Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 24 May	26 May >

Guide to deletion

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. WP:SNOW/WP:IAR close. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Scott FitzGibbon

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

PR article about obscure PR guy, possible written by the subject, but failing to establish any kind of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not Notable PR guy apart from a few articles regarding the sordid mess of rape allegations and retalitory suing etc.- so I think BLP1E applies. In addition, the original creator NoMinorChords has now been blocked as a sockpuppet (and one of its identities was Michaellevineassistant - as we have an article on a Michael Levine (publicist), it makes it look like a paid for article. Curdle (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP fail. Poor sourced and not notable yet. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Do we really want articles about people whose only accomplishments appear to be sexual harrasment? BronHiggs (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per non notable and BLP1E with the one court case and low profile afterwardsQuek157 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the basic requiements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(leaning towards neutral if better unbiased sources were to come forward). Not even search engines think his name to be notable/relevant, apart from the wiki page. If the former company isn't notable enough to have (had) an article, also not notable by unflattering association with it. Also if redacted for the who said/planned to do what, the current article would be 3 to 4 sentences long tops.AufdieSocks (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Sandstein 09:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration bell

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

Do we need such an article? Not guide to a restaurant. Declined CSD A11 by admin "Decline speedy delete, there is no indication that Djyoo1110 or someone they know made this up" so no choice I had to come here for GNG also. Quek157 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment probably a bad translation or made-up term in this instance, but I suspect he's really referring to "restaurant pagers". Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Whilst all bells obviously vibrate (that's how they make a sound) I cannot find one single result for "vibration bell" on Google. There's no point creating a page entry on Wikipedia for a thing which either (a) doesn't exist or (b) is known by everyone as something else. Darthamender (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a real thing I've seen but I'd call it a pager. This reads like WP:OR Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Notabilty standards, also I cannot find any sources on any search engine. Felicia (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename (Merge to Pager or Rename to "Restaurant pager") I agree with previous commenters, there doesn't appear to be any pages describing this yet though it is quite common in many places now. Araratic | talk 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator (IAWI). --IAWI (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Castro

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

Not relevant sports person. IAWI (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. No RS from my side either.--Biografer (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY by making his debut in the fully-professional United Soccer League a few days ago. As a young talent, he has also received media coverage as a part of his club Atlanta United 2, as well as representing the Honduras youth national team at the worldwide stage. JTtheOG (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is part of a reserve team. If this qualifies him to pass the guidelines for notability for football players, they are clearly too broad and need to be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. As with above comment, I believe playing for reserve teams that play in the league pyramid of their country is fine - but not for the likes of Premier League/Serie A reserve teams who play in their own league structure. E.g. players who play for the likes of Barcelona B (when in the Segunda División) are (seemingly) accepted to pass WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously biased as I created the page, but he is clearly notable as he passes WP:NFOOTY. The United Soccer League is a professional league and he has played one game in it. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blumenthal

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

~~Relevant? nope. IAWI (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sock. Hhkohh (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Rationale??? --Quek157 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blumenthal is a non-notable businessman. We need to show more than just that such people exist, and the article only demonstates existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per RS and WP:BASIC. Activity of nominator a bit erratic; how can someone attain autoconfirm status such that they're nominating for deletion and publishing new entries within an hour of account creation? Pegnawl (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes gng. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Basic. Entry and RS demonstrate notability above and beyond mere existence. BelBivDov (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 13:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Yuki

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Johnson (writer)

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

He fails WPGNG. --IAWI (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is among of the worst nominations I have ever seen. This rationale is terrible and has no substance. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had just speedy close another of the nomination from this user, but this don't have good sources. So it's still valid nomination IMO. --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As happy as I would be to close this in DENY, subject fails GNG and NAUTHOr. (lame as "fails GNG" is for a rationale its a lot better than any of his "relevance" rationales) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to edit that Troy Johnson article, feel free to do so. I think there were some errors on the references part (and that's the only reason I can think that this page was, I guess, flagged?) I don't think the page should be deleted because the guy is a judge on a long running show, he's been on Food Network several times, and a few other 'Guy's Grocery Games' judges have their own wikipedia page which is even shorter and less detailed than the one I made (so if you delete Troy Johnson, consider also deleting Madison Cowan).

