (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"For such a controversial subject, the sources better be online" I don't think so, see core policy, WP:Verifiability#Access to sources. There are libraries and bookstores and other ways to access sources for verification (including WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. If a source is published the onus falls on the editor who challenges the source to verify (of course collaboration can be helped by providing quotes etc.) I think the argument of trivial is weak but I await the forthcoming revision and my own verification of the sources presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:Verifiability#Access to sources states is a general principle. When editors do not fully follow WP:BURDEN, then it is quite normal to demand online sources:

"Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this."

So, it is fully clear from the policy WP:V that the onus is always on those seeking to include disputed content.

Actually WP:V summarizes all the key issues for inclusion, such as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ONUS, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original_research. Logos (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of linking to every policy you can find, maybe just read the relevant one. Firstly, WP:BURDEN is a content policy and not relevant in this discussion. Secondly, WP:BURDEN is satisfied when the citation is provided. There is absolutely zero requirement for it to be an online source. Second Quantization (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the policies/guidelines/essays I linked are relevant, including WP:BURDEN. WP:BURDEN is more satisfied when the sources are cited clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). If the page or section/chapter is omitted, then it is not a full citation and is not more than a general reference. Page numbers are important and needed to filter out WP:SYNTHy or irrelevant sourcing. Logos (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot "demand" online sources, see WP:Published. Full citations are of course highly preferable to incomplete ones and page/chapter numbers are almost a necessity. However a general reference could provide support for keeping an article, while being less desirable for supporting content. I would hope the pending rewrite will have precise citations. Given precise citations verification can be accomplished with less difficulty. There are still libraries, many materials are available for purchase etc. Free online sources is not a requirement on WP and you should know that. BURDEN say, "reliable, published source" not online source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can demand online sources for easier review, especially when presenting sources as a general reference without specifying page numbers has become a general practice. According to WP:Published's logic, which is neither policy nor guideline, if a source is "accessible" for the editor who cites it, then it will not be impossible to specify the page numbers. If page numbers are omitted, then the source's accessibility or relevancy becomes questionable. Logos (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"One can demand online sources for easier review" this is simply not policy also off topic RSN is the appropriate venue. Of ironic note one of the most accessable online sources for books, Google Books, often has digital versions of books that are not page numbered, I have seen unnumbered pages in digital books from Amazon also. However as I said, once a source has been provided, unless doing the verification that the source does not state what is asserted the policy is to AGF so long as the source is a reliable published source, contesting the reliability of a source is for RSN. While burden requires a clear and precise citation of source there is no policy supporting a demand for sources to be available online. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books need page numbers and in my experience the vast majority of book references do have page numbers. You can't demand online sources. You can ask for them, of course - or even find them yourself. Articles don't need page numbers. If the book is online without page numbers but can be linked via an url, that should do. Anyway, I can't see this article being deleted. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"vast majority" would be a very optimistic guess. Take fringe theory for instance; half of the books cited do not have page numbers. If the book is online and can be linked to the related page via an url, then page numbers can be omitted of course; otherwise it is no different than citing the book as a general reference. The key issue here is "accessibility", which is necessary to be able to check whether or not the material added exists in the source.

WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Therefore, normally this article should be deleted, as there is no solid argument from Keep side, not to mention WP:SYNTHy and irrelevant sources. However, I also can see that no any administrator can have that courage/nerve to close the discussion as Delete. Logos (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit Logos' arguments have merit but the counter arguments are not so poor as described in the quote above. I look forward to an improved article with clear references so this can be discussed with sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend that my rewrite is flawless nor complete. Most critically, I'm still awaiting access to a physical copy of Duschl's Restructuring Science Education, which should be a fairly critical source regarding efforts to overcome the demarcation problem. Accordingly, I'm not able to cite Duschl directly (and so cannot discuss his criteria for categorization). I've done what I can with Erduran & Dagher in the meantime, but I wouldn't consider this a comprehensive review of the literature until I can take care of that. There are also a couple of errant journal articles I'm trying to track down, but nothing central to the article structure. Regardless, I'd like to believe this is a substantially stronger article than the coatrack-y mess of a pseudo-disambiguation page that was there previously. I'm sorry it took me as long as I did to get this up; clearly, I had to put in some overtime on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs to be worked on. I feel that there are still many/some OR elements. For instance; "In a similar manner, what were once mainstream theories, such as phlogiston or luminiferous aether, can be superseded and relegated to the fringe". I don't suppose there can be such a backward shift, and also the cited book (Shermer reference looks merged with this) does not seem to support it. Because, a view/theory which was once mainstream, should be refuted/rejected somehow to fall from grace. Once refuted, then it is not a theory anymore: Obsolete scientific theory. Logos (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few and far between are the articles that could not be improved, however I think AfD is well passed. Any policy based dispute? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage's efforts are "admirable", but the article can not pass WP:OR. There still seems many "unpublished" elements/material in the new article. The lead has no reference; which source has at least the theme of that material? I am quite sure that if we check the citations one by one, we won't see more than a non-trivial coverage of "fringe theory", all are "peripheral" to the subject. And "a common sense distillation of its use in thousands of sources" looks like a workaround to WP:OR. You can't distillate something if the essence of it does not exist in any published source. "Fringe theory"s non-existence in other encyclopedias and dictionaries should tell something. Logos (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admirable gets scare quotes, huh? The lead is uncited because that is general practice; no information is presented in the lead which is not presented in greater detail in the body. Such statements need not be cited in the lead (absent certain exceptions, mostly dealing with BLP concerns, none of which apply to this lead as written). You will find that uncited leads of this nature are the default expectation for Featured Article Candidates. That aside, you are correct that this article is not done; I would not submit it to FAC while I have at least three source requests pending (especially including Duschl). A more thorough enumeration of topics which were formerly well-established and now exist solely as fringe theories might include modern geocentrism, for example, depending on what sources can confirm; whether obsolete or superseded scientific theories remain scientific theories is irrelevant to whether they are fringe theories, as the two phrases do not use the word theory in the same sense. I am more than happy to work with other editors to continue to refine the quality of this article. However, Logos, I do not believe that your interpretation of the very many policies you have cited is strictly compatible with community consensus regarding those policies, and I do not intend to respond further to your—my turn with scare quotes—"concerns". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not that much exception to citing in the lead WP:LEAD, WP:LEADCITE.

