Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Corbomiteo (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 13 June 2012 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic_dielectric_resonance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 12 June 14 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting the opinions by unregistered editors and very new accounts for what I hope are obvious reasons. Among the remaining opinions there is consensus that this is not a notable subject and the content is pretty much useless.  Sandstein  05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic_dielectric_resonance

AfDs for this article:
Atomic_dielectric_resonance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reputable sources prove that the technology meets any of the extraordinary claims on the page. The article was created by and is being maintained by Gordon Stove, who is connected with the company that owns the technology. There's also a notability issue here, as no sources seem to be seriously discussing the technology. The whole page is, in essence, an ad for Adrok's proprietary technology. Corbomiteo (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, the claim that ADR can penetrate miles of solid rock would be a good starting point. Or the idea that photons can be "conditioned" to pass through materials that they ordinarily wouldn't be able to pass through. The article dances around the point a bit, but ultimately insinuates that ADR can be used to identify pretty much anything. That's a pretty spectacular claim that ought to be supported by some sources not affiliated with Adrok. Corbomiteo (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The sources in the article, although lacking hyperlinks to internet-available sources, appear to significantly demonstrate the notability of the topic. Note that some of the sources in the article cite Stove as the author, but also note that other authors are part of the authorship of some of the respective articles/publications. This is a technical topic that benefits the encyclopedia to cover; its blanket deletion doesn't particularly improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. GScholar produces only 11 hits for "Atomic Dielectric Resonance". There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in third party sources independent from the technologies primary proponents.TR 08:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This articel is a well worded simple explanation of this new are of research. The references used are very useful and provide a good background to the topics raised. The claims are all justifiable and well referenced. The articel is not an advert for a company or a commercial promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.56.74 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a gem of information. We started monitoring Atomic Dielectric Resonance as part of our Geophysics course at our Univeristy. One of my friends wrote a very good essay on Atomic Dielectric Resonance and other novel non-seismic ways of imaging geology. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.115.193 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a lot of unfounded allegations and (horribly obvious) sockpuppetry happening here: 31.54.115.193 claims both to be an unrelated party at a university, and yet has somehow "discovered" that I work for some other company. Needless to say, I don't work for another company, and repeating "the claims are founded" doesn't make it so. None of the references support the claim that photons can be altered to pass through rock, none of the references provide evidence that the technology can reliably image deep underground, and none of the references support the notability of the article beyond its proponents. The article itself is barely understandable and poorly written. Keeping it does not serve to improve Wikipedia. Corbomiteo (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and almost patent nonsense. The article is so vague as to fail to discriminate itself from general spectroscopy. While it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and has a patent, as presently written it is nothing more than hype and propaganda for Adrok. Unless some concrete discussion of the physics and chemistry is involved, it's not fit for an encyclopedia. A S Houdini (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing in this entry that breaches Wikipedia's policies. As for an encyclopedia entry, this article is sufficient. As for hype and proganda claims for Adrok, there are a number of proven case histories presented by Adrok (if one does a simple search or even approaches Adrok direct). Adrok have conducted a number of field surveys for my Company and have repeatedly proven rock horizon identification correctly over multiple sites with good correlations with borehole depth to depths of up to 1,000m and 2,000m. and they are the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.16.5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, none of those studies are peer reviewed. They are case studies. Of course Adrok claims the technology works. Second, if you're going to try to pretend to be a satisfied customer of Adrok, you should probably avoid posting from an IP address that has: a) already voted and b) resolves to mail.adrokgroup.com. Nice try. Corbomiteo (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My name is Gordon Stove and I created the original Atomic Dielectric Resonance entry on Wikipedia. Neither myself nor Adrok Ltd (the company I Manager) own the technology known as Atomic Dielectric Resonance. I am surprised that my entry has been requested to be removed, albeit from someone from another Company who uses competing technologies to my own Company. Their request is nothing short of malicious and spiteful, given that they are a competitor.

