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.
Updating my vote above: I've done a more discriminating search at newspapers.com, but all the coverage I've found is pretty minor. I see that no one else has had any luck sources-wise either. The subject only has a weak case for WP:NACTOR, too, as I opined above, so I'm downgrading my vote to "Weak Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A problem is the subject (a BLP) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to support a stand alone article. This article joins approximately 1100 others where IMDb is used as a source but is inappropriate. We end up with a pseudo biography (one paragraph) that contains one or more embedded lists of entertainment credits. Wikipedia is not a listing of all things entertainment nor an advertising venue for IMDb. Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2020 (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.
Comment Are either of those notable accomplishments though? It doesn't seem like either fit the criteria for notability of winning a major musical award in WP:Notability (music). Christian artists win the Grammys and Juno awards all the time, both of which would count for notability. I don't think his inclusion in these "halls of fame" do though. They don't even meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You can't say someone is notable for being in a hall of fame, when the hall of fame their in isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the hall of fame is notable has not been determined yet, but I expect it will be in the coming days. (Note to closer: See if the hall of fame article is closed or not.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source already cited, a quick g-hits search (which is supposed to be done as part of WP:BEFORE) brought up this and this. He's notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC
Comment This source [1] (already linked above) is most likely user generated and not sufficient as independent secondary coverage. However, this source [2] (already linked above) appears to be RS, at least at first glance. Are there any sources to indicate the subject has been inducted into the hall of fame? This source [3] in the Wikipedia article does not appear to cover Whitfield. I did a search with the source and found nothing so far. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first link in the second reference does not work (at least not for me). However, the second link in the second reference produced this [4]. This should be the active link in the references section. Based on this source it seems his contribution to this music genre' had an impact. Then I found this on the second link of the first reference [5]. Based on this source, it again seems his contribution to the music genre had an impact. Also, the links need to be fixed in this Wikipedia article. And the encyclopedia reference needs to be added. After that if someone wants to add the user generated link, then I don't think it would be a problem. So, after all this I am Ivoting Keep based on the three references I mentioned - besides the user-generated link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guest contributors would seem to indicate (to me) it could be user generated. And I don't know what kind of vetting the staff is subjected to regarding accuracy. I guess it can be said there is a divided opinion at this AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6:. OK. I stand corrected. Thanks very much for taking the time. You are correct that I didn't know AllMusic is held in high regard on Wikipedia. You're correct that I was at the least misinformed. I'm interested in reading the articles discussions to which you have linked. Thanks again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (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.
KeepWP:NOTTEMP applies. This generated significant, independent, and reliable coverage as demonstrated by the references already in the article. Google Scholar also generates multiple results: [6]. While, like many university research projects, it has not generated a commercial product, it was a notable research effort that received substantial coverage. [[Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP also applies in terms of the dead links. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relisting comment As mentioned, the references in the article are mostly in the form of broken links so the advice of the LTTS essay is inapplicable. I have, however, verified them myself using a university library to which I have access. According to the Verifiability policy, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Essays, as you know, do not take precedence over policy. The Google Scholar link should, however, provide interested editors enough context to verify for themselves that there had been academic discussion of the article subject at that point in time. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:36, 9 April 2020 (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.
Delete our cricket notability criteria is one of the worst on record. He clearly does not meet any understanding of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2020 (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.
This is a promotional article: then significant content here is albinism, and more specifically albinism in africa. There is no indication that the particular film here has any notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't confer notability about the film, but rather discuss the persecution of people with albinism in Africa. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (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.
WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors and actresses are not all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to have reliable source coverage about them to verify that they pass a notability criterion, such as having multiple (meaning more than one) major (meaning not just one-off guest shots on TV shows she wasn't a regular cast member of) roles and/or winning or getting nominated for a major acting award. But there are just three sources here (four footnotes, but one of them is a repetition of one of the others), of which two — her IMDb profile and her cast bio on the self-published production website of the show she's on — are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And while the other one is a real (albeit paywalled) magazine article, it appears as far as I can tell to be a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person — which is a type of source we can use for supplementary verification of stray facts after the person has already gotten over GNG on better ones, but not a type of source that brings a GNG pass all by itself if it's the best sourcing on offer. And even if I'm wrong and it is a real article written in the third person, a person still has to have more than just one of those to pass our notability criteria. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's got stronger sourcing, but just being verifiable as a working actor is not an automatic notability freebie that would exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: The subject had a main role in the film, Baja (film), and is currently starring in The L Word: Generation Q, so I believe she passes WP:NACTOR. As for WP:GNG, she does get some non-trivial coverage, such as these articles (and I'm sure there are more):
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.
An impressive amount of subscribers, but there isn't coverage in reliable sources to match. Does not meet WP:GNG, article creator appears to be a UPE creating articles about the channel's productions. signed, Rosguilltalk00:27, 1 April 2020 (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.
Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim being attempted here is that some of their music was included in the soundtrack to a video game -- but that still isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about the band, because we still have to be able to verify that the notability claim is true, and even our article about the video game doesn't claim that any of their music is in it. Furthermore, this has been flagged as unsourced since 2008, without ever seeing a whit of improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (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.
Article about a band, not making or sourcing any claim to passing WP:MUSIC. As written, this literally just states that the band exists, without even attempting to state anything about them that could even be measured against NMUSIC at all, and it cites no references whatsoever -- literally the only thing here at all is an external link to their profile on a social networking platform, which is not a notability-supporting source. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to have reliable source coverage in media, verifying one or more accomplishments that would satisfy NMUSIC, for an article to become earned. The article was once a lot longer than this prior to 2012, when the page creator blanked most of their own past work on it -- but simply restoring the old version of the article wouldn't save it, because it was still fundamentally advertorial content still not supported by any reliable sourcing. And for added bonus, the article has literally gone almost completely untouched since then, with just four minor new edits over the next eight years combined, which doesn't speak well of the prospect of salvaging it with new notability claims or sourcing either: if they had accomplished almost anything since 2012 that would have made them appreciably more notable, somebody would already have added it to the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Unsourced disguised (embedded) list article. Notability is so lacking that the names of the members were omitted from the article. Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2020 (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.
Fails WP:NSOFT. All sourcing is routine blog site reviews for affiliate pay or routine release announcements. Article and sources have no depth in coverage of the subject itself and just feels like a sly advert. This is no more notable than tens of thousands of other utility software like this that have similar blog site reviews. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it looks as if this went through AfD before and was kept, but was later A7'd multiple times and salted? Not sure what happened between 2014 and this iteration that just came out of draftspace. Maybe two different pieces of software with the same name?Sulfurboy (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I decline to lend weight to the prior AfD, which misapplied GNG/NCORP; participants at it repeatedly relied on sources that plainly were unreliable, non-independent (advertising, promotional, sponsored, affiliate, or primary), or trivial to confer notability. From the sources in the article: Sources 1 and 5 are the same website; source 2 is from a "content partner" and therefore non-independent (not editorially controlled); source 3 is an affiliate and therefore non-independent ("When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we may earn a small commission"); source 4 is routine coverage, barely six sentences long, and not notability-conferring; source 5 is the same as source 1; source 6 is non-independent (see Affiliate Disclosure at the bottom); source 8 seems primary and even if it's not it's trivial. We're left with sources 1 and 7. I would argue that source 1 is not significant coverage per #1 of WP:PRODUCTREV, and even if it is, two sources does not notability make. In any event, the notability standards have not been met. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (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.
This article is about a fake university, or at least an organization that does not seem to be an educational institution of tertiary or any other level.
It does not seem to be a former University since I could not find any past reliable references about this. The claim of that this institution was founded in 1970 is not what the cited source said. Moreover, is worth to say that the private universitary institutions began to open in 1984 with Catholic University of Uruguay (that reopened since its closure as an organization with tertiary grades in late 19th century), and before this year of 1984 the only university in the country was the public University of the Republic (ORT Uruguay was established as an organization in 1940s, but recognized as University in 1990s).
An older version of the website https://web.archive.org/web/20150215070136/http://www.cdes.edu.uy/ states that it was at that time registered at the Civil Associations and Foundations Registry of the Ministry of Education and Culture of Uruguay, but this does not mean it was an university, furthermore it cannot be taken as a proof unless a non-affiliated source would be provided.
The older (archived) website stated it was based in "Avda Artigas 673, Juan Lacaze, Colonia, Uruguay", but the newer (archived) website "Zorrilla de San Martin 526, Rosario, Colonia, Uruguay". Both mentions religious activities led by "Daniel Esteban Odin". The current version of the website does not even say anything about activities in Uruguay at all, just links websites of its affiliated organizations in countries in Central America. The current version of the website seems to be usurped by another (unrelated) alleged organization (that could be linked to an US based organization), that in appearance is different of what it looked like and it is poorly designed with tons of plain links.
Searches in Google Maps street view did not reveal the location of the headquarters and its building, not in the claimed one in Juan Lacaze city neither the claimed one in Rosario city.
The article says "It was the only private university in the state of Colonia, Uruguay Country for 11 years until 2007.", and it is clear that who wrote the article does not know enough about Uruguay, because first level administrative division of the country are "departments", not "states". And is also worth to know that it claims to have around 10,000 students (in a city with a population of 10,085 inhabitants in 2011; the department of Colonia where the city is part of has 123,203 inhabitants), while properly established and well know private Uruguayan universities have 5,000~10,000 students and the main public university has 100,000 students.
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.
Keep as exercising WP:AGF in the article there are listed reliable sources offline newspaper articles directly about him such as The Japan Times, Nevada State Journal, Reno Evening Gazette and others which is enough to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a brief mention of him in Texas Monthly. Although all of the sources cited in the article are offline sources, it appears that they were published by reputable media outlets (Billboard, Reno Evening Gazette, The Japan Times, etc). I'm not sure if all of these sources are independent of the subject but based on their titles, it looks like refs 4 through 7 might be independent of the subject. Versace1608Wanna Talk?16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the sourcing meets the general notability guideline based on the references already in the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2020 (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.