"You will find that uncited leads of this nature are the default expectation for Featured Article Candidates": is there any policy/guideline that you can refer to for this interesting piece?

The policies and guidelines I have cited are quite obvious, there are no gaps. If "community" had any problem with any of those, then they would have amended accordingly in writing, instead of referring to imaginary interpretations. You preferred to misrepresent/misinterpret (the ones of which I pointed above) and also to use fallacious arguments in order to strengthen your position.

You keep "producing"/sythesizing about fringe theory, but fail to cite sources for your improvisations. In wikipedia, we are after the published facts in published sources to include in articles, not after the editors' personal opinions/syntheses.

As I stated to another one, I don't care whether or not you or any other responds to my comments. Logos (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to this only to say that I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing article at WP:FAC, have sponsored three articles through the process personally, and am intimately familiar with the featured article community's expectations for lead citations (to wit: they are not required in most cases, and are generally discouraged because the lead should introduce no novel material; it serves an abstract). I find your continued insinuations of misconduct tendentious. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sided/partial with policies & guidelines and have been arguing by citing accordingly. If people also had responded by citing the relevant policies/guidelines, instead of arguing with weasel statements unsupported by policies/guidelines, then this discussion would have progressed healthily. Appealing to one's own personal subjective experiences with such a "peripheral"/secondary aspect of wikipedia, is a kind of appeal to authority, and is fallacious to me. Until an uncertain "featured article" "ranking" in future, such controversial articles should try to resolve WP:OR/WP:SYNTH doubts/concerns. Logos (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the main weakness of your arguments is that they have been that only been based on one particular aspect, that is a particularly strict interpretation of WP:OR. But you have not contemplated one particular policy, and that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense is part one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the principle that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." A number of common sense arguments have been brought forward, but you have not seemed to have contemplated them. In future you should be more open to common sense arguments, otherwise you can get a distorted view of the notability of subjects. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your only contribution to this discussion was nothing but just nonsense; this may be because of your being a newbie (if you're a sockpuppet, you would be amazed how efficient wikipedia checkusers are in identifying any sockpuppetry). "Ignorantia_juris_may_excuse" but "but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another". There is this essay WP:BITECLUB for you to study the other side of the story. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy, it's an essay; you will find the hierarchical order of power here. And Wikipedia:Five_pillars has no "common sense" in it; you can be sure that WP:V and WP:OR policies will not change radically -to excuse the type of workarounds devised for this and other articles- in next 100 years or so. If you keep gaming the system, you may learn the necessary precautions hard way. Logos (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Logos, I think you are coming close to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please argue against my views, not against my person. I assure you I am acting in good faith, please could you Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I am making my points for the common good. Also, please remember Wikipedia:Civility.

We might be straying from the point in hand, but I think that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does suggest WP:COMMONSENSE. It is an essay intended to give a deeper understanding of the "Ignore all rules", which at first sight might appear to be contradictory. Why have "Ignore all rules" as a pillar of Wikipedia? It explains the background to the rule, that sometimes policies can be interpreted in a way that seems to go against the interests of the Wikipedia project. Could you explain how you disagree with it?

On a personal basis, I'm a little tired of these deletion discussions, where users seem to get bogged down in the minutiae of WP policies, without being able to look at the bigger picture: is deletion in the interests of the Wikipedia project? If the bigger picture is ignored, countless hours are wasted arguing when the fundamental questions are ignored.