To clarify, Atomic Dielectric Resonance started as an empirical measurement made by my father, Dr G. Colin Stove, in the summer of 1997. This was later patented in 1999 (afetr stringent demonstrations and due diligence with Patent Attorneys). It is a physical measurement of resonating electromagnetic beams of low power energy(mainly in the radiowave and microwave part of the spectrum) and capturing the returned resonating beams from an object under investigation. Initially, these measurements of dielectric permittivity, enegry, frequency and phase were collected in a close-ranging propogation setting imaging objects 1 to 2m away from the transmitter. We then worked on greater transmission distances and acheived depths of peentration through the ground of 90m and then 1400m in the year 2004 (this was witnessed and later reported by the Univerisity of St Andrews, Scotland). We started commercially providing a service using our Atomic Dielectric Resonance technology for geological surveying in 2007; whereby we successfully identifed the presence of thin gas filled sand layers in the ground at depths of up to 750m (which was corroborated through subsequent drilling with our client Caithness Petrolem). Since that time, we have conducted a number of field surveys imaging geology in the ground and providing what we call Virtual Borehole readings to our clients. In 2011 one of our existing clients, Teck, a large multinational Mining and Energy company, invested $5million in our company following conducting a number of field and laboratory tests on our technology, as well as substantial due diligence on our company and technology. As a company and as a serial-inventor, we will continue to push and test the boundaries of science and technology to continue to develop new technologies and theories to help with geophysical exploration and the finding of hydrocarbons and minerals vital to the world’s health and welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonstove (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gordon. Why not provide some citations for that material that has been through the peer review process? If it has been reported by the University of St Andrews, it should be a cinch to add it to the article. The rest of your post here is interesting, but unrelated to the discussion here of whether a) the article's claims are well-supported by the citations, and b) the technology is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Adding primary sources that support the articles claims (for example, peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that photons can be modified to penetrate rock to otherwise impossible depths) would be a great start. Adding third party sources (for example, a newspaper or magazine article discussing ADR), would really seal the deal. Unfortunately, to date, neither has been done. All you've done so far is try to accuse me of working for a competitor (I don't, but even if I did, that doesn't change the substance of your article), and sockpuppet as demonstrated above (not sure why you feel that Adrok should get at least three and probably more votes in the deletion process, but that doesn't seem very fair). Corbomiteo (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this prompting, I have indeed added some more third party references to the article entry for Atomic Dielectric Resonance. Also, for further clarification, I have canvassed my staff at Adrok and they have confirmed that no-one other than myself from Adrok has added requests for this page to be kept on Wikipedia. If permitted by Wikipedia's deletion policy, I am sure I can drum up hundreds of people to petition support to keep Atomic Dielectric Resonance on Wikipedia. A final point: why don't you come clean and honestly disclose who you really are and which organisation you work for "Corbomiteo"?
    • Thank you for adding those sources. I'm not convinced they adequately demonstrate the notability of ADR outside of Adrok, but I am not as familiar with Wikipedia's notability and reliable source guidelines as I would like. I'd appreciate some input from someone other than myself or Gordon on this. With regards to the sockpuppetry, it's probably not worth any further discussion unless it continues. My understanding is that Wikipedia will determine consensus on merit, not by number of votes. As for my identity, I am not employed by any organization whatsoever, and do not work in any industry related to Adrok's activities. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it or cease your untrue and speculative personal attacks. Going back and forth like this serves nothing. Corbomiteo (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There you go folks - "Corbomiteo" is still hiding behind untruths of his occupation and his conflict of interest relating to Adrok and our technology. I know the true identify of "Corbomiteo" and would rather he comes clean as oppose to me revealing the true identity of "Corbomiteo". Furthermore, I doubt he has had the time to source and read all of the new references I added a matter of minutes ago to the Atomic Dielectric Resonance entry on Wikipedia. I will let Wikipedia's deletion policy panel be the judge of "Corbomiteo's" unreasonably biased request to delete my page. Regards, Gordon Stove, Managing Director, Adrok Ltd.
        • Your new sources were posted hours ago, not minutes ago. I made no claims other than "I'm not convinced." The sources that are third party mention ADR fairly briefly, and only in the context of what Adrok claims it can do. Note that many of the sources you just added are authored by Adrok and are therefore not third-party sources. I'd encourage others to take a look at the sources and come to their own conclusions -- most of the articles are available online if one navigates to the websites of each. I'm not even going to make any further statements about my identity. I request -- nay, I demand that you reveal my identity for all to see. If you cannot do that, it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to muddy the waters. Seriously, calm down and let's discuss the merits of the article -- if the article does get to stay, a productive discussion here could provide valuable insight on how it might be improved. Corbomiteo (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My posts were in fact only minutes before your instant message to dismiss my newly added references - which was clearly not enough time for you to search and find the references. One of the thrid party references is located in a reference library in England, UK and can only be accessed upon written request to the librarian. So you surely could not have had the time to conduct a thorough reading review of all of the new references listed on my page. Your continued claims that the third party articles mentioning Atomic Dielectric Resonance "fairly briefly" are completely unfounded. As for your identity, I continue to honour the fact that it should be up to you to be brave enough to reveal who you really are and disclose to Wikipedia your conflicts of interest. As for my certainty of your identity, you will be receiving a letter in the next few days - you can let the world know when you receive it. Kind Regards, Gordon Stove, Managing Director, Adrok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonstove (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I find that the new references are not adequate to demonstrate notability...some mentions in trade journals is neat but marginal. But actually I am more concerned about the fact that the article is written as an advertisement and contains no valuable encyclopedic information. They describe hundred-year-old techniques as if they were miraculous new inventions, rather than fitting them into a bigger picture. They discuss advantages in a misleading and exaggerated way without mentioning disadvantages. They give product details that could not possibly be of interest to anyone except customers and potential customers. If the article were rewritten from scratch in a neutral and encyclopedic way then I might be willing to overlook the marginal notability. But everything that's there right now should be deleted.
For company people here: I have nothing against Adrok and would consider them if I ever needed geological remote-sensing someday. They seem to have good engineers doing good work. I would not have any problem with the text of this article if I saw it on your company website rather than on Wikipedia. And by the way, not having a Wikipedia article will not hurt your business ... quite the contrary, you should prefer that the first google search result for ADR returns your company website, which you totally control, rather than wikipedia, which you can't control. --Steve (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - why is the deletion of this page carry with it such fervour? Surely a concerned wikipedian would merely create and Article for Deletion and then allow the community to lobby one way or the other? I suspect ulterior motives in the frantic focused effort to remove this page. Atomic Dielectric Resonance is a Phenomenon of Physics - granted, a not very well known one but a phenomenon none the less and with time industry will recognise it for what it is. Many other disciplines of physics use resonance as a form of imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance for one. Any new discipline will always incur a certain skepticism by conventional thinkers as I certainly was no different when I first encountered ADR. As a geophysicist, the first question was how does this defy skin depth equation as the term 'penetration' conjures concepts from classic EM theory and Maxwells equations. Not wanting to futher exacerbate clearly what is not an intellectual discussion, I would merely recommend the higher ground and ask Corbomiteo to please recognise that his/her comments for deletion of the page have been noted. I would recommend anyone else who is interested in the 'unusual behavior of photons' to read Richard Feynman's works in Quantum Electrodynamics for which he won a Nobel Prize. RapidGeo (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did find one source that has been published in a peer reviewed medical journal, the Journal of Translational Medicine. I found another paragraph size mention of the use of this technology in another published medical paper here (scroll down or use search term). However, I agree with Steve and the AfD nominator. Overall, this subject 's lack of noteriety means that the article does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This is because it does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG. Also, I do not appreciate having to wade through all the sock puppetry on this page. Such behavior is highly unprofessional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been following discussions on this page for a few days now, after a friend at Schlumberger (a multinational oilfield services company) brought it to my attention. The claim that radiowaves or microwaves can travel further distances when emitted from a directional, collimated source is indeed possible. This is why NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) have been able to produce images of Martian rocks with their MARSIS experiment (which sent EM waves several kilometres). Or how WiFi signals can travel further when emitted from a directional antenna than from an Omnidirectional antenna. The use of QED theory is also valid. Electromagnetic waves have been measured to penetrate rocks underground by many other companies, such as Statoil, EMGS, Exxon-Mobil through their use of CSEM technology in the oil industry. Overall, I think that the Atomic Dielectric Resonance page should be kept to keep the general public informed of further developments in its technology evolution. I note that Teck (a large Energy and mining multinational) has invested and backed the technology - perhaps they will also contribute to the wikipedia knowledge base in the future. From a business viewpoint, I think that Gordon Stove (as Managing Director of Adrok, whom uses the technology) is quite right to defend this page and he has conducted himself very professionally in the above talk section. Please keep Atomic Dielectric Resonance alive on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philchristie(sbl) (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iori Mochizuki