He has a twitter. Maybe someone could ask him if he's worth having a wiki page about him. I don't have a twitter so I cannot ask. I don't even know if anyone is reading this or if I'm posting in the correct spot. I don't really make full blown pages on wikipedia but since no one else was going to, I did it. SunnieSkye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnieSkye: You don't ask someone if they think they are worth having an article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, I guess. But seriously, I tried to source as best as I could and there's not much about him online (believe me, I looked) so the only thing I can think of is to ask him directly on twitter for details and "first-hand sources" but I guess Twitter doesn't count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnieSkye (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible, but the deletion nomination is even worse. The sourcing is lousy, mostly for lack of independence, but there's still enough there to create a presumption of notability that the cursory nomination does exactly nothing to refute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The original rationale that the nominator put was "not relevant to Wikipedia." It was changed to what it is now. But that doesn't make it any better. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some more specific references would be good here, but I think this article can be improved given what's already there. Calm Omaha (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor who nominated this was blocked. Should be improved, but kept.--JAMillerKC (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improved article with reliable sources, did some cleanup, and added Talk page. The article still needs work and better sourcing. Nevertheless, the article's subject passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , with thanks to AuthorAuthor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2018 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GitPrime

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Budha_Everyday with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute for a corporate website. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2018 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Van Buskirk

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

A completely unsourced mayoral article. Fails WP:NPOL #2 and WP:GNG. Importantly, my WP:BEFORE search wasn't in an attempt to nominate the article for AfD but rather to find sources on the article - but one non-reliable source excepted, I couldn't find anything on him whatsoever. I did look through a number of genealogy articles and gravestone articles in an attempt to get something - but it appears this article also fails WP:V. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a mayor of a city does not give default notability, and we lack sources showing notability otherwise. Wikipedia is not a place to post the geneological information on your ancestors, which is about the only way I could understand such extreme detail on his immediate family in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mayors of small towns don't normally qualify for inclusion without lots of supporting references. Deb (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am working on the article and it seems possible that he has sufficient notability based upon his multi-faceted role in the city of Bloomington. I'll make a vote if I find enough material to establish notability.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it was an article about a living person, I would vote to delete, but this is a historical figure that makes it harder to find sources. I did find content and sources to add the article, and it seems that he was notable within the city for several governmental and other executive roles in the city - as well as a grand king of the Masons. By the way, Bloomington is not a small town. It's the seventh largest city in Indiana.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much for adding the sources - this satisfies my WP:V concerns as I had difficulty with my before search (and will start looking at newspapers.com for historical mayors.) However, I'm not going to withdraw the nomination: I still don't think the sourcing is enough for WP:GNG, as the marriage sources are not in-depth and WP:MILL, and the mason sources are substantial but also what you'd expect from the organization - nothing that would make him stand out. I'd like to leave it open to see how others vote. Keep in mind in 1900 Bloomington was only the 34th largest town in Indiana - smaller than Elwood, Brazil and Alexandria - and he was the mayor between 1891-1897, which is one of the problems with our "large enough city" mayoral assumption. SportingFlyer talk 20:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment / Question - SportingFlyer He seems more notable than other Bloomington mayors before him. I cleaned up another article, but will stop right now. Does that mean that all the articles for the mayors for Bloomington should be deleted? (I have no stake in the game, I just started cleaning up articles a particular user worked on and happened upon this article in the process.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - CaroleHenson I don't think it implies all Bloomington mayors should be deleted, but they probably should be judged on WP:GNG. Being the mayor of Bloomington doesn't get you a WP:NPOL pass, at least in my opinion. I flagged it since I've been going through mayor stubs and tagging ones that don't pass WP:GNG - Mr. Van Buskirk had no sources, and I had difficulty finding any so nominated it instead of improving it. SportingFlyer talk 01:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after cleanup, this satisfies WP:CCPOL (V/NOR/NPOV) and has suitable references. The subject seems to me to be encyclopedic. Bloomington is not quite a typical small town, as being home to a flagship university means it punches above its weight. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloomington IN is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over NPOL #2 just because they exist, the fact that Bloomington is home to a university is not in and of itself to make its mayors special if they weren't personally and sourceably involved in the university's creation, and simply being able to add just enough sourcing to hand the article a technical pass of VNPOVNOR — a thing which almost anybody who exists could instantly do the moment they've gotten their name into the local newspaper once or twice for doing nothing that would actually satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion — is not in and of itself an exemption from having to actually WP:GNG the person well enough to get them over the defined notability criterion for their field of endeavour. But this is not sourced well enough to satisfy NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, being mayor of Bloomington and Treasurer at IU are more than enough to show that the individual is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia in my opinion. This individual more than meets N. I do not see a particularly great case for NPOL#2 - that is a fairly poorly defined criteria and I don't tend to think of individuals in that way. Perhaps he has a week case for meeting NPOL #1, as IU treasurer is a state level elected position, although it was an election made by the board of directors which consisted of 5-10 people. I would not make that case, as I read SNGs as sufficient but not necessary. I understand I am repeating myself, I just wanted to make it clear that I do read your !vote and disagree somewhat. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being treasurer of a university is not a political role, so NPOL is irrelevant to whether it constitutes a notability claim or not. It's also not a role that guarantees an automatic inclusion freebie to every treasurer of every university regardless of their depth of sourceability or lack thereof — it might count for something if the article were sourced much better than this, but it's not such an "inherently" notable role that you would be exempted from actually having to source him over WP:GNG on career coverage, and could instead to rely on a mix of primary sources and routine marriage and death notices as the entire sourcing pool because the "inherence" of the notability claim somehow trumped the low quality of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided by Carole Henson. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would the editors who weighed in prior to the article’s overhaul (User:Johnpacklambert, User:Deb) care to weigh in again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG and is interesting for a historical mayor. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any need to change my earlier vote, but certainly the article has been enormously improved and I will accept that a defensible case has been made for notability. Deb (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2018 (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. I wish I had some clue what User:Tranceline113's comment is supposed to mean, but it doesn't really matter. Clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Association of Cryptocurrency and Blockchain