Logos, if you decide to comment further, please be civil. If you're not, I will probably choose not to respond. I am sorry if I have upset you, but I really think that these sort of things need to be said. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep... and I would oppose a merger with Fringe science... Fringe science is a subset of the broader Fringe theory. Just about every academic (and many non-academic) discipline has its own forms of Fringe. For example, there are Fringe theories that fall within the discipline of History (ie pseudo-history)... and let's not forget conspiracy theory (which can cross multiple academic disciplines)... that too is a subset of Fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the sources for such a classification/characterization? I guess you're also aware that what you claim is pure WP:OR. Logos (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article is clearly in need of improvement I agree it is a parent for a range of fringe theories. I think the concept of "Fringe theory" is widely enough employed to warrant an article. It may take some work to parse out the meaning from the vast number of sources that use the term/concept but it is clearly employed by multiple sources. The argument for notability is not really an issue. The contention of synth flies in the face of multiple use by multiple sources. How to compose the article properly to reflect what is meant in a variety of sources/contexts is an editorial matter not an AfD discussion. The argument to merge to fringe science ignores the fact that the term is more widely employed as "fringe theory". - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This is the same thing as crackpot theory and, per WP:DICDEF, we should cover this stuff together, not having a separate page for each form of words. Andrew (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crackpot theory does not exit, it links to pseudoscience. Now the problem of merging fringe theories with pseudoscience is that (i) Fringe theories are not necessarily scientific in nature (ii) There is slightly different semantics. Fringe theories are not necessarily untrue, it just means they are believed only by a small number of people. Pseudoscience is generally untrue as usually scientic observations have been made that invalidate it. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have categories when we want show the relations between close concepts (fringe theory appears as some sort of family resemblance concept), Second Quantization (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MrBill3. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to pseudoscience This article summarises four other related subtopics which constitute fringe topics as defined within wikipedia. Manys sources discuss each of the four subtopics in detail, but not the concept of fringes on some domain of study in depth from what I can see. They define it, but leave it at that. (suitable for a wikitionary). If the offline sources provide useful material to determine notability, then the revert can be undone and specific citations added. Second Quantization (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Clearly my comment no longer applies since new sources appear to have been found but I'll leave it to others to argue about keep, delete or redirect (I'm on a break), Second Quantization (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Reasons why this would be a bad idea. (i) Fringe theories are not necessarily scientific. For example, you could have a fringe theory that an assasination was performed by a government. That is not at all related to science. (ii) WP already has a content guideline based on the idea of fringe theories, Wikipedia:Fringe theories. It would be good to have an article that explains the concept behind the guideline, as Wikipedia:Fringe theories only explains the WP guideline, not the general meaning. --Mrjulesd (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article clearly talks about more than pseudoscience, and most of the sources (including the Wikipedia policy) use the term to refer to a particular set of related theories, each very clearly defined in their own right: conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific theories, and so on. If sources typically use "fringe theory" to refer to one or as a catch-all for all of these (again, as Wikipedia does), then wouldn't this page better serve as a disambig? Indeed that's the function, more or less, it presently serves: a lead, then sections for each more specific set with links to main articles. The question, I guess, is whether there's enough literature that not only uses the term but which talks about fringe theories in an all-encompassing way that draws connections between the different types or ignores the distinctions entirely. My inclination would be to keep under the assumption there are sufficient such sources, but the article currently doesn't seem to treat the subject that way. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "wouldn't this page better serve as a disambig?" I don't think so, since there is only one definition of a fringe theory: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view." Disambiguity pages are only for when there can be more than one definition of a term, in other words ambiguity, e.g A Good Day has several meanings. But there is none in this case. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to comply with minimum requirements of WP:EDIT, you should be able to understand some day that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories is WP:OR. Logos (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite follow you. I'm not saying that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory. Merely that is suggests notability. WP content guidelines are normally exempt from WP:OR since they only refer to WP policy. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is exempt from WP:OR; anything that has not been published outside wikipedia is WP:OR and "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" is WP:OR. If you're not saying that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory, then you should not refer to any part of WP:FRINGE for the definition of "fringe theory". Logos (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nothing is exempt from WP:OR" then what about pages like Wikipedia:Five pillars? I think it is fair enough to say it is OR. No citations are given. "If you're not saying that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories should be a source for Fringe theory, then you should not refer to any part of WP:FRINGE for the definition of "fringe theory"." You're twisting my words. I didn't use WP:FRINGE as a definition of fringe theory. I merely said that if we have the policy WP:FRINGE, it would be sensible to have an article explaining the meaning of "fringe theory".

Logos, unless you can make some better points I won't respond. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you respond or not; I am responding for general audience, not for you. If any element/material of Wikipedia:Five pillars is included in any article in article namespace, then it is WP:OR. You referred to WP:FRINGE by claiming that the definition of "fringe theory" is: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view", because this is an element/material from WP:FRINGE, written/devised by wikipedia editors -which makes it WP:OR-. Logos (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fair question has been raised. Is the above definition of fringe theory a common sense distillation of its use in thousands of sources or is it OR/SYNTH? It would be preferable to have the definition/content of the article based on scholarly opinion. I hope the proposed rewrite resolves this. Beyond that I maintain the opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough and present in enough sources to warrant an article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Is this done now based on the rewrite? I am suitably impressed to consider the argument for deletion as having no reasonable standing in the context of AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since Squeamish Ossifrage's complete overhaul of the article, I feel the topic is better defined as more than an umbrella term (as was my concern in my comment above). Still needs some work, clearly, but this is a completely different animal now than it was when AfDed. Kudos for the hard work. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Squeamish Ossifrage's editing is nothing short of amazing, on the article Fringe theory. To delete now would be a tragedy. I have awarded him an editor's barnstar! --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:08, 30 September 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 Keep per WP:SK. It doesn't have a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted. :) Andrew (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball (Animal Farm)[edit]

Snowball (Animal Farm) (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 article is pure plot, with no references. There's no valuable content to merge somewhere else. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is an invalid nomination. We don't delete articles based on their current content, as they could always be improved (with certain exceptions, e.g. copyrighted text).Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep See Talk:Animal Farm for the recent blanking of 9 articles below Animal Farm itself.

Of the allegorical animal characters, Snowball is the one most easily identified with a historical character. This is also well covered in any student study notes edition on the novel.

With a comment like "article is pure plot", I wonder if the nominator has even read the book? Where in the book is the name Trotsky ever mentioned? Similar points apply to nearly all of the character articles: Orwell put it on with a trowel and the people implied are very obvious. However such things do need to be explained - they are not in the book, the book is an allegory and it relies on some historical familiarity. Such a purpose is encyclopedic and entirely within WP's scope.