Iori Mochizuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO: no third-party coverage or reliable sourcing demonstrating the notability of this person outside his own blog. --DAJF (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iori Mochizuki is a member of what is called the alternative media, reporting on subjects that are not covered for whatever reason by the conventional media. As such Iori is reporting on a subject that the Japanese government and media seem to be covering up. Alternative sources of information regarding Iori Mochizuki are therefore almost impossible to find, along with the subject matter that he is reporting. What Iori's page explains is precisely why you will not find reliable notability anywhere but in the alternative media and as such, the Wikipedia community should take this into consideration with this particular rule. As a source of information on Iori Mochizuki and the research I have done, this page seems legitimate and should be kept.


  • Mochizuki Iori is a known public figure among his peers for his independent work on the coverage of the ongoing issues with Fukushima Japan's Nuclear Power Plant Fukushima Daiichi and the potential threat it is posing to the population of Japan and the rest of the world. His articles are shared in many Facebook groups such as A Nuke Free World and Chernobyl Children Fukushima Children and on several individual Facebook pages including mine. His articles and message show up in places all over the internet. He is read by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people daily. He is featured on sites around the world. www.Nuclearfreeplanet.org and www.Dianuke.org are just a few to name. He has been recommended on www.appealforfukushima.com He appeals to people on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Youtube just to name a few places. He is one man trying to help start a revolution to save the people of this planet. It only takes one to make a change. He might not meet your requirements for Wikipedia but I think you need to change those requirements to add in for people who are reaching many and are standing out as public speakers, whether they be actually physically speaking or speaking out through type. Words are words and they can still have the same effect. Iori is a light in a dark world to many and he should be recognized for it. No he might not have received any rewards or honors yet but that does not mean he is any less deserving of recognition for his hard work and dedication in trying to make the world a better place. Please give him his due and let him have a wikipedia page. He has earned it with all that he has done and is continuing to do. You might not see it with your rules, but the rest of us, the thousands of people that support him, do. Thank you.Crysl0811 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Crysl0811 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A Nuke Free World Facebook Group[1] Chernobyl Children Fukushima Children Facebook Group [2] Nuclear Free Planet Website [3] Dialogues and Resources on Nuclear, Nature, and Society [4] Appeal For Fukushima [5]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through many pages of Ghits and found nothing except blogs and other social media, nothing that qualifies as reliable sources. I encourage any editor who disagrees with notability policy, or any other, to work within the community to change that policy. Ubelowme (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can sympathize with the argument that figures in alternative media might need to be viewed with a different lens, and perhaps Wikipedia needs to address this issue more as media alternatives proliferate. But after spending some time looking through the alternative media in Japan, I was surprised to find that Mochizuki barely appears there other than in occasional blogs entries linking to his Fukushima Diary blog. I have still not been able to confirm his name in Japanese because few talk about him, and those that do only say "モチズキさん" because they don't know his name. True, his diary is in English, but for being an activist who cares about Japan, why is he not more active in Japanese? All this makes me nervous: how can we allow a page on someone we can't even confirm the identity of? That's the problem with some alternative media: it can publish hoaxes, baseless rumors, and assumed identities with little verifiability. Those should not be allowed in any encyclopedia, even an alternative one. The danger with arguing that alternative media have to be recognized here because mainstream media are suppressing that media is that it can start descending in fringe theories (WP:FRINGE). Reading a lot of Japanese media, I would argue against anyone who says that oppositional voices regarding Fukushima are being completely shut out of the Japanese media viewed in a broader sense (even today, Karin Amamiya lambasted the decision to restart the Oi reactor in the Asahi Shinbun). There are plenty of people in alternative media in Japan who have expressed themselves in established left wing or political journals that satisfy Wikipedia RS criteria. Mochizuki is not one of them. I can only conclude that even within the sphere of alternative media he is a minor figure who does not yet deserve a Wikipedia article. Michitaro (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to JT Tran. The two first "keep" opinions advocate a merger, three other people recommend deletion as non-notable, and I'm discounting Josh769's opinion as it does not appear to offer any argument. The other opinions can be reconciled with a "redirect", this way anything that's worth retaining can be merged from the history, editorial consensus permitting.  Sandstein  18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABCs of Attraction

ABCs of Attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination of a page which appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created by sockpuppets to promote the company. Information on the company - which offers 'pick-up artist' tactics - seems to be based on promotional material.

Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors (or sockpuppets) with obvious conflict of interest and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP

I am also nominating the following related page due its connection with the topic of this AfD and lack of notability, along with some being written in large part by some of the same group of editors/sockpuppets involved with this article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - But cut way the hell back and merge the two articles. Yeah, it's had enough coverage to technically merit notability (no accounting for taste). Add his name to the fifteen-bazillion name list of guys that have sure fire, can't miss, set in stone rules for dominating the opposite sex. - Richfife (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut back the main article significantly. I need to take a breather before looking at JT Tran. This is disturbing stuff. - Richfife (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've undone the redirect at JT Tran. It's not appropriate to essentially remove the article while it is under an AFD discussion. I agree the article itself is dreadful, but the content, especially the sources, should be there to assist editors in reviewing for the deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hock

Kim Hock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD on notability grounds - DProder suggested AfD Peter Rehse (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7'd The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Caloocan

SM City Caloocan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BALL, It has no WP:RS The Determinator p t c 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Renaming the article can be done WP:BOLDly. The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of six-man football stadiums in Texas

List of six-man football stadiums in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious violation of WP:NOT#INFO, no evidence that any of those stadiums" listed even meet WP:GNG, or if they are considered to be stadiums at all. Delete Secret account 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a similar article List of American football stadiums by capacity for traditional American football stadiums. If this can be shown to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list, which is less stringent than WP:GNG, a list of stadiums is not unprecedented. Here is one article from The New York Times on one stadium, which apparently is a different size than regular football and lacked bleachers (this one at least).—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inclusion in Six-man football would bog down the piece. That's the merge target if it comes to that... The information appears accurate. It's a distinct variant of the game popular in Texas and I can't for the life of me imagine how deleting the piece would improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination statement erroneously concludes that some of these stadiums must be themselves notable. Per WP:NNC, individual entries in a list need not be notable, and the nomination statement appears ignorant of WP:LISTN. I've never heard of the game before, but I suspect adequate sourcing to discuss the fields as a whole can probably be found. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reading in a little bias on behalf of the nominator, with the statement "if they are considered to be stadiums at all" ... let's show a little good faith please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to say if there's any sources out there that they are considered as stadiums. I Goggled checked several of these alleged stadiums and some of them the only sources about them is the some guy named Texas Bob personal website in the bottom of the link. All those places listed don't meet GNG, and some of them have obvious WP:V issues as there's no sources that mentions if it's a real "stadium", or just a park with a section for football games which most of them listed seems to be. Secret account 04:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't object to renaming the article List of six-man football fields in Texas, but that to me is a minor change and not worthy of AFD. The article Stadium defines "a place or venue for (mostly) outdoor sports, concerts, or other events and consists of a field or stage either partly or completely surrounded by a structure designed to allow spectators to stand or sit and view the event." If even they have a partial set of bleachers, that meets the minimum definition. But wanna rename it to "field" that's okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm ready to take a position in this discussion after some reflection. I have decided that the subject meets WP:LISTN. My research in 6-man football shows it to be a unique enough sport and this list can help to display its geographic impact. I'd like to see some additional information added, including a few images of some of the stadiums and if possible a map showing their locations. It's good that we have capacity for each one, and it's nice to see such a broad range of seating capacity (150 to 2500 I believe) so I can see how this article can really add to the article on six-man football. I also would like to see some more sources added (there's got to be stadium history information in papers online). Overall, it would be too clumsy of an article to combine with the six-man article so we're left with this list. I do suggest alternate titles as list of "fields" or "venues" rather than "stadiums" to avoid confusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have band

We have band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is about a very small band that seems not to meet WP: BAND. I have decided to seek other editor's opinions before CSD tagging it. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An established band in the UK indie music scene, two album releases on Naïve Records, a notable following on their internet pages and performers on large stages as various respectable festivals. Not necessarily a very small band, although matching criteria for WP: BAND is slim, yes. Therudestdudest (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Nelson (voice actor)

Drew Nelson (voice actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Subject has not established notability in accordance with general or topical notability guidelines for actors. Television and short film roles appear to be minor, uncredited, or nonexistent. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally, the content that states that the subject was nominated for various awards in 2008 (Golden Globe, MTV Movie Award for Best Performance, etc.) is not supported by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association or other attributed organizations. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR and, as noted by the nominator, there are a number of untrue assertions about the subject having won various awards for which it is doubtful he would even qualify for nomination. Ubelowme (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Amanda