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

A crypto-currency organization which doesn't appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute for a corporate website. Fails WP:SPIP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are all Russian bureaucratic nonsense. Not notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, Bloomberg - Russian bureaucratic nonsense. Facepalm. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/russia-s-diy-cryptocurrency-miners-fall-under-shadow-of-kremlin --Tranceline113 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Nasdaq another victim of russian propaganda ? Guessed your logic? https://www.nasdaq.com/article/russian-blockchain-and-cryptocurrency-news-round-up-cm946538 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranceline113 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 June 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QPR vs Manchester City

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

Not a notable football match on its own; the only refs are contemporaneous match coverage. The title isn't one that can reasonable redirect to 2011-12 Premier League. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a notable game for Manchester City's season that's why it's mentioned on 2011–12 Manchester City F.C. season article. I don't think this game merits an article on it's own. Govvy (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would incline towards delete, the game was notable in that it changed the outcome of the season in much the same was as the 1989 Liverpool Arsenal match which has its own article. It could be said the Joey Barton incident was rather significant, although the article as it stands does not really cover this.. However for the article to be kept I think more would need to be done to show its long term impact (eg I have seen a couple of TV programmes mention this as one of the most significant and memorable games since the Premiership started and if print references could be found which have made similar comments then an argument for keep could be made), as well as more background about the significance on the day (eg reference to Manchester United winning a few minutes earlier and Manchester United players waiting on the pitch to see if they had won the title). Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, the awful title needs changing, given that QPR have played Man City over 50 times -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with that, not least as the home teams name should always come first. The 1989 title decider's article is Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Arsenal F.C. (26 May 1989) so a varient on Manchester City 3-2 QPR (13 May 2012), would seem like an option. Dunarc (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 13:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pollack

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG criteria. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Munzali Jibril

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

Does not meet minimum inclusion requirements of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 12:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~: I try to stay away from this sort of discussion so as not be classed as a deletionist or an inclusionist. He was DVC of a University not approved to run graduate studies according to the NUC. Being the president of NIM and Nigeria Police Academy is tricky, ~~but his position in the latter does not seem to be for the national headquarters,~~ and I am on the fence for the status of significance of the former to confer automatic notability on its highest officer. I'll do more findings tomorrow. Sleep sleep. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update: its actually the headquarters, the one in Lagos is a branch going from neutral to Weak keep, till I wake up tomorrow. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he meets WP:ANYBIO#1, being bestowed a national honour by the federal government, specifically OFR. Also, a solid case can be made that he meets criteria 6 of WP:SCHOLAR#Specific_criteria_notes as he has held the highest positions in several notable organizations such as National Universities Commission Nigeria Defense Academy, Nigeria Police Academy, Nigeria Academy of Letters and Nigerian Institute of Management. Notable individual. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care Co-ordination Network UK

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

WP:GNG, no Reliable sources ^{[Username Needed]} 09:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 25 May 2018 (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. I'm not going to try to summarize everything said here. A rough cut at a summary would be that the deleters feel this is a case of WP:FRINGE, WP:COATRACK, and is a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Wikipedia. The keepers disagree. I don't see any substantial consensus here. Not so much because of a failure to reach any vague percentage-of-!votes threshold, but because there are valid arguments on both side. One argument that stands out in my mind is that this is a very new article. This is obviously a controversial topic and people will continue to work on this. In a couple of months, this will hopefully reach some stable point, and it will be easier to judge the value of this. It can be brought back for another look then. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