As to sourcing, then that's a fair criticism and an easy fix but it's a lousy rationale for AfD. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PLOT. An article about an element from a wor of fiction such as a character can not have just a plot summary and nothing else. And yes, Animal Farm is a notable novel, but that doesn't mean that its characters are automatically notable as well. Brave New World is also a very important novel, and yet we do not have articles on Bernard Marx or John the Savage. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Derivative articles. Cambalachero (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, speedy close. The idea that there isn't sufficient critical commentary on one of Orwell's most prominent works to sustain an article on a major character could easily have come from the Ministry of Truth. Wikipedia does an utterly wretched job overall of covering most major literature, but "since it's bad, make it worse" isn't policy yet. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:58, 24 September 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 Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association#South Shore League. WP:NOTBURO. The original AfD closure (merge and redirect) was not properly implemented; nevertheless, it stands, as the content here is identical to the content that was merged to the target. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Shore League[edit]

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

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

Page was previously deleted after results of last AFD and merge was completed. An editor created the article again and it has been available for some time. Since I was the nominator for the first discussion, I thought it best to send it to AFD again. The question: Is it worthy for its own article now? I say no based on the previous discussion --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 24 September 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 September 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect It is essentially a copy from Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. No need to have two copies. Bgwhite (talk) 20:07, 24 September 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) Ethically^Yours! 05:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Shui Wai Hospital[edit]

Tin Shui Wai Hospital (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 article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and does not meets WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft - Delete as per WP:FUTURE but move to draftspace until Hospital's notability is established. STSC (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More contents added with sources from different newspapers. Chchan0 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ORG. Significant coverage in multiple mainstream Hong Kong newspapers. Also, hospitals seem to be notable per WP:OUTCOMES.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several good references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added source mention from construction firm. Referenced. --doncram 14:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added sources establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 00:10, 1 October 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Tridevil[edit]

Jasmine Tridevil (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)

If there was ever a true WP:BLP1E, this is it. The whole event is a hoax. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not sure whether it's a hoax or not but per nom this is BLP1E in all its glory!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - WP:BLP1E a flash in the pan hoax that made some "news of the weird" filler before being "exposed". no indication of this being a hoax of any lasing significance that anyone will mention after the next tabloid sexpose hits the screens. Wikipedia should not be WP:NOTADVERT playing into her desire to become "famous". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are millions of people with physical deformities, self-inflicted or otherwise; there's no indication that this one is any more notable than the others. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the comments above, clearly BLP1E. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:

I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a girl with three boobies

A girl whose third breast is prest

Against the internet's flowing tempest;

A prosthetic that lights up TMZ all day,

Betwixt her sisters and some tri-devil lingerie.

A boob that may in Summer air

On MTV, if her luck be fair;

Oh this bosom which recently lay

In an airport's missing luggage bay.

Poems are made by fools like me,

But Jasmine belongs at AfD.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is covered by reliable sources only in the context of a single event. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 September 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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpit Manager '14[edit]

Cockpit Manager '14 (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 game. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources only confirm it exists and do not show how the game is notable. --McDoobAU93 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it's extremely obscure and fails notability guidelines. And reading the text of the article, its purpose seems to be "look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!" mores than anything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'Obscure' and 'look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!'? As far as I know, this game is known as one of the only recent managerial F1 games. How do you prove a game's notability? (number of downloads? how many countries is it being distributed? please enlighten the fan base, so we can fix it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisHamilchamp (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that it's one of, or even the, 'only recent managerial F1 games'. You prove notability not through downloads or distribution, but through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. You need to demonstrate that the game has attracted the attention of the gaming press, basically. Blogs and fansites don't count: magazine reviews, blurbs at major gaming sites, and the like are what are needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'You need to demonstrate that the game has attracted the attention of the gaming press, basically'. Thank you, that's what he should be going for. 'Obscure' and 'look at what Brazilians are doing, yay!' is plain stupid, as it is disrespectful with wiki contributors. I didn't create the article, I just think that the purpose of wikipedia is to be the internet encyclopedia. Pretty sure a lot of people read this article to get information about the game. References will be added, regarding notability.LewisHamilchamp (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs are download sites and do not meet the standard of RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:59, 27 September 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fettle[edit]

Fettle (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)

Product that doesn't pass notability. Unsourced. And I think the author is directly related with the company. Also reads like an advert. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. Advert by an editor with obvious conflict of interest. Lemnaminor (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with speedy delete G-11 for non-notable product, article not salvageable. --Bejnar (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 - article already tagged. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:00, 24 September 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Star Wars[edit]

The Art of Star Wars (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 and non-notable book about non-notable art. A Google search brings up book reviews and Star Wars fanages. Fails WP:NBOOK Nathan121212 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of course a Google search brings up book reviews. How else is a book generally discussed in reliable sources? It is usually book reviews that provide the bulk of coverage that is required for the WP:GNG portion of WP:NBOOK. As far as the art, John Hart in The Art of the Storyboard: A Filmmaker's Introduction (page 30) called Carol Titelman (ed.) (1979) The Art of Star Wars the definitive work on the development of the inspiring cinemagraphic art of Star Wars, techniques that had a profound impact on modern movies. It was reissued in 1997 with additional content. --Bejnar (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant commercial reviews. Those aren't reliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the nom. indicated that these books detail "non-notable art", but the Star Wars art of Ralph McQuarrie and other included artists such as Tom Jung and Drew Struzan seems to be notable under Wikipedia criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a couple of references. The USA Today review is not very substantive, but it was the only online review (not bookseller, not blog, not random reader, although given that it is USA Today maybe only slightly rewritten from the publisher's press release) that I found. Many of the reviews of these books are only going to be in paper copy, such as that in The School Library Journal, as the books generally came out well before wide-spread use of the web, so finding more is going to be quite tedious, but I have no doubt that such reviews are there. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recently added sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't able to find many online sources, but it appears that there are many offline sources. These sources are perfectly acceptable, and I believe that WP:N has been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination: Benjar, you fixed it. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 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 per WP:SNOW. A search brings up nothing to show that this anime has ever existed and at best, this is something that someone came up with WP:ONEDAY and decided to add to Wikipedia. Even if this does get made, we would still require coverage in reliable sources to prove notability, which does not exist at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime White Fairy[edit]