Bad Amanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable; also sources provided do not deeply examine topic Curb Chain (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles has a handful of independent sources, and the first reference by the Futon Critic gives a pretty detailed description of the episode, and I was able to find other articles with significant coverage. Considering that this article meets Wikipedia's television episode guideline, and considering that every other episode of Ugly Betty has it own article, I think we need to keep this one. NJ Wine (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That is a press release from the network who makes these shows! Complete conflict of interest/WP:PRIMARY SOURCEs do not constitute notability. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean this should, and I am being scrupulous for not nominating the other articles! And WP:SUPPORT does not work in deletion discussions.Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles such as [1] does not indicate notability outside of the show, so you can bombard the article (and other articles in this series, season, or wholly other series for this matter) with these sources but this won't indicate notability. And as listed by WP:TVEP, individual episodes are notable if they are exceptional compared to others ("...outstanding..." in its terms).Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TVEP gives editors broad discretion about whether only seasons of a show should have articles, or whether each episode should have an article. For example, WP:TVEP cites The Simpsons (season 8) as a good TV article, and when you read that article, every episode of the Simpsons for that season gets its own article. Episodes do not need to be exceptional to have an article. NJ Wine (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe each episode in that season of Simpsons is notable, per indepth discussion from 3rd party sources, but that argument does mean that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS holds weight. Note your mention of the "broad" discretion of WP:TVEP which is essentially useless for determining notability.Curb Chain (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia's television episode guidelines are very ambiguous, and there is no consistant practice. Some major TV shows have articles for every episode, whereas only have one article per season. Bad Amanda has a few indepedent sources discussing it, and if it were a stand-alone one-time show, its notability would be borderline. However, I think we need to look at this in the context of the Ugly Betty TV series. The show has 85 episodes, and all 85 have articles about them -- see List of Ugly Betty episodes. I think it would be bizarre for 84 episodes of a TV show to get their own Wikipedia article, and 1 not to have its own article. NJ Wine (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened with Grey's Anatomy. I nominated almost all of the episodes for deletion and almost all of them were redirected. Per WP:N if an article is not notable it should be deleted. Some episodes get an article, but this doesn't mean this doesn't violate WP:NOT, it just means that noone has deleted them yet.Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination contradicts itself; it declares that the topic is not notable then it states that there are sources which discuss it. In any case, as this is a split of the main topic for reasons of space, there's no case for deletion as any consolidation would be best done by merger per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can redirect these articles into the season in which it appears and use some information from this article to fill the pertaining season's article if this is necessary. If we are to keep the article, it would violate a policy, and not a guideline: WP:NOT.Curb Chain (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Desai

Poulomi Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. Dwaipayan (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but substantially clean-up article. The article contains several independent sources, and I was able to find a few more.[2][3], which I added to the article. Poulomi Desai meets Wikipedia's artist notability guideline which states the following: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • Interview with Poulomi Desai (Usurp gallery) | Harrow Community Radio
  • ART REVIEW; Many Shows and Many Indias - Page 3 - New York Times
  • There's also this article, which is not quite significant coverage, but beyond passing mentions – Dakin, Melanie (April 19, 2010). "Hair exhibition opens in West Harrow". Waterford Observer. Retrieved June 05, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 03:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Giant eland. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tragelaphus derbianus

Tragelaphus derbianus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is not required because the real page, Giant eland, exists. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This one MUST take policy-based discussion as prime: this is a dictionary definition. Nothing in the article even hints at importance or notability of the phrase. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ullu ka patha

Ullu ka patha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition sourced funnily enough to a dictionary definition Darkness Shines (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lyk4 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lyk4 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also used in Punjabi, thought it would be Ulla da patha instead of the "ka". Minor difference :) Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very commonly used phrase in Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi in Pakistan and India. The articles passes GNG since there are many sources available to verify notability of the topic. On a side note, Rob Asghar has commented on this Wikipedia article in a book written by him btw. Just thought I'd share :)

I like how a Wikipedia entry for the phrase once noted "Currently, this term is also used widely for the President of Pakistan (Asif Zardari) as a sign of great dislike by the people". When a struggling nation feels that way about its leader - as is usually the case in Pakistan - you can only brace yourself for what's coming next.

— Rob Asghar, Lessons from the Holy Wars: A Pakistani-American Odyssey, page xv

Mar4d (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep satisfies WP:GNG. But it will be better if someone add some good references/links. Bharathiya 09:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)
  • Keep and improve: notable and sources present. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMS your first source is from Spinifex Press, hardly a highly thought of or well known publisher given they "publish innovative and controversial feminist books" Your second source is a self published book and fails WP:RS. And as no other sources are being presented to prove this terms notability it ought to be deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a ruling here that Spinifex's published books are not considered reliable? (btw this books first edition was published by Penguin books) The second source, how is it a SPS? Can you please explain, because I don't see it as one. --SMS Talk 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First source is of no use as it is not an academic publisher and is only good for opinion, not facts. Second source is self published as the publisher is a self publisher akin to lulu. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic positivism

Noetic positivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to be notable, and has no references from reliable sources. Google finds only the self-published books that are the subject of the article and a lot of related social media links Mcewan (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mcewan (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The article doesn't even explain anything; even if there was something interesting in the references, the article itself is gobledygook. To editorialize a bit: it looks like this is just someone's weird pet theory of something (or everything? The reader can't even tell that much) constructed out of confusedly tossing together a bunch of technical terms in a way that makes no sense.134.29.178.146 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


..One can even argue with Eternity if there’s a weighty pretext, substantial argument, and resources of the required level… "The Sigma Passion" a science novel by Vlad K. Once

Excellent idea(considered for deletion). I would also suggest checking up the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", for compliance with scientific (common) sense according to the following criteria;

1. Subject matter of

2. Object of research

3. Target, methods etc.

If answers to these simple questions are not found, then let at least a basic explanation (definition)of what these sciences mean be presented to the world. And of course my “best wishes” to all moderators of the following articles "Noetic psychology" and "Noetic sciences". Looking forward to hearing explanations from them, why these quasi-sciences which do not have got any above mentioned criteria (1,2,3) can delude the readers of the Wikipedia? I think that having answered this question we will be able to understand why there are so many people willing to delete an article about a real new science - Noetic positivism. Or if The Times or the Nature haven’t written about something then this something does not exist in the world, does it? Let me share a "little secret" - the editorial staff of these journals is the same people like you who search for internet links etc… And the ones like me develop science..