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

I started to edit the article, then realized it's a WP:COATRACK (and/or WP:POVFORK). It seems to comprise (a) elements from topics we already cover in the articles reliability of Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia community, and (b) a compilation of conservative publications opining that there's a liberal bias. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice of this discussion was added to Village Pump (miscellaneous) ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is clearly a great deal of scholarly research done on this topic, per the article, as well as claims of bias (from laughable to credible) reported in mainstream media. Wikipedia's ideological balance has arguably been discussed longer and more widely than its gender bias on Wikipedia or racial bias on Wikipedia. Its not a COATRACK or POVFORK, its a consolidation of a style matching those other bias articles, which were created in much the same way by pulling from other existing articles about Wikipedia concerns and which are now flourishing. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Netoholic (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

To the closer: I'd like to expand on my comment after reading some of the other comments here and I ask you to keep some things in mind. I have no doubt that the participants here voted in good faith based on their own views, and some of them raise some excellent points.

Scope/purpose of the article: I completely agree with the nominator when he says "we already cover in the articles reliability of Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia community". The topic of this article sits squarely in the center of these topics because critics are concerned and analysts are curious about the reliability of Wikipedia based on potential for bias of its human editors - the opening line has said as much since it was created. The two articles mentioned most are already too large per WP:SIZESPLIT (Criticism: 135k, Reliability: 170k), and the topic wouldn't fit naturally in any of the three cleanly. That so many voters mention those articles is evidence that this content has value (somewhere) within the encyclopedia.
"POVFORK": The first version of this page is entirely new and written from scratch based on my search of academic literature. WP:POVFORK's are created "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject} and though a couple of editors have mentioned the Criticism article, I have never been involved in editing of it and certainly never part of any disagreement there. POVFORK also says its "best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing" and that "most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content". Since I've never edited those other articles, there can not have been any disruption and no dodging of consensus. In this case, the fresh content simply didn't fit within any of other articles. Votes claiming POVFORK should be providing diffs proving I forked this from some other content dispute, and if they don't provide such evidence, they should be weighed accordingly.
"COATRACK": On this complaint, I feel the same way. WP:COATRACK is just essay, not a guideline, but it says "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". No one has explained what the "COAT" is and what the "RACK" is. The title describes the exact scope and subject matter of the topic. If this was a real COATRACK issue, then they would have proposed a more appropriate name along with that claim. None of the COATRACK voters do. Likewise, COATRACK issues can be resolved with a WP:Move request, and is not an appropriate WP:DEL-REASON.
Time: is a major factor here as well. AfDing a 3-day old article which has an active set of editors is short-sighted. If there are any POV concerns, they can be addressed with editing. If the content doesn't match the title, it can be edited or renamed. Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia both experienced a lot of the same growing pains in their early histories, as one would expect. In fact, "Racial bias" was even AfD'd and the comments are a lot like the ones here... Wikipedia would have lost a good article if we'd only judged it by its earliest version.