Anime White Fairy (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 contains negligible text to identify its subject and importance to be included in encyclopedia Owais khursheed (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Non-notable anime, with no indication of significance or importance. Wikicology (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - I can't decide if it's an obvious purely promotional article or just an obvious hoax given the lack of anything really existing on the "official site". Either way it's completely non notable work and the Author has no problem telling us it's about their own work. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability, no references except the "official site", no reliable sources to be found. Lemnaminor (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFT 12.249.243.118 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete tagged for WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above, Should probably be snow closed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete There is no way I see this being kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is overly promotional and fails WP:GNG. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 25 September 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 speedily deleted by User:TParis per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Ojha[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO I haven't been able to identify any sources to support notability. Cult of Green (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Article about a real person with no significance or importance. Cult of Green, I don't think this article is eligible for WP:AfD, it obviously meet WP:CSD#A7.Wikicology (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, anything eligible for CSD is automatically eligible for AfD or PROD as well. CSD is a shortcut for certain fairly obvious and easily decided things. In this case, I too can find nothing in the way of sources, and unless the author gives us something, I can't see there being any. There must have been hundreds of thousands of independence activists, and very few would be Gandhis or remotely near. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 24 September 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) Ethically^Yours! 05:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean City Police Department (Maryland)[edit]

Ocean City Police Department (Maryland) (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 indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Article obviously meet WP:GNG. I think WP:BEFORE Is necessary. I found [8][9][10][11]. The fact that references are not present in the article does not indicate its non-notability.Wikicology (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although this police department serves a city of only 7,000 odd people, it has a strength of 105 officers, plus another 100-110 seasonal officers, which makes it pretty substantial by American PD standards and unusually large for the population it serves (presumably due to the large numbers of visitors the city gets). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good source coverage, most educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 27 September 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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Major League Soccer and North American Soccer League (1968–84)[edit]

Comparisons between Major League Soccer and North American Soccer League (1968–84) (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)

Reads like an essay, personal opinion, tons of problems. Better to delete than keep around ViperSnake151  Talk  05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Possibly a well-researched topic but all the shame a shining example of what Wikipedia is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolute OR. GiantSnowman 19:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Good start on a research paper, but definitely WP:NOT and WP:OR -- Jkudlick (talk) 07:45, 29 September 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 deleted. (Non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teiosha George[edit]

Teiosha George (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)

College basketball player; never played professionally; does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. PROD was removed without comment by article's author. MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per WP:NBASKETBALL, did play professionally but in a very low German league in 2008–09 [12]. The only thing notable about her is that she is the sister of Paul George. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, this article has been speedy deleted already about a week ago. It was created by the same person under a different user name without references. This person/user has been been a problem lately with sock puppetry, so no wonder he/she removed the PROD without comment. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG. Bring the sibling of someone notable does not confer inherent notability on the person in question. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note The article has been deleted under the WP:CSD#G5 criteria as it was created by a sock account in violation of their block.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 25 September 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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom! (MCN)[edit]

Freedom! (MCN) (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 indication of notability. A Google search turned up no reliable, independent sources. Also fails the notability criteria for web content. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as nominator, can not find any sources expect for the Social Blade stats page. TheMesquito^buzz 04:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. No evidence of notability. I can't find significant reliable sources that establish its notability.Wikicology (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 September 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 List of Chinese teas. The policy-based arguments are basically centering around issues of original research and giving undue weight to specific sources. Consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much of the content, if any, is appropriate for inclusion there or elsewhere. slakr^\ talk / 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China's Famous Teas[edit]