Every article in this page has people with similar, but distinct full names. There are short hatnotes on all three of the articles that make it is a lot easier to navigate for people who accidentally made a typo or need a distinguishment per WP:HATCHEAP. And before anyone asks, I have looked throughout Wikipedia to see if there was anyone else with a name similar to Stephen (or Steve) Darby (or Derby) and I couldn't find any at all. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep not again! you have been told at previous afds that there is nothing wrong with dabs with 3 entries. They do not have distinct full names - the football coach is a Stephen too, as his article makes clear, and the redirect. Stephen Derby (which is pronounced the same as Darby) lived 14th century, before standardised spelling. His name was probably spelt many different ways in original documents, probably often in Latin rather than English, so is definitely needed here. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn: I wouldn't have minded the dab page if there wasn't an "appearant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", which there isn't. The hatnote isn't long or "busy" at all, plus there are less than three links in each hatnote, which is very little compared to many others. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. While it is true that spelling was rather fluid in the heyday of the MP (e.g. Shakspere), the only source spells his name Derby. Anything more is speculative. Hatnotes are sufficient in this case. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Busy? How? If there were more than two links in the hatnote or it was longer than a line, then it would be "busy". The disambiguation page seems unnecessary just for two links which easily fit in a hatnote. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also someone looking carefully added entries, as often happens. Dabs are also far easier to expand than hatnotes. This seems to be a campaign based on personal preference rather than guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn + @Necrothesp: I was referring to how the dab page looked like before the additions by JHunterJ. Now that the dab page has been expanded, there really isn't a point in keeping this discussion going on any longer. I would like to withdraw my nomination however I can't due to WP:WITHDRAWN. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:11, 9 April 2020 (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.
Seems to be a none notable division of the Embraer. From what I've found in a search they haven't released any products yet and only thing being worked on is still a concept. So this counts as to soon IMO. It also fails for the standards of notability for companies. As nothing except trivial coverage on them comes up in a search. That said, I'd be fine if it was merged to Embraer. It looks like they aren't even mentioned there. Which also speaks to their lack of notability. Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (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.
"In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia."
However, this "university" isn't accredited and is not recognized by the United States Department of Education. I can't find any independent, reliable sources on it.
Amazingly, it seems as though the majority of search results for "Westbrook University" involve articles mentioning individuals with the last name of Westbrook that happen to have University as the next word.
Delete. For quite some time I've had this on my watchlist and tried to prevent the inclusion of unsourced or badly sourced content in the article (which culminated in my getting an email containing a legal threat today) on the basis that it's better to have an article that shows that this "university" (and don't get me started on the way that Americans allow anyone to call themselves a university, debasing the word) is run by charlatans so readers can see it for what it is, but now after searching I see that there are no sources that bring it anywhere close to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Articles about questionable institutions (a "university" that uses a Gmail address?) can be helpful to readers, as Phil Bridger notes, but there aren't sufficient sources here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2020 (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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I initially tried to redirect to TEDMED but it's been contested. Hodosh is not independently notable of TEDMED and this article should be deleted and redirected to TEDMED as there are no sufficient sources about Hodosh directly. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with userdude's notes below, to keep page, per relevant sources indicated. Also, to address concern by Praxidicae, added citation on main page to Entrepreneur Magazine which is independent article significantly about Hodosh, in addition to already existing citations. Praxidicae: Do you consider this sufficient to address your concern and conclude discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfuly disagree, as this page has been in place since 2012, plenty of sufficient sources online as well as individual's other businesses are of notable mention. Also appears TEDMED was sold, so that is not an appropriate redirect while his new business involves Dr. Sanjay Gupta, with high notability. His previous colleagues have existing pages as well with no contention.
With brief search, additional source links for page notability include:
Existing for a long time doesn't make something notable. You'll need to provide sources that feature in-depth, independent coverage. His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to: "His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant.": It's relevant in this instance as it's of the same nature. Chris Anderson (notable for TED) or Richard Wurman both have similar pages. Also, see above links for independent sources from Entrepreneur Magazine, Forbes, Xconomy, and others. Also additional in-depth links include Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0108-8
This page could use work, but believe it's appropriate, with sources found on page as well. No major objections. Rather than back and forth, open to other opinions. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "other stuff", I think we disagree and welcome input, as I've provided sources. Regarding "COI", don't understand, I see no COI. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk • contribs)
It's not a matter of disagreeing with each other but consensus and policy. You can disagree that water is wet, it does not make you right. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and welcome the additional opinion. If consensus turns out that this page is in violation then I will assist you in redirecting or deleting other pages with same parameters accordingly. Stay safe during these complex times. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's general inclusion criterion is the WP:GNG (simplified summary). In order for sources to qualify for this criterion, they must be reliable and independent. Of the sources in the article:
Keep. In agreement with UserDude as there are sufficient independent sources provided. Separately, while perhaps not directly related to Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, considering that Hodosh's co-host and partner (Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN) is the most recognized person on television news right now, this page is additionally relevant. I support to Keep page and close this discussion immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.188.253 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to whomever closes or relists this, please note that aside from UserDude, every single keep has been an SPA who shares the same geolocation with the subject and the subsequent IP edits are in the same geolocation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Praxidicae, This is not accurate. 73.78.158.214 is from Colorado, 73.218.184.166 from Boston and 72.200.188.253 is from Rhode Island, although agree on SPA. Regardless, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure there are no formal requirements in terms of time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made for non-administrators to close discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasnexus (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Texasnexus, consider her overturning your closure to be endorsed by myself. I neither know nor care how you came across this AFD, but I will always support overturning the closure of an AFD when it is literally the first edit made by an account. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As a full disclosure, I was asked to look into this close as "suspicious". I concur with that assessment. While there is a reasonable rebuttal of the nomination by one user, the proliferation of SPAs has me concerned about the overall neutrality of the voices and honestly I'd like to get some more neutral eyes to look into the article. If an admin finds that despite these concerns the keep is justified (or at the very least a "no consensus") I have no prejudice against a "speedy" closure post-relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs a rewrite and the scope broadened - by our definition he is more notable for his work related to genomics and longevity than TEDMED:
All of the above provide extensive coverage, and there are more refs than what I have included here. But I just accidentally hit publish (distracted on this Covid-19 morning) so leaving it here. (I will work on a rewrite of the article because I have nothing but time.) JSFarman (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2020 (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.
Noting that of the three references subsequently provided one is a deadlink, the other is Tamil (which is only a mention is passing - not significant coverage) and the third is to the article on the Tamil Wikipedia (which is not an acceptable source and doesn't have any reliable supporting reference/sources). Dan arndt (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (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.
Delete - The subject is not notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia because it does not have any significant coverage or reliable sources. Koridas (Speak) 01:44, 9 April 2020 (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.
WP:BLP of a person notable only for participating in the renovation and reopening of two local movie theatres in a single city, not referenced well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Two of the seven footnotes here are blogs, and one is a community hyperlocal, which aren't sources that help to get him over GNG at all -- and while the other four sources are real daily newspapers and a book, they all just briefly namecheck Rui Pereira's existence within coverage of other things rather than being substantively about him. As always, people aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their name has been mentioned a few times in the local media -- the more localized a person's notability claim is, the better they have to be sourced before they actually clear the notability bar in an international encyclopedia, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show more than just a few brief mentions of his name in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (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.
Keep the subject (a comedy actor) passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I believe it is wrong to assume that only actors with lead roles should have Wikipedia articles. Supporting actors and film comedians can also have articles, see the enormous list on Category:Comedians. This actor has worked in multiple films as shown in this link [29]. As for the example of Independent coverage, after going through the google translate, these articles [30][31] easily qualifies for independent and significant coverage by Jagran and Bhaskar that are reputed national newspapers from India. Cedix (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (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.
Does not meet WP:NPOL, only position is in local government. Only source just says she is the daughter of a state government minister. MB16:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs: they actually have to have genuine evidence of fairly broad significance, supported by reliable source coverage about them in media (which is not the same thing as "coverage of other people that happens to also briefly mention this person's name"). But nothing stated in the article is an "inherently" notable role that would get her over WP:NPOL, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get her over WP:GNG. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, either: people aren't automatically notable just because they happen to have a family relationship to a notable person — so just because her father has an article doesn't mean she's automatically entitled to have one too. Also there's a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username also has the subject's surname in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2020 (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.
Keep Notability is not a matter of your relatives or accomplishments; it's a matter of sourcing per the WP:GNG. We have detailed sources about the life of the subject and so they pass WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited, and Elias doesn't seem to be noted for anything of his own merit (i.e. outside of family affiliations). Furthermore, aside from a routine burial posting at Find a Grave (which doesn't even offer a cumulative paragraph of coverage), the only third party references used that specifically focus on him (not just pieces on his sons or their commentary on him) are questionable (Bustle, Notes from Poland) or subpar (Heavy.com). This site already has previously given too much lenience to articles on relatives of politicians, and keeping this page would only worsen that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:32, 8 April 2020 (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.
WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers offer technical verification that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion here, a journalist has to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own employer. But as is so often the case, this is written more like a thinly veiled rewrite of his staff profile than like an encyclopedia article, is referenced entirely to primary sources (an academic scholarship's own self-published list of its own recipients, his academic dissertation referenced to its presence in his alma mater's directory of its own students' academic dissertations, and the staff profile) with no evidence of any coverage about him in any reliable or independent sources, and says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please show the best three sources you're seeing, because I'm finding absolutely nothing that would count as a reliable or notability-making source — all I'm getting is staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employer and other affiliated organizations, blogs and pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, with not a shred of evidence of any reliable sources in which he's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (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.
keep please stop nominating dabs for deletion when they have 3 or more entries. dabs are cheap too. This is a valid and useful page and all these afds are a waste of editors' time. I am not convinced you are even looking for possible entries first. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (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.