Topics of controversy with regards to Wikipedia certainly will attract a lot of discussion and disagreement at first. A lot of snap judgments are made and its hard to imagine how the article could turn out. Anyone that creates such an article will attract accusations of POV and motivation. I accept that, but accusations are nothing without proof. I hope you'll consider what I've said here. -- Netoholic @ 12:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your third point, you ask a reasonable question about what, exactly, is meant by COATRACK here. Here is my take on it. The page is sort of like a "rack" on which a variety of distantly related topics have been "hung", so as to create the misleading impression that there is a consistent pattern (bias of liberal editors against conservative ones) across multiple studies, and where that purported pattern is based upon a POV. It's not so much a problem of pagename as of the grouping of topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a rehash with no proof. There is nothing like a "consistent pattern" you describe, and even if true, such problems can be fixed via editing. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on an examination of the sources. And "fixing" it via editing would amount to deleting almost all of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I quote Netoholic, plus it's interesting, notable and well sourced. Even though some contents may be covered elsewhere, it does not mean that we don't need a more organic presentation from which the reader can get a more comprehensive idea of the topic. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. This is some kind of POV fork, amateur hour bullshit. "Ideological bias" is what wingnuts call NPOV every day. This page is in any case: a) a profileration of navel-gazing , and b) a work of original research, selecting some primary sources and trying to weave a narrative about those primary sources (this is not at all handling them with care, per policy). Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Criticism of Wikipedia is quite a bit wider. The contents are a bit rubbish but if they weren't we'd have a lot more to worry about. The topic is notable and there's a decent amount of material so I believe we should just document what is out there on it. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Embarrassingly poor WP:COATRACK; any viable content already has a home elsewhere as mentioned above. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that the bulk of the article, "Analyses", is made up of brand new content that was never part of other pages on Wikipedia. Content from existing pages was pulled in later. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cherry-picking information covered in other articles to give undue weight to viewpoints and the researchers involved. BLP, NOT, and POV vios that are best addressed by deletion. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A WP:COATRACK is an article "that [...] instead focuses on another subject entirely." No, this article is about purported ideological bias on Wikipedia, like the title says. Not a WP:POVFORK; this really seems to be forked from the section at Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship, which is more like this article than it is different. To the extent this article has any major problem ... and it certainly does ... it is that it sets forth to answer matters regarding which our sources have only arguable insights, not reliable conclusions. The result is a collection of loosely-connected paragraphs summarizing sources that don't add up to an encyclopedic narrative. At any rate, I'm not sure this article is a tremendous net positive for the wiki in its present state, but I also can not agree that it is the massive policy violation the delete !voters are alleging. Vadder (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. The academic studies cited say that it's not really a thing, yet the WP:OWNer wants to include material from creationists, birthers and cranks saying it is. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a cherry-picked set of protests about alleged Wikipedia bias, but lacking an overarching reliable secondary source to provide balance. Per JzG, academic studies that aim to provide just that conclude that there isn't really an ideological bias on Wikipedia. — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is in fact much more necessary because academic studies conclude that. We don't have a place in other articles really to go into detail about Wikipedia's provable neutrality. Fringe complainers will just look weak compared to such evidence, but should be included per NPOV and completeness of coverage of the overall issue. If Wikipedia deletes an article about its OWN BIAS, that looks terrible on us. If we fail to include even laughable claims of bias, that looks bad too. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Netoholic's inability to keep focused. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POVFORK, COATRACK, not notable and appears to be used to support other similar questionable articles that insinuate "bias", e.g Political views of American academics. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Striking this today. The article appears to be in somewhat better shape now. We can always revisit deletion in the future if it doesn't pass muster with more work. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a look at its Talk page will show, I have been trying to tackle this page since its creation a couple of days ago, with virtually no success. Its creator seems unable to see that, while we all have our ideological biases, his are the ones more removed from a central position. He places an emphasis in his justifications on the existence of "scholarly" writings supporting his view. (Something he makes no attempt to remove from editing here.) On the Talk page I tried to make the point that it's only those who don't like Wikipedia's "bias" who will be bothered to write about it. Those who don't see a problem won't be writing. He didn't seem to understand this point. I found it virtually impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with the creator of the article. The Talk page simply isn't working as a vehicle for improving it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an excuse to quote WP:FRINGE content that boils down to "they don't agree with my unorthodox and unsupported claims" complaints from reactionaries, antivaxxers, and the like. Nothing of value here that doesn't belong in reliability of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I abhor the idea internally-driven of self-censorship, this article is based entirely a blatant POV fork. Though sources are cited, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for fringe viewpoints striving to establish some semblance of balance. I will also bring up WP:PAGEDECIDE and note that the criticism levied at Wikipedia could be added to other articles, and a standalone article is not overly necessary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to OR concerns. I don't see any RS that really discuss this subject in depth, just a hodgepodge collection of people complaining that Wiki is biased against whatever fringe or non mainstream view they hold. Valeince (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading the article I have to say its total nonsense. A lot of these sources don't seem reliable. Dream Focus 01:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The core of the article, that which has survived the back and forth, is actually really interesting if you read through the studies. This is an article that could be done well if done well. That it hasn't been isn't a valid deletion rationale. GMG ^talk 01:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship, content large falls within the the scope of the article Criticism of Wikipedia, and largely is written to debunk a verified POV that there is partisanship on Wikipedia. There maybe some useful resources from this article, that can be integrated into an existing article with relevant content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious POV-biased coatrack. Isn;t it getting to be time to consider a ban on Netoholic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why would you want to ban an editor simply because a group of people disagree with an article he wrote? If there is an ideological bias, this behaviour makes a good example of it! Simply wait until the end of the Afd procedure: if there is consensus, the article will be deleted (and I don't seem to see consensus now), but this has nothing to do with the reputation of its creator. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, not a place where someone owns the truth and judges others based on their views. Come on, I am sure we can be better. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because they keep proving they're not here to write an encyclopedia? Maybe? Drmies (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup, what Drmies said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey, I need some help here - I'm not seeing POV or any of the other things my trusted and respected wiki colleagues are saying...what I see is a presentation that focuses on the positive aspects of collaborative editing of all viewpoints. Perhaps there's something in the article that was/is exactly as y'all described, but I'm not seeing it. Please point it out to me...specifically...the parts you're saying is POV. I don't know Netoholic - haven't collaborated with him/her in the past, at least as far as my memory serves, so is the delete vote influenced because of problems with that particular editor, or is there content that the delete iVotes are objecting to? ~~I prefer to know about the latter, and don't give a big 🐀's about the former.~~ ^{Apologies for humor gone awry. 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)}Atsme 📞📧 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not seeing POV or any <-- that's.... sort of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Care to explain? On what article was there a dispute that created what everyone is referring to as a POVFORK? Is there confusion between the latter and a CONTENTFORK? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay-style rather than a coherent topic; reliable sources don't treat this as a unified phenomenon. I agree that this can be covered in criticism of Wikipedia. The forking of this content from the later article raises concerns about axe-grinding. Neutrality^talk 03:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so it's actually about "Concerns {{inline-weasel}} about ideological bias". Yeah, delete. Doesn't one get tired of working at a place one is trying to undermine? Delete: essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing the WP:CCPOL in such a way that removing those violations would leave nothing behind to build a new article from, as is the case here, is a perfectly valid deletion rationale. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NORESCUE. I agree with Orange Mike that it looks more like an excuse to quote WP:FRINGE content than an encyclopedia article. The irrelevance of the creator's arguments above is breathtaking: "The article is in fact much more necessary because [sic] academic studies conclude [that there is no ideological bias] ... Fringe complainers ... should be included per NPOV ... If Wikipedia deletes an article about its OWN BIAS, that looks terrible on us. If we fail to include even laughable claims of bias, that looks bad too". "Per NPOV"? Did you read WP:NPOV recently, Netoholic? For instance the WP:FALSEBALANCE part? Bishonen | talk 10:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