China's Famous Teas (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 topic doesn't actually seem to be an actual specifically notable list, it's just 3 different examples of lists of top teas. The sites from which the lists are taken aren't even using a particular metric or anything, but are just "ranked by the frequency they appear on 20 lists from various references". Yaksar (let's chat) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This set off a dim alarm bell in that I saw the article ages ago and thought that something needed to be done with it - particularly given the peacock term in the title. The Chinese term "中国十大名茶" is a widely known phenomenon so although there are no notability issues there are still problems. The first one is that the closest English translation, i.e. "China's ten famous teas" is naff. The second problem is that opinions vary as to which ten teas are the top ones. My suggestion is that we move the topic to "List of the top ten Chinese teas" and decide on the criteria for inclusion on the talk page of the new article. Tea is a fundamental in Chinese culture and the people's obsession with fame and lists means that we would be mistaken to dismiss the topic out of hand.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you say the concept is more along the lines of something like, say, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, or maybe like College and university rankings, where we could find some authoritative sources? Because I'm not totally sure I understand your suggestion to move the page to "List of the top ten Chinese teas", which would still suffer from the same issues. We do have plenty of articles on notable top lists, such as FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, but these aren't really of the same type as here, where it's simply "favorite teas from certain blogs or polls".--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is that this is a topic unique to China due to the deep infusion of tea into the culture (pun intended). It can't really be compared to the Seven wonders (not as important) or other "lists". That said, list format would seem the most appropriate even if it's a "hidden" list like "China's top ten teas", say.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This topic is seemingly based of opinion pieces of what's the best Chinese teas (in the form of a subjective "top ten list") rather than an actual concept. The nature of the topic is subjective and not encyclopedic; there's no notability in these rankings. --Cold Season (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to History of tea in China. According The Story of Tea: A Cultural History and Drinking Guide, China's Famous Teas derived from Imperial Tribute Teas and the book has a list of such tribute teas. It seems that the term is verifiable, but I've been unable to find multiple in depth RS needed for notability. The term seems worth a mention in History of tea in China, but other than this book, I don't seen any canonical list. Presumably, Chinese historians have evidence of which teas were Imperial Tribute teas; this might form the basis for a list. --Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The key here is that the topic (although perhaps not in its current wording) is notable based on significant coverage in independendent reliable sources. However, as Chinese Wikipedia says, there are multiple interpretations of what the ten top teas are. The China Internet Information Center's Top 10 Chinese teas is arguably the official list as it is published by an offshot of Xinhua, the state news agency. Then there is the Agriculture Department of China 1959 list (already in the article), a list by Hong Kong's Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po daily published on January 18, 2002 and the Fox News World's top 10 teas, although that includes one Indian tea.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a need for the the topic to be treated as a concept in reliable secondary sources and not to just have a variety of arbitrary top ten lists as opinion pieces in news blogs or other media, which does not even treat these listings as a concept and it would be WP:OR to do so here. --Cold Season (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the point, Xinhua, Wen Wei Po and Fox News are reliable secondary sources.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment consist more than what you directly replied to; none of those establishes the notability of or even mention this article's subject as concept, that is, China's Famous Teas. It would be a WP:SYN (of cited sources with an own conclusion) to present it a such. --Cold Season (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned twice above, it's the translated title that's the problem not the concept behind it. Multiple reliable sources discuss China's top/famous ten teas, which make the topic notable and in no way represents WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple sources give an opinion about what they think are the best teas of China (except the Fox News one, which is irrelevant here, since they include non-Chinese teas), and they do not discuss or even indicate their listings as a concept (whatever it may be purportedly "translated" as). There's also no inherent notability of topics like "Top ten teas of China according to China Internet Information Center," which is the actual topic that can be attributed the source China Internet Information Center... etcetera with the other sources (and anything else is WP:OR, since it's subjective what the top teas are). They certainly do not discuss a concept. --Cold Season (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator - I don't in theory have any issue with a merge of this topic to the Chinese Tea article. However, given that A) we all seem to agree that the current title is not fitting and B) there's not really any usable and verifiable content in this article that isn't just opinion of blogs and specific sources, I'm not sure that a merge or even redirect would be helpful or wanted. It seems easier and far more logical to add the actual information into the article and create redirects instead from the suggested better names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect should not be kept, since there's no such term. --Cold Season (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These are a real notion within the country. It is correct to prefer cited lists, however this article is both useful and partly cited at present. I am strongly against deletion. There is far too much good content getting deleted recently. Expand and improve, don't delete. These discussions just sap everyone's time. prat (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited to things that are completely unrelated to the purported concept of "China's Famous Teas", so it's WP:OR and a very loose (read: wrong) use of references. --Cold Season (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not really a list article, so much as a case of "here's three different lists that certain websites think are the most famous teas.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:33, 17 September 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,  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:37, 17 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to List of Chinese teas which already has the sub-section of China famous tea. STSC (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of consensus, a merge to List of Chinese teas is also a reasonable alternative that I would support. At least that section notes the variability of the list. --Mark viking (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a wholly uncited section. --Cold Season (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article uses two surveys of 10 and 20 lists and an official list to demonstrate rankings; the way it presents a notable subject in ranking lists is not a valid reason for deletion, and the process of collecting data in these lists is certainly not "OR". The article is still a stub; if more varieties of top ten list of Chinese tea were added then the article would be more interesting and informative. STSC (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those lists have notability, lacking in significant coverage. No one stated here that the methodology of compiling those lists meets WP:OR, since wikipedia editors are not the ones who compiled it. It is however OR to present those lists as this purported concept "China's Famous Teas" while the references does not. --Cold Season (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines only apply to the topic (China's Famous Teas), not to the content (the ranking lists). Those lists are based on RS which present the lists as "Top Ten Teas of China", "The 10 Most famous Chinese teas", and "China top ten famous teas" ( 中国十大名茶), so it's not OR at all. STSC (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the topic is indeed OR. The rest is a repeat of what you said, which no one has stated in opposition against; just to clarify, to what statement were you referring to when you put quotation marks to "OR" above? --Cold Season (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strike out any misunderstanding in my comments. Could you please point out which Wiki policies that deal with your concern about the topic (not the content) being "OR"? STSC (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article combines several references to suggest a new statement not supported by any of the sources (WP:SYN), that is, that there's some sort-of symbolic list of the top Chinese teas. If the article would be merged, this aspect needs to be culled out to reflect the references. --Cold Season (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Chinese teas#China_famous_tea per STSC. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 23:15, 3 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Infante[edit]

Isa Infante (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)

Yet another campaign brochure for yet another unelected candidate in yet another future election — which, as always, is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL. This relies almost entirely on primary (party's own website) and user-generated (VoteSmart, Tumblr blogs) sources for referencing, with very little reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG. As usual, she'll be entitled to an article in November if she wins the election, but is not entitled to keep a poorly sourced campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tennessee gubernatorial election, 2014, which is the proper place to cover this unelected candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She passes the notability test. It should not be deleted, but marked as needs work. This is my first discuss, so please bear with me on technicalities. First, the article could use improvement, and I do not object to that. (I was planning on improving it days ago, but published it because I felt it met the minimal requirement. Then I had a personal issue to deal with, and probably won't have significant time until Monday.)