Unnecessary - We don't need two articles for the same station. History merge (pinging Mlaffs), callsign merge, and put everything on the current callsign. Don't create two pages for the same station. You know this people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34 on April 9, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Redirect to WJTA This station is planned as a 24/7 simulcast of that station with no local programming whatsoever; a mere mention of its calls and basic details, followed by a link to their FMQ is more appropriate than creating an unneeded carbon copy. Appropriate mention of the station's fate can be made on the WONB page, which can be retitled WONB (1991–2020) once the transfer from ONU to Holy Family Communications is actually made. However, I will cede to Mlaff's analysis of the situation, as they might have a better suggestion. Nate•(chatter)05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since WONB has the history of the station, just going straight redirect kinda loses all that history. Sometimes, even though a station is a 24/7 simulcast, having a page with historical information of past ownerships is OK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:29 on April 9, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
In and of itself, a separate article on WOHA is a bit premature, simply because that call sign hasn't taken effect yet and that incarnation of the station is yet to launch. (The current general practice is that yet-to-launch stations generally don't get articles unless the general notability guideline is somehow met in some other way.) Since WOHA will operate on the same license as the current WONB, for all intents and purposes it isn't independently notable of WONB. Yet apparently the current WONB programming, and that identity, will continue as a webcast, that without the connection to a licensed broadcast station probably wouldn't be independently notable of Ohio Northern University. But any potential notability for the station with this broadcast license is tied in to the fact that WONB as it exists now originates programming; detached from that, WOHA will not be independently notable of its parent station WJTA! And that's all before considering the present limited-to-no sourcing. (And the article title is wrong, as the WOHA call sign request doesn't include an "-FM" suffix, so under naming conventions it would be more properly at WOHA (FM) — a questionable-notability radio station seems unlikely to displace the Singapore architectural firm that is the current primary topic at WOHA, but that's beyond the scope of AfD.) I suspect in the end some nominal merging of sourced content, and redirects as required, should happen, somewhere and somehow… but for the WOHA-FM article as it exists now, I'm leaning towards delete. --WCQuidditch☎✎00:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, add information about the sale to the article currently at WONB, and move WONB to WOHA (FM), with WOHA-FM as a redirect, when the call sign change is official in FCC databases. Typically, we maintain one article per station license. A station that is currently a rebroadcaster of a larger network but was a separate station in the past typically has its own article (similar examples from my DYK record include KYFO-FM and KNKL (FM)). Raymie (t • c) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Planned call sign, and not even the correct form of it. Delete this article, and then we can figure out how to handle splitting up the WONB article once the license assignment has closed and the change of call sign has actually taken place. Mlaffs (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With WONB, due to the fact that the callsign change does not seem to be assigned yet, also due to a lack of notability, perhaps adding a section about the acquisition by Holy Family Communications. As stated in a previous comment, adding a redirect after the merge would be a good idea.Stickymatch (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Discussion Started: Just letting everyone know that Stickymatch has started a merge discussion on WOHA-FM's talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:19 on April 11, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Merge - I'm not sure what to add to the above arguments. We shouldn't keep this as is, but outright deletion appears to be the wrong call. I'd prefer that things get merged. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2020 (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.
Keep + populate: there are lots of articles about people called Murtaza and a list of them csn be added to make this a functioning name page. Perhaps the nomr would like to do that? Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any version within the revision history which may be salvageable? The current version appears to be providing possible misinformation based on prior diffs. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this version of April 2018 appears to be the most complete version and includes a list of around 30 notable people with this name, since then, it has been heavily edited, read most content removed, by various ips/learners(?)/puppets that seem to have some sort of bugbear against people with this name, suggest that it can go back to/add most of this version with a few relevant adjustments. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore/expand to proper DAB page. Note to nominator, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD require us to consider a page's potential for expansion, as well as to review if there is any viable content in its history, prior to nominating a page for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2020 (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.
Fails to establish notability – sourced primarily to the manufacturer's website, the few remaining references are to market news aggregators and infomercials. I haven't succeeded in finding independent secondary sources. Article created and predominantly edited by a single-purpose account, and the promotional tone makes one suspect a COI. kashmīrīTALK12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I will correct the entries and add the missing references. Text Verification Tool is known in the industry for proofreading tools and relevant to the pharma industry. – Transsonic(talk)17:23, 9 April 2020 (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.
Delete It's merely recreating a list generated by a commercial website that sells monitoring of browser extensions. Not notable, not reliable source, not encyclopedic. Schazjmd(talk)16:47, 8 April 2020 (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.
Delete. This appears to be a misguided attempt to treat the country's renaming as a formative event and arrange the articles accordingly, but a formative event it is not. We don't split history articles merely according to name changes. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2020 (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 Trip.com Group. Consensus to not keep, but split between merge and delete. Redirect is my usual compromise solution in such cases; editors can still merge stuff from the history. Sandstein 07:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that it doesn't look particularly promotional to me, except in that some of the links are junk. But they seemed to be mixed in with enough links with focused coverage to pass GNG. I am not entirely convinced there is enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, however. I'm on the fence. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having read through this article and done a little bit research myself, I found the company is credible, and most of the references used in the article are from reliable sources. Therefore, my overall opinion is that this article well deserves to be accepted by Wikipedia, though modifications with the description and the references are encouraged. For the references: as suggested by the administrative editor, the main problem with this article seems to be ″promotional″ WP:PROMO. This does not feel like a problem to me, yet can be addressed by deleting/changing certain references if it does to other editors. For the description, as also mentioned by an earlier editor, more details on the company's history, organization, etc., would better be included to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I will be more than happy with this article being accepted given the authors revise accordingly, but am also okay if the authors decide to leave it ″as is″ for the time being.Thuslittleseven (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can of course tag it with SPA if you want, but even with a couple of common points, there's not enough to overcome AGF. Closing admin can weigh as they see fit, though I suspect Sandstein probably relisted on a delete/merge split Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TrainPal is mainly for the United Kingdom, other European countries, with the feature of "split ticketing", making its debut in the UK in February 2018.
In July 2018, the software was launched in Italy, and Italo. In September, it entered German by collaborating with Deutsche Bahn.
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 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.
I can't find any reviews or any significant coverage of this documentary in Swedish or in English. The film exists, the sources verify that (and I think I'll try to find time to watch it as it seems interesting) but that doesn't mean it is notable. It is simply a UR documentary like many many others; I'm a fan of UR, they produce good stuff, but this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. I thought that perhaps the filmmaker might be notable enough so there could be an article about him which this could redirect to, but I haven't even been able to find sources for that. bonadeacontributionstalk10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant coverage in English or Swedish (Note: there are only 1-2 decent references in Swedish language article, if there were more available then we could use them here.) Joseph2302 (talk)11:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly – I added one of the sources in the sv.wiki article to this one, and so two of the three sources used there are present here, the third one being IMDB so not useful for en.wiki purposes. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be an excellent example of the principles that "famous doesn't necessarily mean notable" and "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable". It's a run-of-the-mill production broadcast by a group that does such work routinely. One can as a reasonable person totally find it frustrating that on Wiki we have articles on all kinds of awkward and weird things but not on some genuinely helpful matters, but that's just how it is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2020 (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.
Delete. Insufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability; a search revealed no sources that were clearly notability-conferring. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:06, 16 April 2020 (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.
Non-notable band, famous in their own lunchtime in Australia. Article was created in 2006 and then ended with the sentence "The band are currently in pre-production for their debut full length album, The Long March" which it seems is still a work in progress. Releases are two EPs for Cartel Music and a self-released split EP. Nothing indicates any notability. Emeraude (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The dead links aren't a problem, because they are all retrievable using the Wayback Machine, but they don't amount to much. The Perthmusic source is a primary source interview with the lead singer and is a blog. The FasterLouder source is a review of a local alternative metal festival in which Sleeper X were one of ten bands playing (and were not the headliners). The Music Vice source is an interview with the band who recorded the split EP with them, and they are mentioned in just one paragraph. The Mediasearch citation, a review of one of the EPs, is the closest thing to a decent source, but the website is hosted on Wordpress and still appears to be nothing more than a news gathering website, edited by one person and helped by a bunch of voluntary contributors. In short, this band don't appear to have received any attention outside of the Perth underground metal scene. The three EPs listed in the article appear to be the only things the band ever recorded – the Music Vice interview with Errata states that Sleeper X had split up by 2010, so there are certainly no more sources waiting to be found from the past ten years. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how any of the newly added sources help with notability. The AllMusic source is an empty entry so it's no use whatsoever. The Music Forge states on its site that it is a "non-commercial/hobbyist site" which accepts voluntary contributions, so it isn't going to be acceptable as an RS because it's no more than a community blog. X-Press and Groove were local Perth magazines, so again no indication of notability outside of their home town. Rockus no longer exists, which suggests it was a blog. The St. George's Online website was just an online record shop. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2020 (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 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.
A non notable actor, article inappropriately using only IMDB as a source. Research shows that some of the article’s credits weren’t even credited roles, and most were minor appearances. No evidence of substantial secondary sources that could help improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the just over 2 years survival with this non-exitent of sourcing has nothing on the 14 or more years survival I have seen recently with some other articles with such atrotious sourcing, we should still not allow it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2020 (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.
Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The article was originally created by a copywriter for the company, and has changed little in the intervening years. The sources provided are passing mentions and listings only, and a search for more has only provided press releases (presumably produced by the article's author) and a single interview with the company's director. Yunshui雲水07:05, 8 April 2020 (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.
Entirely unreferenced article that fails to demonstrate any notability, and contains nothing but a description of the product and what it does - nothing that might be considered to be encyclopedic content. In its current form it serves only to promote or publicise the product, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks but these are passing mentions. None of them is about the subject. Some just namecheck it and others just briefly mention what it is. Mccapra (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this appears to be essential equipment for Speedcubing (see Speedcubing#Competitions), so not sure that it is actually "promotional" (ie. no links to/promotional words on any specific brand/type of timer), at the very least, a Redirect may be in order, as a wikireader lookup? ps. as an aside, yes, its interesting that it has remained unsourced for so long (more editors should join Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, now this is some blatant promotion:)), but that isn't really a reason to delete, i note that other "essential" sports equipment articles are also un/underreferenced, for example, the hockey stick article, although being around 1400 words long, has unreferenced sections and a total of 3 references, yes i know the "other things" argument is a no no, nevertheless.... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (second choice would be a redirect to Speedcubing#Competitions but to be honest I'd prefer to delete the StackMat reference, which is an odd brand reference in the middle of an article, there too). The sources in the article fall well short of anything that would convey notability (it's all trivial coverage, passing mentions of StackMat in articles all about other things) and I didn't find much else through my search. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 08:40, 23 April 2020 (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.