To editor Bishonen: - "Fringe" complainers, whose complaints make it into reliable secondary sources, are entirely appropriate for the article, since the article is about, broadly speaking, "analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia". I have no doubt that secondary sources of fringe complainers will note them as such and so will be reflected in the text we use in this article. If you have any specific source-by-source concerns, I am open to replying on the talk page of your choice. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know some reliable sources that do write about fringe complainers, pointing out where their complaints (often don't) fit into the broader perspective. So yes, there is mention of them in reliable sources, but probably not the kind of mentions you want. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "want" any mentioned. "Want"ing something like that would be confirmation bias. All I "want" is to discover what's out there of relevance to write about. This article is only 4 days old. You all expect a finished masterpiece with everything already in place. That's not how Wikipedia works. I started it off I felt on a decent level. I don't see any obvious "fringe" there. Martin apparently is considered that around here, but I just was incorporating studies in the order I found them, and the journal he's in is peer-reviewed with no red flags. His is the only item from my initial draft that's been removed. -- Netoholic @ 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a collection of primary sources, but secondary sources are required to write a neutral article. The title is more slogan than description. TFD (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fork gives an undue impression that there is such a thing as an ideological bias on Wikipedia. However, with five million articles, some readers are bound to be unhappy, and bias is in the eye of the beholder. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Washington Post is not "fringe", not one sentence is a coatrack, and the title could not be less biased therefore this is not a POV fork. wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment: just noting the irony in the creator tagging another article with the template:Primary even as they argue to keep this primary sourced, OR POV fork. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it irony, or is it possible you have the wrong assumptions? Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for the basis for using "primary sourced" studies - One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. Google Scholar (a citation index) gives the following citation counts for the 4 studies currently on the page: Greenstein/Zhu (2012): 59, Greenstein/Zhu (2017): 19, Jointly They Edit: 12, Wisdom of Polarized Crowds 2. There are indeed secondary sources as well. You can find them in the little bracketed numbers after each section - although it looks at least one has been removed spuriously claiming that citing him as a source is ... "endorsing"?. If you identify any you think need improved sourcing, feel free to tag them and I'll assist. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is all I will say. Just hm. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say more here are all the sources in the page now