As for Noetic concept it’s in this exact way (but not as it is written in the following articles ("Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory") was this term used by Husserl in his writings on phenomenology.

What you call - gobledygook - is an academic (in its keenest meaning) form for presentation of a scientific theory. (But if you had the respective education, you would surely know about it)

I would like to comment about one thing (solely for the article on Noetic positivism) for the future. This article may only be removed by someone who can scientifically prove that the formula for passion formula for passion is wrong. Otherwise (deciding to remove the article) and keeping the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", - you show either incompetence or personal concern/involvement...

Best wishes..

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2010 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sigma-Passion-Power/dp/0956395171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056458&sr=8-1

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2011 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B00669E8A2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056627&sr=8-1

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B006ASJE6M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056664&sr=8-3

'ETHICS' (academic essay) http://noeticpositivism.blogspot.com/2011/03/ethics-article-guardian-refused-to.html

Noeticpositivism (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For those who try to use the Act 1R (Articles with a single source) I hope that everyone present here understands that the research level of Noetic positivism - is possible only thanks to writings of such great people like René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Auguste Comte, Immanuel Kant, Max Planck and others, and I am just one of those few who try to follow their hard path of knowledge…

аnd you have to decide yourselves who you follow


And last but not least - this article about Noetic positivism does not end here yet...

Noeticpositivism (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and the theory may well be correct but unfortunately, until this is recognised elsewhere, it does not belong in Wikipedia. As I said on your talk page, the single best thing that you could do to improve the chances of the article being kept is to find references in reliable sources for the subject in order to demonstrate that it is notable, not original research and not from a single source. I did try to find such references, but couldn't. Mcewan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your comment. But if you were more attentive you could see that various publishing houses had published my writings… And believe me; they used to tell Husserl the same things about phenomenology (or even worse). By the way, if I understand you correctly then you have found the basis for "Noetic sciences" in Dan Brown’s work, and how can it be otherwise with the articles "Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute" not being deleted yet? Frankly speaking, as with a colleague, you can delete my article (the research will never stop with it), but then you MUST delete quack articles on "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory" from Wikipedia as well. Thank you for your attention spent on Noetic positivism. and by the way, the Top-level domains "noeticpositivism" nevertheless belong to me.

Regards

Noeticpositivism (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I have not and will never read Dan Brown's work:) I happen to agree about the "quack" articles you mention. You will see that I have worked on a couple. You could too, perhaps also on something in the Philosophy and Religion projects area. Understand that this process is not about judging the correctness or otherwise of your work but about the criteria for its inclusion in Wikipedia. I wish you well and hope you find the recognition you seek: it may just not be here, at least initially. Mcewan (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I hope that you didn’t have a feeling that I feel some dislike towards you. It’s not like that. I understand that you are doing your job. And I’m rather understanding with critics as I consider critics one of the most important conditions of improvement. (Critics but not discourtesy and stupidity…)

2. As for Dan Brown, I want to stress that he is rather famous as a writer. But as a scientist… I don’t know him. (especially in the noetic concept area)

3. As for your invitation in the Philosophy and Religion projects area, - thank you very much, I realize all the responsibility and I’ll quite possibly join you.

4. As for you wishing me success, I’m touched. But I think it’s necessary to make it clear that as a scientist I don’t look for fame. (I’m just trying to implement my potential).

As for me as an author, of course I’m interested in success of my writings; feeling the necessity to choose between the immediate triumph of a fiction writer and the fame for ages I try to write so that a person of a high level of education (such as you for example) would consider the time spent for reading my book a worthy occupation and could recommend doing the same to their children…

(You can see whether I’m right in rare but independent and honest reviews to my books… by Vlad K. Once)..

Best

P/S.

Specially for those who is good with (..gobledygook - pet theory of something..) and (..no possible notability..) - The (www.uspto.gov) database lacks the "US Patent No. 12,928/592” patent number specified in article about "Noetic theory"..


Noeticpositivism (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Howdy,

I suggest to review the article Yahoo published "Futuristic Computer Program Arrives Ahead of Computer". http://news.yahoo.com/futuristic-computer-program-arrives-ahead-computer-141449529.html

I would like to share my opinion on it with you straight away. - This article is no more than a sham. Despite the fact that its subject matter is very serious, the main objective of this article consists in creating ‘information noise’. Such actions are usually undertaken to attract investors, or to report on the spent funds invested previously (let’s say a program is designed which can only be tested in devices which have not yet been manufactured…). What I mean is that, a publication in ‘independent sources’ does not always verify the subject of discussion... And talking of devices (quantum computers), I’d like to remind that the "Noetic theory" article discusses those, doesn’t it? Furthermore, this article specifies the number of the patent which can not be found in the USPTO.GOV database (that is to emphasize the fact that certain articles which "comply with the standards" of Wiki and are verifiable, still contain “some inaccuracies’, to put it mild… As far as the mere “Noetic theory’ is concerned, which is discussed in the homonymous article, I would like to request all participants of this discussion to share their view on it (if you feel entitled to delete a strictly academic article about Noetic positivism), please, share your view on this so to say ‘offence of the science” inflicted by those who skillfully use Wikipedia - with all the respective consequences for the Wiki readers.

P/S.

Just in case, I would like to remind you that any theory possesses a number of functions. The most important ones are as follows:

1. A theory provides its user with conceptual structures;

2. A theory suggests development of a certain glossary of terms;

3. A theory provides for understanding, explanation and forecast of various manifestations of the subject matter of the theory.