Delete - no evidence this person meets GNG. Any detailed sources out there @KingSkyLord:? Achievements are worthless if they are not supported by significant coverage. GiantSnowman17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication in guidance documents that the Daily Record is not considered a reliable source - is there guidance on that somewhere? I'm also puzzled on why the size of paper it's printed on is a factor. The Independent published for a while in Tabloid format - was that not reliable? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE. Notability (especially for a WP:BLP) is not automatically inherited from the teams he has coached. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Keep per GNG. [35], [36], [37] People can argue the coverage is routine, but in truth it is exactly the sort of reporting you would expect to see about a notable football manager. Namely cliche-ridden stuff with him talking about being "over the moon" or "sick as a parrot" depending on results. We've seen time and again that the WP:FPL essay isn't relevant for women's football. I'd venture it's doubly irrelevant for any players/managers in Scotland – since quite a few Championship clubs in Scotland which the essay purports are "fully professional" are anything but. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BBC 2009 is trivial coverage (a one line quote), BBC 2019 is arguably trivial and non-independent (it's mostly an interview; six of the nine paragraphs are spoken by Caulfield himself), GlasgowTimes is primary/non-notability-conferring because it's entirely an interview; The Herald and In the Winning Zone are arguable but don't constitute sufficient coverage taken as a whole. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nfitz that I didn't comment on the Daily Record article specifically, but I don't think that piece contributes to notability at all. The parts that contain unfiltered interview is all primary, and excluding that interview (the great majority of the article) the source counts as trivial coverage. Kevin (alt of L235·t·c) 18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how it's trivial - it's much of the article. I'm also not sure the basis that you are tossing interviews as being primary sources. The article isn't just an interview ... interviewing someone as part of an article, doesn't make the article a primary source. In WP:GNG "independent of the source" says "... example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". It doesn't preclude (for example) biographies that involved an interview of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, Nfitz, but I respectfully disagree on both points. GNG specifically says secondary sources are the sources that count for notability purposes, and NOR subsection WP:PRIMARY (in note c) specifically counts interviews as primary sources. If we take out the interview, the only two sentences that mention Caulfield are one that state the fact that Caulfield took over the club, and one that leads into the interview, and that counts as trivial coverage and as WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports event (both of which disqualify the source from supporting notability). This isn't being picky just to be bureaucratic, either; primary sources (including interviews, even ones published in news sources, because there's limited – if any – factchecking done by the media organization) have (obviously) limited va pilue in contributing to the verifiability of an article, and one of the intentions behind the notability guidelines is to ensure that we have enough strong sourcing to back a decent article. I know it must be frustrating to be arguing here based on what feel like technicalities, but I think the Daily Record article does not factor into the notability calculus. Best, Kevin (alt of L235·t·c) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though {{|L236}}, WP:Primary doesn't preclude all interview, it notes depending on context. Surely the context is that a transcribed interview is a primary source, yet when someone is interviewed as part of an article in a newspaper, that is a secondary source - see WP:Secondary. And it certainly isn't routine. Routine would be a paragraph about an appointment - not an in depth piece at the time of an appointment. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz:WP:Secondary, which you mention, states that a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (emphasis in original). I don't see how this interview does that. And my point about routine coverage is that if the interview portion was taken out of the article, the remaining portion would clearly be routine and trivial. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it again, that portion of the article is a bit more verbatim than I'd remembered. Still, there's a lot of borderline sources - and I don't think venerability is the actual issue here - more the bureaucratic barriers that inadvertently create systemic bias against those involved in women's soccer. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2020 (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.
Keep - By the first two references pointed out by Greyjoy. The NYT reference is a passing mention, but the previous two are more than sufficient. Jlevi (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page needs to be reworked and fleshed out more but the podcast is obviously notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources. This nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, OP seems to have a personal gripe with one of the hosts and therefore their concerns about "notability" cannot be taken seriously. If you check their history, they've nominated Dasha Nekrasova's page for deletion twice in less than two months (both times the page survived by significant margins), and they are now trying to get the podcast's page deleted. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (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.
This dental company fails WP:CORP notability standards. All the sources in the article are trivial coverage and that's all that comes up in a Google search. Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Die Ivoclar-Vivadent-Gruppe feierte ein dreifaches Jubiläum
. .. Was den ausgezeichneten Ruf der liechtensteinischen Dentalindustrie heute begründet, begann im Jahre 1923 — in Zürich. Dort wurde die Zahnfabrik Ramco damals gegründet. 10 Jahre später siedelte der Betrieb nach Liechtenstein über und brachte sich bis nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mehr schlecht als recht durch das Wirtschafts- leben.
Im Jahre 1948 übernahm der frühere Quandt-Manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, ein gebürtiger Schwabe aus Ellenberg (Ellwangen), die Restbestände der Ramco, . . . taufte das Unternehmen im Jahre 1951 in Ivoclar um und führte es innerhalb von 25 Jahren zu Weltbedeutung. Künstliche Zähne (aus Porzellan und Kunststoff) sind heute lediglich nur noch ein Teil des Ivoclar-Produktions- programms. Zusammen mit dem Vivadent-Zweig innerhalb der Gruppe, der im Jahre 1956 gegründet wurde und sich auf die Herstellung von Materialien für die konser- vierende und präventive Zahnheilkunde spezialisierte, bietet Ivoclar-Vivadent heute ein umfassendes, systematisch aufgebautes Programm der prothetischen, konservierenden und präventiven Zahnheilkunde an, das in 108 Ländern dieser Welt vertrieben wird. Die Ivoclar- Vivadent Gruppe beschäftigt rund 1500 Mitarbeiter, über 600 davon in den liechtensteinischen Produktions- stätten, dem Schaaner Mutterbetrieb und den Zweig- betrieben in Triesenberg und Schellenberg. Weitere, wichtigere Ivoclar-Produktionsbetriebe arbeiten heute in Deutschland, Frankreich. Italien, Österreich und Spanien.
Dreifachjubiläum
Dieses Jahr kann die Ivoclar-Vivadent ein dreifaches Jubiläum feiern: die Gründung der Firma vor 50 Jahren, ihre Ansiedlung in Liechtenstein vor 40 Jahren und das 25jährige Jubiläum Dr. Adolf Schneiders als Chef des Hauses
Liechtensteiner Volksblatt, 19. September 1973
From Google Translate:
The Ivoclar Vivadent Group celebrated a triple anniversary
. .. What established the excellent reputation of the Liechtenstein dental industry today began in 1923 - in Zurich. The Ramco tooth factory was founded at that time. 10 years later, the company moved to Liechtenstein and, after the Second World War, did more or less get through economic life.
In 1948, the former Quandt manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, a Swabian from Ellenberg (Ellwangen), the remaining stocks of Ramco,. . . christened the company Ivoclar in 1951 and made it world famous within 25 years. Artificial teeth (made of porcelain and plastic) are now only part of the Ivoclar production program. Together with the Vivadent branch within the group, which was founded in 1956 and specializes in the production of materials for conservative and preventive dentistry, Ivoclar-Vivadent now offers a comprehensive, systematically structured program of prosthetic, preservative and preventive Dentistry, which is distributed in 108 countries around the world. The Ivoclar-Vivadent Group employs around 1,500 people, over 600 of whom work in Liechtenstein's production facilities, the Schaan parent company and the branches in Triesenberg and Schellenberg. Other, more important Ivoclar production companies now work in Germany, France. Italy, Austria and Spain.
Triple anniversary
This year Ivoclar-Vivadent can celebrate a triple anniversary: the foundation of the company 50 years ago, its establishment in Liechtenstein 40 years ago and the 25th anniversary of Dr. Adolf Schneiders as head of the house
Liechtenstein-Ivoclar Vivadent was founded in 1933 and named Ramco AG. The company was renamed as Ivoclar AG in 1951, and finally Ivoclar Vivadent AG in 2001. The company is a dental materials and equipment manufacturer that designs, develops, and sells a broad range of products for preventive, restorative, and prosthetic dentistry. The company recorded sales of $632.5 million in 2008. They have 50 U.S., 103 European, and 99 Japanese patents
They operate through its subsidiaries in Australia, Brazil, Spain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Mexico, France, New Zealand, Poland, the U.S., and the UK. It has manufacturing units in Liechtenstein, Austria, Italy, the U.S., and Philippines. The company's marketing and sales offices are located in China, Colombia, India, Turkey, Sweden, Singapore, and Russia. The subsidiaries of Ivoclar Vivadent are:
[names of subsidiaries in Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, US, UK, and Japan]
Ivoclar Vivadent's product categories include restorative therapy products, metal-ceramics, cementation products, equipment, all-ceramics, restoration products, teeth, endodontics, temporary, clinical accessories, prevention and care products, tooth whitening products or tooth jewellery, impression materials, metal supported veneering composites, materials for dentures, and alloys. The alloys available are implant alloys, crown and bridge alloys, ceramic alloys, BioUniversal. The company also has Tetric EvoCeram restorative material and Empress Direct.
...
In March 2009, Ivoclar Vivadent and Straumann entered into a partnership agreement for development of esthetic solutions for tooth replacement and restoration. As per the agreement, Ivoclar Vivadent will supply the proprietary IPS e.max ceramic technology to Straumann for their implant and tooth borne dental prosthetic solutions. They also introduced 2 new versions of classic bluephase polymerization light called bluephase 20i and bluephase C8; and launched VivaPenand a universal primer named Monobond Plus to create a reliable bond to all restorative materials, and Multilink Implant, an adhesive luting composite.
This link is a copy of the same article (but truncated) in The Indianapolis Star and provides information about the author and the wire service, which the Albuquerque Journal link does not provide.
The article notes:
And one of its local industries, the Ivoclar-Vivadent of companies, has achieved a sensational prominence in its own field.
It is the largest producer of acrylic plastic teeth in the world, and the second largest of artificial teeth made from the other principal raw material, porcelain. Only the Dentists Supply Co. in the United States outranks it. Ivoclar-Vivant has the largest tooth factory in all Europe. Output is about 50 million teeth a year.
The founding firm, Zahn-fabrik Ramco AG, moved from Zurich to Schaan, just down the road from the principality's capital of Vaduz. This was acquired as a going concern in 1951 by the present owners, Ivoclar, a private concern which is owned outside the principality; it declined to say by whom, or where. The new owners, in the course of a mere 20 years, have raised it to its present pre-eminent position in the world of artificial teeth, and related products of dentistry.
...
Two important breakthroughts have contributed most to this remarkable success story. In the first place, Ivoclar was a pioneer in the adaptation of acrylic resin to tooth fabrication, to supplement the traditional porcelain product. This innovation, about 20 years ago, has proved immensely popular both with dentists and their clients.
Ivoclar AG was originally founded in 1933 as the Ramco AG (tooth factory) of Schaan, Liechtenstein. Ramco was renamed Ivoclar in 1951, and in 1979, Ivoclar U.S.A. was established in San Marcos, CA. By 1987, Ivoclar AG, Williams Gold Refining Company of Buffalo, and Vivadent of Schaan, Liechtenstein had merged to form Ivoclar of North America, Incorporated, headquartered in Amherst, NY. The corporate name was changed to Ivoclar Vivadent, Incorporated in 2001.58
Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic teeth of the late 20th century. Through the end of the century they offered their “Orthotyp” cross-linked acrylic and porcelain posteriors in three semi-anatomic configurations. The “N” molds were meant for a normal (Angles Class I) bite. They had a cusp angle near 20°. The “T” molds were intended for patients with a “deep bite.” The cusps were steeper to accommodate the increased incisal guidance and vertical overlap. “K” molds were designed for use in cross-bite situations. Around the turn of the 21st century, Ivoclar introduced three new lines of teeth. The “Orthoplane” molds were very esthetic, 0° posteriors with excellent sluiceways. “Ortholingual” molds were specifically designed for a lingualized occlusion. Their maxillary lingual functional cusps were exaggerated and articulated in mandibular fossae with 15° inclines. The “Postaris” anatomical teeth had 33° cuspal inclines. All three new mold lines were offered in double cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate. Shortly after the introduction of the Orthoplane and Ortholingual molds, Ivoclar embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign centered on complete denture esthetics, occlusion, and wear resistance. They revised and greatly simplified their mold guide, which only offered 0° Orthoplane, 33° Postaris, 15° Ortholingual, and new 22° Orthotyp semi-anatomic posteriors4,59 (Fig 37). The company recommended that a lingualized occlusion be developed by setting maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual teeth or by setting maxillary Ortholingual teeth against mandibular Orthoplane teeth.