Glaser, Mark (April 21, 2006). "Email Debate::Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia". MediaShift. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
Matsakis, Louise (March 16, 2018). "Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet". Wired. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
Gentzkow, M; Shapiro, J. M. (January 2010). "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers" (PDF). Econometrica. 78 (1). The Econometric Society: 35–71. doi:10.3982/ECTA7195.
Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (May 2012). "Is Wikipedia Biased?". American Economic Review. 102 (3). American Economic Association: 343–348. doi:10.1257/aer.102.3.343. S2CID 15747824.
Khimm, Suzy (June 18, 2012). "Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (2014). "Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia" (PDF). MIS Quarterly.
"Is Collective Intelligence Less Biased?". BizEd. AACSB. May 1, 2015. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
Jessica J. Neff; David Laniado; Karolin E. Kappler; Yana Volkovich; Pablo Aragon; Andreas Kaltenbrunner (April 3, 2013). "Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia". PLoS ONE. 8 (4): e60584. arXiv:1210.6883. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...860584N. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060584. PMID 23573269.
Shi, F.; Teplitskiy, M.; Duede, E.; Evans, J.A. (November 29, 2017). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". (paper). 3 (4): 329–336. arXiv:1712.06414. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6. PMID 30971793. S2CID 8947252.
Stevens, Sean (December 21, 2017). "Research Summary: The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". Heterodox Academy. Retrieved 22 May 2018.</ref>

the Brian Martin paper that the creator wants to use, is a) primary, and b) not independent, since Martin is writing about his own entry in WP. Not useful for N; dubious to use at all without a secondary source that is actually independent.

so

is as primary as it gets. it reprints an emailed conversation.
this is a secondary source. Odd that only the the "central-left bias" part of the quote from Matei is used and not the rest of the quote. This article only has a passing mention of the notion of bias in WP and is not helpful with respect to N.
this is not relevant to N; only cited to describe the tool used in #4
this is a primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
this is a secondary source about #4. Bizarrely the critical content from the secondary source is not summarized in WP.
this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is published only on arxiv, so is also SPS.
this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
this summarizes #7, without comment. Not much more valuable than the primary source itself.
this is a secondary source commenting on #7 with further analysis. This is good. The source is ignored and not summarized, and instead quotes from the primary source are used.
this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is absolutely
this is an SPS blog posting but is secondary with respect to #6. Not a great source.

So what we have here is 1 irrelevant source, 5 primary sources, one basically primary source (the bare summary), 1 secondary source with a passing mention, 2 OK secondary sources, and 1 weak secondary source (the last one)

The content is driven by the primary sources, not the secondary sources.

this is not a WP page that summarizes secondary sources but really a list or collection of primary sources, where the editor has added their own description of each paper, in order to try to build a narrative. The primary sources actually structure the paper -- that is how deep they go into the guts of this page.

This is not a WP article.

It is a SYN POV fork.

The comment to which I replied "hm" (this one) displays a clear lack of understanding of how we classify sources, much less how sources are validly used in WP.Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP a research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable even if its a "primary source". Secondly, there is no "narrative" crafted here. Each study is summarized in its own section, and there is no attempt to SYNTH together to drawn any particular overall conclusion in prose. Third, some of those sources are from EXISTING articles, copied here per WP:SPLIT/WP:SUMMARY, so the same issues you have apply to those other articles. Lastly, and I feel this can't be said enough, but the article was created on May 22 and AfD'd May 25th. No earnest attempt was made by others to contribute additional sources, etc. to the article. The only POV/COATRACK is the motive behind this amazingly early AFD and the aspersions being cast within it. -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging that much of this article is simply copied from other articles adds strength to the view that this article doesn't need to exist. "No earnest attempt was made by others" to fix it because it doesn't even deserve to exist. It serves no purpose that is not already covered elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with other editors that this is a POV-fork and coat-rack, and that the topic can be adequately covered at Criticism of Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to add to my comment that, even if the topic might meet GNG (although it looks to me more like there are simply multiple unrelated sources that share only the right keywords), that means that we can keep it, but not that we must or should. Something that satisfies GNG can still be very unencyclopedic, and that's what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point occurs to me. I was reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web, which ended in "delete". I want to make it clear that my comment now has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but instead, the closing statement reminded me of something that I feel is relevant here. A lot of the GNG-based "keep" arguments here have overlooked the fact that much of the sourcing, although described as "studies" in the text, actually consists of opinion pieces: expressions of opinion that briefly cite some "data" to justify their arguments (with perhaps the exception of Greenstein and Zhu, where there is a single study followed by a follow-up study). But according to WP:QS and WP:RSOPINION, such sources are not sufficient to establish notability for "statements asserted as fact". Consequently, I don't think that this page does pass GNG, although as I said just above, it would be in-policy to delete it even if it did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are definitely some interesting and reliable sources here, and I'm not sure what the purportedly "fringe" sources are so many editors above have expressed so much concern about (perhaps the Croatian stuff that has been removed now)? In any case, the reason this article was created is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be kept. I think that most of the stuff here would belong on a (not-yet-created) page Political bias on Wikipedia, which seems more precisely defined than the current title; the topic of Wikipedia supposedly having a political bias is definitely notable. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable? Only to a tiny number of mostly American editors who find it difficult to accept that the big, wide world out there is not as conservative as they would like it to be. Consensus can be annoying when it doesn't support your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with GMG above that this is a potentially very interesting article. Some of the oppose comments seem a tad personal and hyperbolic—"breathtaking irrelevance", "virtually impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with the creator of the article", "time to consider a ban on Netoholic", "they keep proving they're not here to write an encyclopedia", "total nonsense", "embarrassingly poor". Isn't it just about whether to keep or delete the article? Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"very interesting" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that it is an interesting subject for a Wikipedia article with the potential to be improved in the usual way—revision, adding new content and sources, discussion etc. Are the assertions made in your delete vote policy-based? Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's preposterous to suggest that the topic ideological bias on Wikipedia has not been covered by reliable sources in depth. This topic clearly passes WP:GNG. The objections raised by the nominator have to do with WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. First I will show the defects in the nominator's argument, then I will help editors understand how to move forward with the article.