When I was writing Isa Infante's entry, I was focusing more on trying to adhere to biography rules but I had original sources, although I now realize I should have focused more on notability. It's my understanding notability is by subject, not content.

Isa Infante is a “Permanent” topic, relevant, and meets notability standards. The article does not warrant deletion because it meets minimal standards, does not break any rules, and does not cause any conflict.

Permanency is: 1) She is the first Green Party Gubernatorial candidate to be allowed on the ballot with the Green Party's name. (The Green Party has been in Federal Court since 2007 suing  the State of Tennessee for unconstitutional ballot access laws.) 2) She is also the first woman candidate for governor from the Green Party 3). She is a founding member of the Peace and Freedom Party in California . (Once I get more information I can add it to that page too. We have pictures, I was in the process of learning how to post pictures on Wikipedia just to get her profile picture up.)

Case # 3:13-cv-01128 document 30 filed 3-14-14 Green party of Tennessee vs Hargett but I wanted to go through and see if her name/address was on it.

The only other woman to run for Governor in TN (that I'm currently aware of ) is Kate Bradford Stockton born in the 1800s, ran about 1930 I think. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1BLWA_enUS572US573&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=kate%20bradford%20stockton)

Also worth noting is that Isa Infante is a Latino-African American - which adds to more "firsts."

I was first shocked by the Tumblr remark (and was in the process of writing “I would never cite Tumblr! Ever!”), then saw that I did, in fact, cite the Knoxville Journal's tumblr account. Although I plan on changing it I'd like to bring this up for discussion (maybe in a difference place, or has this been brought up before?) Does that mean you would also dismiss PBS on Tumblr if it was PBS's official account? Does the form/platform - book, magazine, newspaper, website all text, website image and text, or design make the source any less credible? Isn't PBS still PBS?

There have been news articles about Isa Infante throughout the last few decades, but a simple Google of her name and getting past the political stuff brings up results, however much of her work was in the 1970s, thus articles are archived or on microfiche. She is a founding member of the Peace and Freedom Party in California . (Once I get more information I can add it to that page too.) (I have to search archives for older ones.) That demonstrates there is interest in her, however Wikipedia says popularity is not a measure of notability. Her being a member of a task group under Jimmy Carter should be points towards notability, and that is in the article. In that position, she worked with the attorney who argued Roe vs. Wade (Sarah Weddington). (Though in by itself association isn't enough, but in context with the White House work it is.) She also has a published work that is referenced by others. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5954947157107714008&as_sdt=5,43&sciodt=1,43&hl=en)

Also, only 3 out of the 13 citations were from the Green Party website and NONE were from her campaign website and NONE were from her social media websites. Just the facts, in a neutral tone. So Brad's statement "This relies almost entirely on primary (party's own website)" is false and should be removed from consideration.

Six (more than half of the remaining 10) are secondary sources. 3 of which are different newspapers, and 2 which are different notable educational institutions.

Four are votesmart - and I merely chose that because they conveniently had her work experience and education listed. (I had plans to condense those four) We did not submit any information to Votesmart at the time this Wiki article was made. I actually found Votesmart looking for sources, since what I had could have been challenged. (And knowing dirty politics in TN, that was likely to happen.) I've seen voter websites used before as references on Wikipedia. I read the biography and sources page and felt they were within standards. The site is recommended by New York Times, Bill Moyer and others. It is not opinionated, it is just work/job history.

Since notability is recognized and affirmed through court papers, I am requesting that you do not delete the article, but instead let it read that it needs work. And I request you excuse me at the moment for not putting all the Wiki links in about biography and all that because it's 2am, I have to go to bed, I have work to do before I do, and you know all that stuff anyhow. :) Thank you for your patience with a newbie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.93.117 (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merely being a candidate for governor is not sufficient to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service: The Movie[edit]