Among the most important domestic manufacturers are the Hilti Corporation, a large international supplier of rail anchors and anchor installation services to the rail transport industry, and electrical equipment; Ivoclar-Vivadent, developer and distributor of well-regarded products for prosthetic, restorative, and preventive dentistry; Balzers-Bal-Tec AG, manufacturers of electron microscopy preparation products for biological specimens; Fancoldi R.T., gem industry specialists, producing colored diamonds; and Aqualine, a major Austrian Alps mineral water bottling company.
Liechtenstein has large industrial companies like Hilti, a maker of power tools, Hilcona, a provider of microwavable meals, and Ivoclar Vivadent, the world's largest manufacturer of false teeth.
Among the principality's better-known manufacturers are Hilti AG, which makes nails, staples and glues for use in construction; Ivoclar, a manufacturer of dentures; and Balzers AG, a specialist in vacuum technology and ultra-thin coatings used in optics and electronics.
Over the course of my stay, I found myself keeping a mental list of other possible Liechtensteinian claims to fame: No. 1 in cowbells (every cow on every mountain meadow seems to have one, making it surprisingly noisy above the tree line), and in the production of dental ceramics (Ivoclar Vivadent, in the industrial region of Schaan, is the world’s top producer).
Schaan, Liechtenstein — Tucked in a valley surrounded by majestic, snow-capped mountains is a dentist's dream.
There are mounds of amalgams, alloys, bleachers, colorants, cavity cleaners, inlays, onlays — and about 60 million teeth.
All of it rolls off the production lines of Ivoclar-Vivadent, which is a major player in the $4 billion global market for dentistry supplies.
The company, whose name is derived from "clear ivory," had sales of $400 million last year. It is an example of highly specialized businesses that have made tiny Liechtenstein one of the world's most industrialized nations.
Palestine's greatest competitor in Europe was Zahnfabrik Ramsperger & Co. AG established in Zurich in 1923 and turned in 1933 into RAMCO AG, based in Schaan, Lichtenstein (later turned into Ivoclar Vivadent AG). See Blevi and Sween, Complete Book of Beauty, 200.
Blevi, Viktor, and Gretchen Sween. Complete Book of Beauty. New York: Avon Books, 1993.
THE BEGINNING: 1923 Ramsberger & Co., Zurich Situated in Schaan, Prinzipality of Liechtenstein, Ivoclar originated in Ramsberger & Co. of Zurich, which was founded 25 years ago, and moved to Schaan as "Ramco AG" in 1933. In 1951 the company was registered as " IVOCLAR AG" — as in the years before the enterprise continued the production of artificial teeth. A close co-operation with the American Williams-Justi Corporation, Buffalo, Philadelphia, (which is well known in the dental market of North and South America) was established in the early 1950's. The outcome of this association has been beneficial for both Ivoclar and Williams-Justi. The broadening and expansion of SR range of acrylic products can be attributed to Ivoclar Schaan and its subsidiaries.
A 1970 article published by United Press International said, "It is the largest producer of acrylic plastic teeth in the world, and the second largest of artificial teeth made from the other principal raw material, porcelain. Only the Dentists Supply Co. in the United States outranks it. Ivoclar-Vivant has the largest tooth factory in all Europe. Output is about 50 million teeth a year."
Ivoclar Vivadent received a page of coverage in the 1978 book Liechtenstein 1938–1978.
A 1994 article in the Associated Press said Ivoclar Vivadent is "a major player in the $4 billion global market for dentistry supplies", had sales of $400 million in 1993, and is "an example of highly specialized businesses that have made tiny Liechtenstein one of the world's most industrialized nations".
In 2008, The New York Times called Ivoclar Vivadent "the world's largest manufacturer of false teeth". A 2009 article in The New York Times said "in the production of dental ceramics (Ivoclar Vivadent, in the industrial region of Schaan, is the world’s top producer)".
A 2017 article in the Journal of Prosthodontics said, "Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic teeth of the late 20th century."
The "Liechtenstein" entry of the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations book published by Cengage said in Liechtenstein, "Among the most important domestic manufacturers are Hilti Corporation ...; Ivoclar-Vivadent, developer and distributor of well-regarded products for prosthetic, restorative, and preventive dentistry; ..."
Keep while the article in its current form needs significant improvements and additional sourcing, there do seem to be sources (above, and in my own search) showing the company meets WP:GNG. Mukedits (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2020 (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.
This dental company fails WP:NCORP notability standards. All the sources in the article are primary and trivial. Plus, nothing comes up in a Google search about them except for trivial stuff like stock price news. Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has reliable sources, significant coverage and a lengthy history. Wall Street Journal, and New York Times are independent enough. NEW i added citations from British Dental Journal, US National Library of Medicine, Iranian Endotonic Journal. The company provides an essential service, it was part of the Nasdaq 100 and likely will be AGAIN Grmike (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)GRMIKE[reply]
Keep - the word DENTSPLY only refers to this company; it gives nearly 5 MILLION results in google. There are citations given in the article from dental medical journals. the company has even opened its own dental school with both a facility and an online presence. The dental industry doesn't generate as much excitement as other industries, that doesn't make it less relevant. notability should not even be a question given that Dentsply is one of if not the biggest dental companies in the USA. independent sources include Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the British Dental Journal, US National Library of Medicine, Iranian Endotonic Journal. The company provides an essential service, it was part of the Nasdaq 100 and likely will be again.Grmike (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Speedy keep. The subject is a very well-known dental company that is strongly covered by reliable sources, even more of which have been added since nomination. Woerich(talk)02:38, 17 April 2020 (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.
Delete Per above. Material already exists in the other article, there’s no reason for a separate article at all, let alone the current offering. Neiltonks (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can imagine a path to a standalone article about this — but it would need to be written and titled much more neutrally than this (the actual objective name of the legislation is the correct title for any article about a piece of legislation, dudes!), and include a lot more detail supported by a lot more than just four footnotes. Simply cutting and pasting the existing content verbatim from another article that already contains it, and then walking away without making any discernible effort to expand it any further, is not the path to spinning this out as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2020 (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 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.
In addition to the page being a mess visually, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The page is mainly sourced to liner notes and the musician's website. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of the text was ripped from somewhere else. KidAd (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found three critical reviews (one, two, and three) of his music, all of them published by Expose (a newsletter). I'm not sure if Expose is a reliable source though. According to its About page, the newsletter has writers but do not mentioned them. Versace1608Wanna Talk?16:49, 11 April 2020 (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.
Delete per nom. The content is unclear and has not been written in a clear tone. The content completely relies upon a single source and lack reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (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 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.
List of awards and nominations for a non-notable porn performer deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha (actress). This content may be a re-creation of content deleted at Keisha (actress). Even if it isn't, the consensus at the AfD discussion was that the list lacked independent sources to establish notability. No new facts have emerged in the 3 months since then. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the subject isn't notable enough for their own wiki page, then they sure aren't notable enough for a separate awards page. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. What's the point on keeping the list article relating to a person even when the person herself doesn't pass WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete 8 delete !votes, including mine and the nominator's, over the course of less than a day. Much faster than if it had been PROD'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 8 April 2020 (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 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.
Relies almost exclusively on primary sources. The reference claimed to be from Yahoo Finance is actually a press release ([38]). Upon searching ([39]), any other references are also either press releases or very brief mentions. No indication of notability. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the book sources shown above and the LA Times piece which is particularly convincing because it includes criticism of the subject which clearly indicates its independence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Far from a good article. However BLP issues merely need some sources, even if they are no independent ones. Victory Outreach is certainly a notable Christina ministry. Since we do not have an article on it, having one on the founder will have to serve. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2020 (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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion. Googling with ""stereotype space" -Akbarov" yields essentially no work on this notion. There is [40] which has an entry on "stereotype space" but the source of this book seems to be the Wikipedia article topological vector space. *Mathematically*, the notion looks interesting and so it should be ok to have some discussion of this notion elsewhere in Wikipedia if the sources can be acquired, perhaps without the term "stereotype space". Another option is to move the article to nlab where the notability requirement is less stringent. -- Taku (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technical discussion between the nominator and two opponents to deletion
The reference to the article by Aristov is given in the list of references:
The author uses the term "stereotype algebra" at page 1061. The other sources either use this term, or the term "stereotype space", or mention research in this area. What is the problem? Eozhik (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, as I told at the talk page, there are several secondary sources, including the ones that use the word "stereotype", and the ones that don't. Formally, there is even a tertiary source, a textbook that mentions this research. All these sources are listed in this article, so there is no necessity to google them. That is why your claim
I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion.
No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, from what you write I deduce that you don't read the sources. I foresee that the example of my co-author, Evgenii Shavgulidze, who studies the properties of the stereotype spaces together with me
— will not persuade you. On the other hand, as we understood, Oleg Aristov, who developed my results on holomorphic duality by studying the stereotype algebra of holomorphic functions of exponential type
— is not interesting for you, because google doesn't suggest you this reading. What about Yulia Kuznetsova, who proved important continuous version of Pontryagin duality for Moore groups
— will this example be suitable? (The term "stereotype space" is contained in the list of keywords of her article.) Or maybe people from Spain and from USA, who study this class of spaces (with another name, but with mentionings of the term "stereotype")
Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
? In these works stereotype spaces are not just mentioned, they are studied. And what about this
The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*.
And people do not only study these spaces, they suggest concrete solutions of this problem for different classes of groups. Eozhik (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. It does not follow that one particular solution is notable on its own. Wikipedia is not a place to present a solution (unless that solution becomes notable on its own). —- Taku (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant here:
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics.
— then your reproach becomes even more vague. Because the theory of stereotype spaces suggests a solution of this problem. On the other hand it becomes unclear which nuances do you see between what you say now and what you told before:
The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.