Please, check if the article "Noetic theory" article complies with the specified (academic) requirements.

(The next article subject to discussion is Noetic Advanced Studies Institute)..

Best wishes!

Noeticpositivism (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith and take it that you are not familiar with wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, articles need to have verifiable, reliable, sources. This afd page is to discuss whether this particular article meets those criteria. Please limit your arguments accordingly. If you disagree with those requirements, this isn't the place to discuss it. Try the various policy talk pages or Wikipedia:Village pump if you want to discuss WP policy about notability and sourcing. Also, you might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why it is not a valid argument for keeping this article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my turn, I'd like to admit that you are right, and I am really not fully aware of the rules of WP. And by all means I will accept and agree with the opinion of the editorial board of WP (in any case, the formula for passion developed by me is certified in my name), same applies to the concept of Noetic positivism. By the way (and please don't take it too serious), rules differ from dogmas primarily by exceptions. It's merely an observation...

Noeticpositivism (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore, if the reasons of the opponents stated above and below are deemed fair and sufficient to remove the articles, then why noone wants to use the same reasons in the course of analysis of the forthcoming articles ("Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic sciences", "Noetic psychology", "Institute of Noetic Sciences")? Does WP apply the same rules and policiesapplicable to all articles? Also, I can not but draw your attention to the scientifically low level of some commentaries published here. I wonder who those commentators are and how they come up with such ways of expressing themselves, - If you like princip of WP:Walled garden - please do check the next articles for this situation... ("Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic sciences", "Noetic psychology", "Institute of Noetic Sciences")!

Best

Noeticpositivism (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoomlaShine

JoomlaShine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry but this is not a quality article. It reads completely promotional, and there is no assertion of notability whatsoever.    Thorncrag  11:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thinks it's notable, but the page itself is too promotional. I don't think it necessarily needs to be delete; it is just in need of a major overhaul. Sourcing appears thin also.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an additional note, "RocketTheme" which is widely regarded as the most popular Joomla template provider (see sources in this article) does not have an article.   Thorncrag  15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20 employees - worldwide spread software, meets my notability guidelines. And after all, it's ways less promotional than the article about Windows 8. --Hiddenray (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Windows 8 page is more well sourced, and in my opinion, less promotional. I agree the page should be kept, but it is too promotional.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought this article is about a product and not about a company... But this fails then also WP:NCORP and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. mabdul 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this article is about a notable product. And this product is not somebody's private sex toy, but there is a whole company behind. It is absolutely a notable product. --Hiddenray (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you are surely able and willing to provide independent, third party and reliable references (either about the company or the products), or? mabdul 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You live in a delusion. There isn't such a thing like a reliable independent third party review. This concept is flawed from its inner root. I wrote this somewhere else, but the way the guidelines are followed has the result to fill up this encyclopaedia with advertising of multinational companies, often discarding quality products from minor companies and people without the means to buy articles and advertisings on tech journals. Give JoomlaShine enough money to buy an independent third party review, and you'll have your neutral forged source. My comment here, is much more reliable and independent than an article on the NYT. --Hiddenray (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need for a personal attack here, Mabdul is correct that the page is lacking in reliable independent sources, and the addition of some would improve the sourcing of the article. While you are right that no source is truly "unbiased" we are using blatant biases to try to determine what constitutes (and what doesn't) a reputable source.Rupert'sscribe (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i did a minor edit to the article, but was unable to make that page less promotional; because i found nothing of promotional there --Hiddenray (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talegenes Attention Training

Talegenes Attention Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable promotional article: the references are almost entirely about ADHD and neurofeedback training in general DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would have agreed with the nominator, since most of the references don't mention the company, but the few that are asserted to are written in Chinese, which I don't read and cannot translate. On the balance of probabilities, though, this does look like self-promotion. Ubelowme (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Or rather, no participation.  Sandstein  05:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtaboot

Akhtaboot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references are all to "fastest growing" and the like. For a company with only 30 employees, I interpret that as "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear DGG, Akhtaboot is a recruitment website and the growth of a the website itself is usually measured by the number of registered users as well as the traffic and average page views per visitor. For a web-based venture, the number of employees
    is not the main measure of growth. Most top online networks and social media portals started with a relatively small number of employees. Akhtaboot employees are increasing reaching 50.
    Regarding using the term "fastest growing", kindly note that this title has been given to Akhtaboot by ALL World Network which systematically identifies private growth companies and ranks the fastest growing for the Arabia 500, Africa 500, Asia 500, Eurasia 500, and Latin America 500 (please check the following link: http://www.allworldlive.com/about/overview). Deirdre M. Coyle, Jr. co-founded AllWorld Network in 2007 to find and advance ALL the growth entrepreneurs of the emerging world by 2015. For ten years Deirdre was the SVP and Director of Marketing and Communications for the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC), a national non-profit founded by Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter to expand the job and business base of distressed urban areas. Professor Porter is AllWorld’s Chairman of the Advisory Board (http://www.allworldlive.com/experts/deirdre-m-coyle-jr).
    Please check Akhtaboot's name in the following list: http://www.allworldlive.com/feed/press/levant-winners-arabia-fast-growth-500-jordan-leading-hub-entrepreneurs
    It's the first start up mentioned after company number 14.
    Note that the article on Wikipedia only mentions that it's one of the fastest growing websites in the awards section which is absolutely true as Akhtaboot has won this award.
    Also note that Akhtaboot has a good relationship with Google as well as Facebook, Google has wrote about Akhtaboot and its growth as well: akhtaboot.html --Article123456 (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF, I should point out to the two editors what meatpuppetry is --> WP:MEAT, although you did due diligence and provided sources for the community to determine notability of this article. Although, due to WP:MEAT, your comments from those two accounts may be given less merit by the community at large.Roodog2k (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arabic references are fine. We prefer English ones, since the English Wikipedia is intended for people who can read English, but if the Arabic references show notability better than the English ones, by all means add them & provide a translation of the key sentence or two. However, if they just duplicate the English references, there is no reason to add them. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether HZH2 is a new comer or not. The points being discussed are valid. With regards to the Arabic references, they are duplicate of the English ones (an exact translation) so there is no reason to add them. When talking about "Fast growing", it is only mentioned in one section which is awards, and references had been provided linking to the organisation that awarded Akhtaboot. Please let me know if more references are needed, I think the ones provided are enough though.--Article123456 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More references have been added including partnerships with companies and universities in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.--Article123456 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Istanbul Contemporary Art Museum. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web Biennial