Community Service: The Movie (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 indication of notability. The previous AfD was closed as a weak keep based on there being a review from Film Threat, but upon further inspection the disclaimer at the bottom of that review indicates that Film Threat was paid by the film's creator/distributor to review the film. That doesn't necessarily make the review biased, but it does mean that the fact that the review exists doesn't indicate notability. The other source, the news story about blackmail, is really a passing mention of the movie itself in a story about the creator being investigated for a crime. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Same weak keep per valid conclusions of last AFD just last June. That Film Threat is not a charity and has to pay their bills does not cast aspersion upon their reviews. RS is established through their long-standing film expertise. They pointedly assure neutrality and do not promise a positive review. Even with submitter paying for postage they could have decided to not review. Fine. And not really germane, even New York Times has to pay their bills through advertisement and subscriptions. WP:RS is determined through expertise... and Film Threat had that long before they had to ask filmmakers to pay for their time and postage. That the film has further coverage over the filmmaker's efforts to gain financing from a tobacco company is an added bonus which offers verification of some production information (Note: No film topic need be the "sole topic" of any source, just so long as the source can verify film information for our readers). Notability is through available coverage, even if not used in the article... and genre sources tend to show genre interest.[13][14][15][16][17] and supported by a few minor awards indicative of it being written of elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that Film Threat's reviews are biased, because that is completely irrelevant to notability. A bad review implies just as much notability as a good review, so it really doesn't matter. However, Film Threat is taking money to guarantee reviews (it's not just paying for postage). Yes, they have the right to refuse to review a movie, but according to their FAQ page: "It is very rare, however, where we have decided not to review a film submitted through this system, but it has happened." That doesn't sound like the sort of editorial selectiveness required to confer notability, nor does it sound like Film Threat is truly an independent source (again, it's irrelevant whether or not Film Threat's reviews are neutral, as even a negative review can be used to determine notability). Look at how WP:BIO handles similar situations: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability. Film Threat accepts self-nominations, so it does not prove notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That same straw man could be used to attack any source that pays its bills, as they are commercial enterprises and not non-profits. You going to take pot shots at Variety (magazine) next? And please, let's not WP:WAX, while they can be related, BLP issues are not the same as notability ones. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a straw man, if anything your equating taking money in exchange for reviews to selling advertising is a strawman. I can't find a copy of Variety's editorial policy, but I can't find any indication that they have a policy of covering any film that pays them to do so. If Variety, or any other publication, included a disclosed "paid supplement" or "sponsored article" it wouldn't provide evidence of notability, but that is a completely different situation that an editorially independent publication accepting advertising. Read WP:IS: Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). Yes, many publications take advertising, but they have a strict firewall between advertising and content, and editorial policies that prevent advertisers from determining content. That's completely different from a company taking money to write about something. I'm not saying the reviews are biased, just that they can't indicate notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I started an RfC on the Film Threat issue here. I'll also add that WP:NF requires "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", and this film only has one review. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While appreciating your zeal, you make a misstatement I see often. WP:NF does NOT mandate nor require "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Re-read the header at WP:NF#Other evidence of notability as set to speak toward older films not newer and the tendency of editor's over-reliance on the internet... and then go visit WP:OEN. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Third comment here, sorry. Lets break down those sources you cited. While all of them could be reliable sources for establishing facts in the article, I don't see a case for them establishing notability. The first is the film's own kickstarter campaign, which is not only a WP:SPS, but is essentially an advertisement, not an indication of notability. The News Record and Journal Now articles are about the filmmaker being charged with a crime, and are not significant coverage per WP:GNG (those sources could merit the inclusion of this film in an article about the filmmaker, but evidence of his notability is very weak per WP:BLP1E). The Horrorsociety listing asks readers to "visit our kickstarter page", so it is either a self published sourceWP:UGC or a regurgitation of a press release, but in either case it isn't independent. The Film Bizarro review appears independent, but isn't a "nationally known critic" per WP:NF, and even if it was, that would only be one independent review. I won't even get started on IMDB, which is a WP:SPSWP:UGC, not an indication of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SPS??? Wow. IMDB is a for-profit enterprise and now a subsidiary of commercial giant Amazon.com. It is no way WP:SPS. While it is not considered a reliable source, it does offer information that could lead editors to expanded searches to find accepted reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're partially right, in that I used WP:SPS where I really meant WP:UGC: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth" as well as WP:RS/IMDB: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why descend into useless arguments? NO ONE is using IMDB to cite this article, specially not I. As for WP:UGC... IMDB, errors and all, has a paid staff to research and add information to their database and they do receive information from the very industry for which they were set up. They do not use "user-generated" content (that's us), though they do have a vetting process for user-submitted information before publishing. The site is considered unreliable because of a low-level of admitted errors (heck, even the New York Times has errors) and lack of transparency over their editing/vetting processes... but mostly because of the actual user-content in their blogs and forums and resumes. But again, discussing it here is pointless because it does not cite this article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And a comment toward your statement "The News Record and Journal Now articles are about the filmmaker being charged with a crime, and are not significant coverage per WP:GNG". You misunderstand WP:GNG, sorry. Those rather lengthy articles dealt with allegations of the filmmaker trying to extort money from RJ Reynolds to finance just this film. So as they deal with an aspect of the film in a more-than-trivial manner, they are applicable. Had the articles been only brief mentions about the filmmaker or about his doing some non-film-related, your point would be valid. What you failed to read is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source." Winston-Salem Journal 1, News & Record, Winston-Salem Journal 2 all speak toward indictments directly related to this film's production. And so while your idea of using this indictment in the filmmaker's article is a thought, but it raises concerns under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:03, 11 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 16 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep MQS is in my opinion our most reliable editor in this field, and his arguments are convincing. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 24 September 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 List of Filipino films in 2012 and other year articles, as appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Philippine Film Award Season[edit]

2012 Philippine Film Award Season (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 denying that the awards mentioned here are all prestigious and notable. However, the term "film award season" is not used at all in Philippine sources. While there is an article for Film awards seasons, it is a Western-centric article. I'm not against this being moved to another title should this be kept, but there doesn't seem to be coverage for these awards together, just individually. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

2013 Philippine Film Award Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

2014 Philippine Film Award Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to their respective "List of Filipino films in xxxx" such as List of Filipino films in 2014. There's no such thing as a season made up of all 365 days. –HTD 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per HTD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 8 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge all to Film awards in the Philippines which seems more to the topic than List of Filipino films in XXXX. That is, keep the content, but move it into the Film awards article, and I don't think we need a redirect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Two different merge targets have been presented; relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge per all the above. In response to the relist's request for opinions on the preferred redirect target: both proposals have their merits, but if required to choose, I would go with "List of Filipino films in xxxx", because it makes sense to me that the annual summary of the year's film activity would benefit from a list of the award winners as well, while I am not sure that we'd be as likely to want a single article that accumulated all of the winners of all of the awards for all of the years. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to merging to Film awards in the Philippines, that means every award from each organization from every year would have to be posted there. That's a lot. Posting it on a yearly article is a much efficient approach. –HTD 14:00, 3 October 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.