? If you say that a duality theory "for groups or others" will be notable, then why aren't the stereotype dualities for them notable? Eozhik (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is not inherited; it is possible that some problem is notable while a solution to it is not necessary notable. The sources provided only show that there is a sufficient math literature on the problem of constructing duality theories that extends the Pontryagin duality (thus the problem is notable). They do not establish the notability for stereotype spaces since, aside from your papers, the primary sources, the secondary sources do not give an in-depth treatment of stereotype spaces. Some of theori results may be interpreted in the language of stereotype spaces but that does not make the theory of stereotype spaces notable on its own. —- Taku (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata that is not enough. You should present a very sophisticated logical construction to persuade the interlocutor that the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not notable. I would suggest you to send protests to the editorial boards, and after receiving responses to publish them here. And you should find a rule in Wikipedia, that allows you to delete this article. Eozhik (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something appeared in a math journal doesn’t make it notable from the view of Wikipedia. That something has to have a strong presence in math literature; i.e, there is a sizable group of researchers studying it for an extended time period. Just like not every single actor who had a role in a movie is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —- Taku (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until now, I have not seen anyone here except the initiator of this discussion. And I want to say a few words to those who have not yet formed their opinions.
TakuyaMurata, so your point is that a Wikipedia article must describe only what is written in textbooks, right? Eozhik (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Textbooks or some major monographs... -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not yet found confirmation of this thesis. The links that TakuyaMurata gave to me don't contain it. I will listen with interest to the (promised) opinions of people about this, but no matter what I hear, I want to notice that what is happening is not called honesty:
1. If this important rule is really accepted in Wikipedia, it should be clearly spelled out in the local laws so that situations are not provoked when a person, not knowing about anything like this, spends time writing an article, editing it, searching for sources and the rest, and suddenly discovers that all his work has been thrown into the bin. This is a very important rule, fundamental to such resources, and if it really works here, then the situation when somebody refers to it, despite the fact that it is not written anywhere, is called a dishonesty.
2. On the contrary, if this rule is not accepted on Wikipedia (which is logical to think when it is not visible anywhere), then a reference to it looks like a cheating.
Keep-the concept is cited in this paper:[41]. I think the concern was that the author of the papers was a crackpot or crank. If this concern was true, you wouldn't see a paper of his being cited by others in reputable literature.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not the nomination reason; I am not saying what he does isn’t a valid mathematics research. But that’s not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” All we have is the significant works on the stereotype spaces by User:Eozhik, Sergei Akbarov, himself. We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [42] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. For the notion to be notable, at minimum, we need to know other researches use the term ”stereotype space” in their own works independent of User:Eozhik. —- Taku (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [43] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works.
— is solipsism. Let us bet? If I find an article (in a peer-reviewed journal) where the author (other than me) explicitely uses the term "stereotype space" or "stereotype algebra", you pay me, say, $ 100. If not, I pay you this amount. Agree? Eozhik (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, I should have said: we have not been presented a paper that (1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts. To repeat, what we need is an evidence that there is a sizable group of researches who study stereotype spaces *per se* for an extended period of time. The papers by authors other than you that are cited in the article are, as far as I can tell, about duality theory. They *only* establish the notability of the problem of duality but not of stereotype spaces per se. -- Taku (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to bet or supply the evidence of absence. All I'm saying is there is the absence of evidence that stereotype space is something widely studied in the math community. Without such evidence, we cannot have the article. -- Taku (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When a person is ready to be responsible for his words, there is no problem for him to bet. See how frivolous you are? Eozhik (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is a reference that discusses stereotype spaces *in depth* by authors other than you. Is there any? E.g., some paper whose title includes the term “stereotype space”.
We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
When I pointed out that these references are already given, you changed your claims like this:
No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov [4] uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works.
So this brought us back to the beginning. When I suggested to bet, you changed your claims like this:
(1) does not have you as an author or a co-author and that (2) explicitly states that it studies stereotype space; e.g., it has the term "stereotype space" in title or in abstracts.
Since no one of these requirements is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia, I would say, there is a big problem here. Eozhik (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was vague about what type of references I am asking for. In fact, I don’t really care about the types of references. Any reference will do if it establishes the notability of stereotype spaces. What I have been doing is explaining why the references you provide fail to establish the notability from the view of Wikipedia, and the notability is a requirement: I have already quoted Wikipedia:Notability. —- Taku (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Taku, do you accept the citation I linked to in my previous post? If one were to find two more of a similar nature that would count in your opinion as meeting GNG?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: In my opinion, those references do not do; as far as I can tell, those non-primary sources only refer to or use the works of User:Eozhik. So, we know his research works are legitimate but it does not mean his work is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Anyone can publish a paper introducing a new concept and if the work is good gets a citation. That does not mean we can have a Wikipedia article on topic. we need evidence that this topic is something studied by a sizable group of researchers; e.g.. as I said, the simplest evidence of this would be any paper other than User:Eozhik that uses the term “stereotype space” in title or abstract. (By the way, I don’t think GNG covers a math topic; so the part of difficulty is a lack of the guidelines.) —- Taku (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is my interpretation of the notability requirement but for a math topic to be covered in Wikipedia, we need to see some evidence of significance. In Wikipedia, we cannot have an article on every single actor or every single album just because they are legitimate actors or albums. Likewise, for a math topic, we need some evidence of significance; which can be in any form; e.g., there are a number of papers denoted to the topic, there has been a workshop devoted to the topic, chapters in a textbook on the topic, etc. —- Taku (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, now it’s not enough for other authors to use this term, it’s not enough for them to prove statements in which this term is used, it is not enough for these statements to solve significant problems of mathematics. Now it is necessary for this term to be directly mentioned in the title or in the abstract of the articles that don't belong to me. The rest does not count. The content of the papers, the importance of the results, the usage of the term inside the paper, the keywords, — these details are no longer important.
Gentlemen, this continuous moving of the border of requirements looks indecent. Why the border should now lie here, and not a few centimeters to the left or to the right — is a mystery, and the end of this is not seen. And this style of accusations in itself poses a certain moral problem:
“I don’t understand what is written here, but it doesn’t matter, because for me it’s customary to simply blame the author for various absurd things, and when he makes excuses, his weak point is usually revealed, and this allows me to declare him a loser. And there is no discomfort in the fact that my accusations are absurd and self-contradictory because the goal is more important than the form: even if the weaknesses are not revealed, he will lose because I set the rules of the duel and I can change them as I want.”
So I want to ask, is there a person here who could formulate the claims without deception? It would be fine if he could demonstrate responsibility for his words and have an idea of the encyclopedic traditions and the boundaries of the rational. Eozhik (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taku, I have similar reservations about the use of the "General Notability" guidelines with respect to not only math, but also niche scientific topics. The basic problem is that WP already skews towards what might be called "pop sci" type science coverage. Ostensibly the GNG requirement will help us keep out the cranks and crackpots-- but unfortunately the sensation they generate often makes them notable enough for an article, though it be critical of their theories. As a result I think it would be best to use a stricter interpretation of GNG against anything that is considered crank / crackpot territory outside of WP. For scientific and mathematical concepts not associated with cranks / crackpots, being cited or employed by three different authors in peer-reviewed journals should be enough to meet GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: I have never had a crank / crackpot concern; I am 100% certain that his work is a legitimate mathematical research. The question here is how much mathematical research topics Wikipedia should cover as standalone articles and the GNG is quite irrelevant to such a question. My view is that for a math topic to be covered, it needs to be more than one person's work (with some exception, like when the work is cited hundreds times); i.e., it's something studied by a math community. We have not been presented evidence of that. Here is an AfD quite similar to this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; legitimacy is often not enough. In any case, I think my position is clear; now, we really need opinions from other editors (in addition to yours). -- Taku (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it has to be cited hundreds of times instead of three? Few people get their papers cited that much, especially in math. We don't treat animal and plant species with this! It only needs to be an accepted name by the scientific community. Why can't we treat math concepts like we do organisms?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: No, no, I was taking about an exception. My point was that a math research topic needs to be more than one person's work to be covered in Wikipedia; it needs to be studied by a sufficiently large group of mathematicians. Again the simplest evidence of such would be; there has been some workshop on the topic or a discussion on the topic in a textbook. Also, I do not believe the "stereotype space" is an "accepted name by the scientific community"; because often in abstracts or titles, you see terms like locally convex algebra and such, instead of "stereotype space". Presumably this is because "stereotype space" is not a commonly understood term. In mathematics, anyone can publish a paper introducing a new name and it might get cited; that does not mean that new name is commonly accepted. Workshops, textbooks, monographs, etc. are needed to determine some concept is now firmly part of the mathematical canon (cf. WP:NEOLOGISM) Also, again please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph; in this case, we do have a paper on the subject other than the originator of the topic and there is an (upcoming) textbook on the topic. So in that case, we do have evidence of significance of the topic. For "stereotype space" to be notable from the view of Wikipedia, we also need to see a similar kind of evidence. -- Taku (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: no, there are no special standards for mathematics. Everything is the same everywhere. As I wrote here, in the Soviet Mathematical Encyclopedia of 1977-1985 there are many articles without references to textbooks. It was translated later in Springer and is available now under the name “Encyclopedia of Mathematics”. The (random) examples are the following:
All these requirements about textbooks, terms in titles, in annotations, etc. are exclusively figments of the imagination of our interlocutor. They neither follow from the local rules of Wikipedia, nor from the encyclopedic traditions. Eozhik (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taku, could you provide us list of either synonyms or broader and inclusive terms and phrases for stereotype space? "locally convex algebra" is one. After you do this, Eozhik, I think it would be good to evaluate them and whether you agree with Taku's judgement.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there are many synonyms for stereotype spaces (locally convex algebra isn’t a synonym but a related term); they are a special case of a topological vector space. So, it’s fine to mention the term “stereotype space” in that article. But the question here is whether there are enough literature on the subject to justify a standalone article in Wikipedia; by literature, I mean the works other than by Eozhik. His works are indeed extensive but we need works by other people so that we know the topic is something studied by a math community not by an individual. —- Taku (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: in fact, this term has synonyms. Probably, the most authoritative source is the book by G. Köthe, "Topological Vector Spaces", Vol. I, where these spaces are called “polar reflexive spaces” (§ 23.9, p.308). Apparently, I should have mentioned this in the article, but I forgot about it because, according to my observations, mathematicians did not form a general opinion as to which term is more convenient, some do not use any term at all, and in addition, this class has been opened and reopened many times. M.F.Smith in her pioneering work did not name these spaces in any way, she simply described the topology on the dual space X * and proved that X = X ** (and the topology she introduced was formally different from the topology of uniform convergence on totally bounded sets, but the results on Banach and reflexive spaces follow from her constructions). Same thing with W.C.Waterhouse. B.S.Brudovsky called these spaces "c-reflexive space" (as far as I remember), and K.Brauner calls them “p-reflexive spaces”. F. Garibay Bonales, F.J. Trigos-Arrieta, R. Vera Mendoza, S. Hernandez call them polar-reflexive spaces following Kothe. In Russia, these spaces are usually called "stereotype". Eozhik (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In three of these papers the stereotype spaces are not studied "in itself", the authors apply them to an old problem, the problem of constructing duality theory for non-commutative groups. And they receive important and very unexpected results: they construct duality theories for different classes of groups without the shortcomings of the other theories, as it is explained here and here:
One of the drawbacks of these general theories, however, is that in them the objects generalizing the concept of group are not Hopf algebras in the usual algebraic sense.[1] This deficiency can be corrected (for some classes of groups) within the framework of duality theories constructed on the basis of the notion of envelope of topological algebra.[1][2]
I think it is worth noting that this area, topological vector spaces, is currently not as popular as in the 60s and 70s, for this reason now quite a few people are engaged in it. In particular, conferences on this science are not being held now (and that is why there are no workshops). After the well-known events in Russia I know only several people here who are interested in these things. I believe, however, that this doesn't mean that these people must be treated as madmen. Eozhik (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order to demonstrate notability under the GNG rule, you would need to show examples of the use of the term from the papers, and it would probably have to be employed more than once. (And please translate for us, too.) This is because term "stereotype" is not evident from the titles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, I don't understand. Does this mean that people don't look inside the articles? I can give pictures if this is necessary.