Web Biennial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood from the Soul

Blood from the Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BAND, as the group only released a single, non-charting album, and there is no significant coverage in WP:RSes. —Torchiest talkedits 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest talkedits 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found a few possible sources - Italian MTV, a review in German - which could indicate notability ... or not. I did not find any evidence that they toured nationally or internationally. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Box

Beef Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, as the info I found on it either mirrors the article or is trivial at best. I can't find any information about releases. —Torchiest talkedits 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Note that parts of the article violate the close-paraphrasing standards. [6] The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soulja Boy: The Movie

Soulja Boy: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was starting to propose a merger of this article into Soulja Boy, but the more I thought about it, the less I thought there was any content worth merging. The film seems WP:NN, though its subject is admittedly not. The article's creator disappeared into the night shortly after creating it, but his or her activity seems to center around creating articles for films from the same distributor, so I have WP:PROMO concerns. Speaking of promotional material, a Google search yields a lot of promotional pages, but no reviews, at least not in the first two pages of results. Wikipedia is not IMDB, and God knows we're not a Soulja Boy fansite. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting thoughts from the nominator. Yes, we're not IMDB nor a fansite... but we judge notability based upon coverage... and the google news results do appear to give us enough non-trivial coverege,[7] even if not lengthy, with which to souce and build an encyclopdic neutral artcle on this documentary film topic. No reviews??? I imediately found one by DVD Verdict.[8] What others did the nom not find? The information about the existance of this film could certainly be included in the Soulja Boy article. But I think we need not dismiss the possibility of a separate article on the film existing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Drenai Series. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Woman (White Wolf character)

The Old Woman (White Wolf character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Antagonist of a novel that does not have an article, part of a novel series that does not have an article. Entirely in-universe, no sources. Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. Surely before we create articles for fictional characters, we should have articles for the fiction they come from. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the nov el series does indeed have an article: Drenai Series. There's a section on characters that this can be merged to. alternatively, the article on this book can be written--it's the only one in the series without a separate article--and the material merged there. The first step in dealing with articles like this is to identify and check the associated articles DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So maybe a small amount of the content from this article could appropriately be merged to Drenai Series, but should the commonplace phrase "The Old Woman" remain as a redirect to that article--is that really the most helpful target? Even this article contains unrelated material about "Other Old Women in popular culture". I'd be inclined to delete the redirect post-merge, but I would like to know what others think about that.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a redirect under The Old Woman (White Wolf character). I was going to say that we could have the article redirect, but Arxiloxos makes a good point. The term "old woman" is far too vague of a term to redirect and if we do have a redirect, it should be with a term that's more specific to the series. In any case, the character seems to have no notability outside of the series and doesn't warrant an article all to herself. An article on old women in pop culture does sound interesting, but so far the terms in the article seem to be just trivia and not really worth saving and putting in an article as they are now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the outcome, the current page should be moved to that title before redirection & merger, to maintain history. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it as you suggested, but this still gives a redirect from The Old Woman to the new title--I'm not sure what to do about it that will simultaneously provide attribution and avoid confusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no attribution problem, as now The Old Woman has no history, so it can redirect to old woman or something with no worries. If content is merged into Drenai Series or somewhere similar, it just needs to be noted that it was merged from The Old Woman (White Wolf character), where all of the history is. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Specialist Engineering Contractors Group. At least until size considerations require a spinoff.  Sandstein  07:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lift and Escalator Industry Association

Lift and Escalator Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 19:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as suggested by DGG. Just doesn't seem to be enough info available here at the moment, but I can see how the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group page could quickly become quite cumbersome if editors started adding to the six different associations in it. Until then, though, it seems it'd be most efficient and accessible with them together there on that page. Zujua (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types of cities by geographical region

Types of cities by geographical region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OR piece about styles of cities across the world. Basically a personal commentary by the author not backed up by any sources. Fundamentally quite difficult to verify. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is not personal commentary by me !, this is a chapter in Urban Geography that learned in Geography lessons in High schools. פארוק (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
i work heard to find some information sources to write this article so i am ask to not delete anything so I could expand the article ! . פארוק (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/110993702314452/)
  2. ^ (https://www.facebook.com/chernobylchildren.fukushimachildren)
  3. ^ http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/blogs/still-alive-mochizuki-cheshire-ioris-daily-report-from-japan-july-31-2011).html
  4. ^ http://www.dianuke.org/%E2%80%9Cwe-may-be-too-late-to-evacuate%E2%80%9D-mochizuki-ioris-column-from-japan/
  5. ^ http://www.appealforfukushima.com/en/nvsi/132-mochizuki-iori-daily-report-japan.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_13&oldid=497337695"