For a pdf, no they probably don't, unless you provide a phrase for them to search. For Google Books, it often highlights the phrase for you which is nice. I've never seen pictures in a deletion discussion before. If they don't get deleted, this is great and I think it will prove your point better than anything you've written so far.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, what were we talking about all this time, if it turns out that people don't look inside the references that give to each other? If this is important the procedure must be formalized by indicating that the author of the article is obliged to give scanned pictures that confirm references. Eozhik (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also because "mathematicians did not form a general opinion as to which term is more convenient, some do not use any term at all, and in addition, this class has been opened and reopened many times". This quote by the main opponent to deletion shows clearly that the term "stereotype space" is not notable by itself. The notability of the associated concept (topological space that is isomorphic to its bidual) is less clear. The defining property is evidently interesting for everybody who works on topological spaces. So, Topological vector space could have section on this subject, and all names that have been given to this property could be redirected there. For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here), or it should have been useful outside the strict study of the concept. No evidence has been given that this is the case here. Therefore I support deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, Could you work at adding a section to Topological vector space, even now? In particular, the stereotype space article has more equations than the topological vector space article, and appears to be more developed. Can you bring topological vector space to a similar, or even better level?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, being "useful outside the strict study of the concept" means the use by others than the inventor of the concept, or the solution of a problem that has been set before the invention of the concept. In the section on applications, I see only generalizations and reference to works by the inventor of the concept and his frends, not the solution of pre-existing problems. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard: constructing duality theories for non-commutative groups is a pre-existing problem. And this problem is far from a final solution. That is why the "inventor and his friends" find support from colleagues abroad (and publish their results in reliable journals). Eozhik (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY say Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. As this article is based only on primary sources, this is sufficient for deleting it, without examining its notability. D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to Reflexive space#Other types of reflexivity: Per the arguments made by Taku and D.Lazard, this is not a term widely-used by independent secondary sources to the point that WP:GNG is not met and WP:NEOLOGISM can apply.Once could argue for a merge to topological vector space, the greater class of objects for which there is substantial secondary sources and standard terminology, but very little content in this article should be merged there on the basis of WP:DUE. — MarkH21talk01:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC); changed to redirect 03:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 this sounds as if there was a controversy between people who prefer to use the term "stereotype" and those who use other terms. There is no such a controversy: people use differenct terms, and this is normal for mathematics. For example, some people use the term linear mapping while others linear operator, and there are no misunderstandings between them. Similarly people use different notations. Eozhik (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about there being a controversy. There just needs to be evidence that the term is widely used. In the evidence that you provided (currently in image form), I see four total articles that mention the term. But one of them has you as a co-author and one of them only says that Akbarov calls them stereotype spaces. That's not really evidence that many people use the term. For linear mapping and linear operator, we can easily find thousands of different independent sources that use each term. — MarkH21talk19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, it’s not my fault that Wikipedia has no rule regulating how many references there should be. And it’s not my fault that when I posted this article 7 years ago nobody warned me. This is what I am talking about here. If these details were indicated in the rules, this would save everyone present from unnecessary waste of time. Eozhik (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, MarkH21, there is still a possibility to edit this article by adding there the term "polar reflexive space" from G.Köthe's book. The relations between these two terms are the same as between linear map and linear operator. This would resolve this local problem, although, of course, the global one (concerning the rules) will remain actual. Eozhik (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines are intentionally vague so that we may rely on editor consensus instead of rigid numerical rules. If we had "more than 10 independent secondary sources use the term", for instance, what if there were 9 Annals papers from 9 different renowned mathematicians dedicated to the term and its theory and a Fields Medal awarded to someone for developing its theory? That's very different from 11 papers from two mathematicians publishing in an obscure journal that only briefly mention the term. Having rigid rules would prevent us from properly assessing the merits of a topic and would make WP overly inflexible. — MarkH21talk13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 is exactly correct here. As I wrote below, trying to invent numerical scales and thresholds is likely to create an illusion of precision rather than actual clarity. XOR'easter (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And by flexibility you mean the possibility to kill other people's work without any legitimate reason. And to advertise the work of the people that you liked, also without being bothering with formalities. I have an opposite opinion. There must be clear rules that allow people to play fair game independently of whether they are your friends or not, whether they live in Europe, America, Russia etc., whether they have enough money to publish their own journals or not. Those who have these money, have the possibility to advertise themselves without Wikipedia. Eozhik (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's assume a measure of good faith here. Nobody is out to "kill" anything. We're not trying to stop anyone from posting on the arXiv, or publishing in journals, or writing a textbook, or expanding the nLab's entry on stereotype spaces. We're not even objecting to having material about stereotype spaces in another article, like topological vector space. We're just trying to decide, honestly and as fairly as we can, whether having three whole dedicated articles — stereotype space, stereotype algebra, stereotype group algebra — is the right course of action. As MarkH21 explained, if the Wikipedia community relied upon numerical rules like "a topic must be mentioned in 10 different journal articles" or "a paper must be cited at least 15 times", then people could just game those rules, just like they already game their impact factor and h-index. Making the rules sound exact does not mean that people will play fair. We rely upon community discussion because we believe that building an encyclopedia is too important for metrics that are only superficially precise. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter I spent a lot of time for creating and editing these articles. When doing this I was sure that this is legitimate and nobody will destroy my work. Because this is in human culture that if something does not contradict the laws, it is legitimate. And these articles are important for us since they give us a possibility to explain to our colleagues what we are doing (there are not so many possibilities, you can trust me). Even nLab, although being a very good website, is not so good since there are technical problems with pictures there (as far as I know). You compare this with h-index and impact factor, but the difference is that to play those games people already should have a good support from their countries: the possibilities to publish their own journals, to visit conferences, etc. for being successful. A mathematician living in Russia, or in Georgia, or in Uzbekistan is not in the same conditions as the one who lives in USA (and who because of this can easily enter the necessary clubs). Of course, nobody of us will refuse to use arXiv or to publish our works in normal journals after this story. But what happens here is not fair. And this contadicts human understanding of decency. Even h-index and impact factor are more fair, since they are based on clear rules. Eozhik (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against merging this with other articles like topological vector space and topological algebra (although I foresee problems since these articles are only drafts). Another possibility, as I told already, is to add the term "polar reflexive" to the article with the references to Köthe and other authors. But what I definitely don't like is the idea to kill everything. On the base of suspicions. Eozhik (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's naturally disappointing if something that you have worked on is nominated for deletion, but the general notability guideline has always been clear (including in 2012) that the most basic metric is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's not really much of that in this case, with perhaps one(?) example in the Kuznetsova article. If there is a lot of coverage from Russian, Georgian, or Uzbek mathematicians (or journals), the outcome is the same as if the coverage is from American mathematicians; there's no difference here. The article deletion discussions on WP are quite fair and based on logical arguments. — MarkH21talk16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 formally these requiremets are met. "More than a trivial mention", "reliable", "secondary sources", "independent of the subject", the only vague point is "presumed". The rules must be more clear. And your idea of "flexibility" is not convincing. Eozhik (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one reference (Kuznetsova) that can be considered significant coverage and independent, not multiple. Also, this "flexibility" isn't my idea; the guidelines were agreed upon via the consensus of many many WP editors over many years. — MarkH21talk17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 what are you looking for? These spaces are studied by different authors. Some of them, like Smith, don't use any terms at all, some, like Brauner, use the term "p-reflexive", some, like Garibay Bonales, Trigos-Arrieta, Vera Mendoza, Hernandez, write "polar reflexive", some, like me, Kuznetsova, Aristov, Shavgulidze, use the term "stereotype". Some study algebras (stereotype or topological). There are mutual references. Are you speaking about generalizations of my own results? They are in the works by Aristov, Kuznetsova and Shavgulidze. Eozhik (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For multiple published papers not written by you or your co-authors that explicitly use the term stereotype ____ in-depth (i.e. not just Akbarov calls them "stereotype ____"). — MarkH21talk21:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stylistically it would be good to add here: "...and not by people who are familiar with you". MarkH21 this is the situation when mathematicians in different countries use different terms. This often happens, I told this already when I gave the example of linear mapping and linear operator. As far as I understand, adding to the article another, equivalent term, "polar reflexive space", will not satisfy you, right? Eozhik (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merging this to Topological vector space or Reflexive space is more appropriate, although I see that the latter already has a section on this. I'm not sure whether "stereotype space" and "polar reflexive space" are collectively notable enough for an article, although even in that case one must determine a title based on WP:COMMONNAME, but that's a separate issue. — MarkH21talk07:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not reading walls of text. Please give concise, policy-based reasons to delete or keep. The images added here look like copyvios; I've reported them at Commons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein that, except for really involved people, nobody want to read these walls of texts. Therefore, I have collapsed the long technical discussion that follows the nomination and does not contain clear policy-based arguments. Remains uncollapsed the nomination, the comments and !votes that are opened by a bolface header, and their answers.
Sandstein's comment is about the upload of copyrighted images. "Walls of text" is about the whole discussion that I have collapsed. By the way, this page is not for personal discussions between editors. So, I do not answer here to any personal question. D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, this is not a personal question, this concerns the rules of Wikipedia. If you write that your vote is based on this opinion
For deserving having its own article, such a concept should either having been studied by many people (this is not the case here)
— while there is no rule that establishes the standards, it is natural that interlocutor asks you where you find these standards. Eozhik (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, Eozhik noted that the term "stereotype" is used by Russians more. I am hoping he will share some of these foreign journals with us and translate it for us. It is possible that differences in terminology between the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Eozhik could be due to language.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: Could be. But it is true that we cannot find a general reference work that gives the definition of a stereotype space. Of course, Google can miss some references, especially off-lines but so far we are not presented evidence that the notion has gained a general currency in the mathematics community. —- Taku (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Epiphyllumlover actually, all Russian mathematical journals (at least important ones) are translated into English, so there is no necessity to translate anything (thank god). Moreover, almost all recent papers are translated now by the authors and posted in arxiv.org. Most of the articles I refered to as well. That is why I have doubts that still (after removal those pictures) there is a necessity to give the quotations. As XOR'easter said,
I expect the people who participate in a deletion debate for a fairly abstruse mathematical topic to be conscientous and check into the available sources, even if it requires clicking a mouse button to expand a section of text.
(He meant clicking this Wikipedia page, but the difference is not too great, I believe.) The absense of this term in Encyclopedia of Mathematics is explained by the fact that after collapse of the Soviet Union (I am not its fan, but the problem exists) mathematics and mathematicians are not well-payed, and there is not enough money for publishing many mathematical books, including encyclopedias. Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community maintains lists of ongoing deletion debates organized by topic. Mathematics is one such topic; there are many others. These lists help editors who have an interest in a subject area to stay informed about when articles pertaining to that subject have been nominated for deletion. For example, I myself make fairly regular checks on the lists for mathematics, science, and biographies of scholars and academics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--the best evidence of notability (that is, the list of citations and the images) is now collapsed. This risks rendering the whole deletion discussion illegitimate and I expect that it could be overturned should Eozhik wish to pursue deletion review.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The images are significantly worse for discussion purposes than simple quotations of text, not least because it's harder to tell how many of them come from the same source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you wouldn't like it if someone collapsed your best arguments. (But they tend not to read it and that is the point of collapsing.) And (directed to XOR'easter), the citations were collapsed too. Is the purpose of inexperience with the methods of this website to give a tactical advantage to an opposer? Or is it to learn? Do you expect the closer to enable this sort of thing?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the people who participate in a deletion debate for a fairly abstruse mathematical topic to be conscientous and check into the available sources, even if it requires clicking a mouse button to expand a section of text. And I expect those people to organize their thoughts sufficiently well that they can articulate a reason to keep or delete the article that is grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, providing an honest evaluation in terms that someone who does not specialize in the mathematics can still understand. I expect that mathematicians and scientists can do what I do and recognize that not every idea I have thought up and published necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia yet. I expect that scholars can appreciate how evaluating research work can be difficult, and that trying to invent numerical scales and thresholds is likely to create an illusion of precision rather than actual clarity. I expect that intellectuals can summon the emotional maturity not to treat a discussion about how to organize an encyclopedia like it is a battlefield. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To find them go to "Technical discussion continued" and uncollapse it. The relevant part of the discussion can be found by doing a browser search for " Kuznetsova "--also see the screenshots slightly below the Kuznetsova and other citations.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: I think the key phrase was not already listed at stereotype spaces. The Kuznetsova and Hernández–Trigos-Arrieta sources are both referenced in the article already. The assumption is that anyone looking at this AfD would look at the reference list. — MarkH21talk01:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Further) comment. Fondamentally, this article is about duality in topological vector spaces. There are a Groethendieck's master work and a Bourbaki's book on topological vector spaces. I have not read them, but I do not imagine that they do not study duality, since duality was fundamental for both authors. None is mentioned in this article, even in the history section. I suspect that many of the theorems that appear in the article can be found in these works, although they are all presented as found by Akbarov. Whether I am wrong or not is not important, as, in any case, the article is biased as not giving any indication of what is really new in Akbarov theory, and what has been discovered by previous authors. This makes the article purely self-promotional. D.Lazard (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many of the theorems that appear in the article can be found in these works, although they are all presented as found by Akbarov.
In such cases, it is considered necessary to provide evidence. And you can send protest to the journals where this is published. Eozhik (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was the term in use during the soviet era? Do you have any of these soviet era offline works laying around? If so, please cite them for us and give short quotes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, no, as far as I know, in Soviet Union people did not study this class of spaces. And the term "stereotype space" appeared in 90ies. But I don't understand this concern about the term. It is usual in mathematics that people suggest new terms. For example, the term quantum group appeared not long ago. I only heard it in 90ies. Outside of Russia these spaces were called "polar reflexive spaces". The book by Köthe was not translated into Russian, that is why it did not occur to anybody here to use this combination of words. And that is why it did not occur to me to mention this in the article. Eozhik (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the format of Eozhik's post for making understandable the change of paragraphs. I hope to not having changed the meaning.
Please, do not discuss other's posts, discuss the content of the article. For being clear, my point is firstly that there are important results on duality of topological vectors published by Grothendieck, Bourbaki, and other members of Bourbaki group ("important" is not my own opinion, as these result are a part of the motivation of Grothendieck's Field medal). Secondly, these results are not cited in the articles. Thirdly nothing is said in the article for distinguishing Akbarov own results from those that must be credited to others (the fact that Akbarov papers have been accepted by editors means that some results are new, not that they are all new). Thus the Wikipedia article does not follows the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). None of these points is addressed in Eozhik's answer. D.Lazard (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard, it would be good if you would not edit my text. It is not yours. There is no intersection between the results listed in the article and Bourbaki's texts. This happens in mathematics. Eozhik (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that D.Lazard should not edit Eozhik's posts. I hope Eozhik will not be too distracted by this to answer my question about whether he has offline 90's era Russian sources using the term and if he could you cite them for us. To D.Lazard: If we do not delete the article, maybe it can be improved somewhere along the lines you suggest. I think there could be room for compromise.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, no, I don't know papers in Russian where this term is used (and which don't belong to our group). But you know, it seems to me you take what happens more serious than I do. This is not the end of the world. I just wanted to do what I can, and that is all. Eozhik (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) D.Lazard has a valid point that several of the results come from elsewhere, e.g. basically all of the Examples section. The claim that There is no intersection between the results listed in the article and Bourbaki's texts is dubious: Chapter IV of Bourbaki's Topological Vector Spaces has significant intersection, including several entire sections after section 3 which begins with: A locally convex space E is said to be reflexive if the canonical mapping cE from E into E" is a topological vector space isomorphism from E onto the strong dual of Eb~. Some of the example in this article are facts given in Bourbaki, e.g. Definition 4 - A locally convex Hausdorff and barrelled space in which every bounded subset is relatively compact is called a Montel space (i.e. X Montel if and only if X barrelled + Heine-Borel; for locally convex X), Proposition 9 - The strong dual of a Montel space is a Montel space. (i.e. X Montel if and only if X* Montel), or Corollary - The bidual of a locally convex metrizable space is a Frechet space. There's certainly unattributed overlap and dependence on earlier results. I don’t think that this isn a major concern in terms of the delete/keep discussion though, that’s moreso a cleanup point. — MarkH21talk21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious? In Bourbaki's book reflexive spaces are defined by tradition, i.e. as those for which the mapping is an isomorphism, where and are endowed with the strong topology (i.e. the topology of uniform convergence on bounded sets). And the results on duality are either about weak diality, or about strong duality. Not about the duality where the dual and the bidual spaces are endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on totally bounded sets. Which proposition in the article is contained in Bourbaki, MarkH21? Eozhik (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that some of the content, e.g. much of the "Examples" section, come directly from older sources like Bourbaki. Otherwise, you're claiming that it is entirely your original result that X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X* is a Montel stereotype space, or that X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X is a barrelled and Heine-Borel stereotype space. These examples are based on the works covered in Bourbaki. — MarkH21talk08:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Montel spaces and their strong duals the topology of unform convergence on totally bounded sets coincides with the usual strong topology on X*, so this result becomes indeed trivial:
X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X* is a Montel stereotype space
I gave it for the completeness of the picture. And this is just a definition of Montel spaces:
X is a Montel stereotype space if and only if X is a barrelled and Heine-Borel stereotype space
Maybe it should be omited. Each Montel space is stereotype, and this follows from its definition and from the fact that each quasicomplete and barreled space is stereotype. This statement belongs as far as I remember, to W.C.Waterhouse. I don't know, perhaps one should mention this in the article. Eozhik (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montel spaces are in addition reflexive in the usual sense. So the fact that they are stereotype follows from M.F.Smith's results. One can say that she is the author. I agree that this section could be filled with more references. Eozhik (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what people write here I see a reasonable reproach that this article reflects mostly the point of view of a group of specialists from one country, Russia. Formally all views must be represented, including other people's understanding of what these spaces must be called. To clear my conscience, and if no one objects, I will add the term "polar reflexive space" and a link to the Köthe book. Eozhik (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did this. MarkH21, if you are still seeking intersections with the results of Grothendieck, this is hopeless. There are no such intersections. Our general reproach to him is exactly that he did not pay attention to the results of M.F.Smith and others, and did not understand the importance of this class of spaces which simplifies everything. Eozhik (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Mathematics is a technical source, moreso than Wikipedia is supposed to be.I am not claiming that the results described in this article are due to Grothendieck, but just adding to D.Lazard's point some of the content here is based on older works not referenced here (see the comments above about the "Examples" section). As mentioned before though, it's really a cleanup issue and not the deletion argument so we shouldn't focus on it. — MarkH21talk08:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! This article reveals so many ways to get around the difficulties of locally convex spaces! It is tremendously useful for anyone looking at the subject and wondering, "Is there a better way?" It garners interest in a subject that would otherwise be dead (topological vector space duality) by providing a fresh perspective. I never would have discovered it by looking at the journal articles. Isn't Wikipedia all about creating community around ideas? Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wham Bam Rock II (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Wham Bam Rock II, I think you should explain how you found out about this discussion because it's not good to look blankly at this picture. Even in absurdity, there must be a measure. Eozhik (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wham Bam Rock II, thank you and excuse me for what you see here. The owners of this club forgot to put a sign on the entrance: "Anyone entering here must be ready to play a role in our absurdist theater!" Eozhik (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of the AfD is a redirect, then we can discuss specific targets, I suppose. (I myself prefer deletion so a discussion like that is moot.) —- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (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.
Comment: Its author Taesulkim was not notified due to being indefinitely blocked. --Onwa (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