A. Nominator writes "elements from topics we already cover." That is not a deletion argument. What the nominator is describing is WP:SUMMARY, a crucial process for building the encyclopedia. If we deleted articles which contained "elements from topics we already cover" we would have to delete millions of articles. The closing admin must disregard this subsection of the nominator's deletion statement.

B.The nominator is implying that while the nominal subject of the article is ideological bias on Wikipedia the de facto subject "seems to" be liberal bias and is sourced to "conservative" sources.

(1) We do not delete notable topics because they are not neutral. We balance the article in order to attain a neutral state.

"Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented... Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced" WP:PRESERVE

(2) Our policies do not discriminate against what the nominator refers to as "conservative" sources. In fact policy says that sometimes biased sources are preferred:

"Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources." WP:BIASED

(3) In this case merging is a poor option per WP:TOOBIG. "Reliability of Wikipedia" has almost 77,000 characters and "Criticism of Wikipedia" has almost 54,000 characters. The threshold to consider splitting is 50,000. "Wikipedia community" is not an option for merging because it already has a a child article which happens to be "Criticism of Wikipedia".

In conclusion, it is obvious that since "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" is a notable topic as shown by coverage in multiple RS, it should not be deleted but any POV issues should be addressed through editing.– Lionel^(talk) 10:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still a POV-fork and a coat-rack, and nothing in that argument refutes that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its distinct topic with scholarly literature dealing with the issue.The articles that were cited in the nomination already too large so per WP:SIZE they should be split.--Shrike (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do a split is WP:SPLIT after adding content there. This is, simply, a classic POV fork, which is invalid. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as this topic has been covered numerous times in media since Wikipedia's inception. Merits its own article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements for GNG, it's academic, and I actually agree 100% with the outline provided by ~~Tryptofish~~ I meant Lionelt, sorry - good job!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK and an example of "Original Research" by synthesis. The topic can be, and indeed has been, discussed better in other articles. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Carl Fredrik^talk 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article consists of content that should be covered in existing articles and content that should not be covered anywhere in an encyclopedia. I agree with others that it is a classic WP:POVFORK, and a bit of a WP:COATRACK as well. I do appreciate the unintended humor in this gem: "The authors identified party and ideological affiliation using "userboxes" which some Wikipedians place on their user pages.". If that is an example of what passes as scholarly research these days, then I weep for academia. - Mr X 🖋 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is WP:ADVOCACY for, quoting from the lead, "Concerns about an ideological bias on Wikipedia [that] are reflected in analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia..." While the article itself discusses that such bias is unlikely to exist. The topic has been better covered elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not find the WP:POVFORK arguments persuasive (in those few comments where an attempt to explain the supposed forking was even made). Of course an article like Criticism of Wikipedia may have some overlap with an article such as this - that is to be expected in a generic article like the former. This is a notable topic that has been covered in its own right by reliable sources. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it tends to only be addressed by people who have a beef with the position Wikipedia takes on issues that concern them. People with no concerns don't write about it. Therefore coverage of the alleged issue is never going to be balanced. HiLo48 (talk)

This may or may not be true, but it is not an argument for deletion. Attack Ramon (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that policy supports creation of a topic we know can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little of the keep arguments have discussed the fact that this article is a POV fork, and none have been able to refute it. Contrary to those that claim this meets GNG, the topic is just an essay featuring fringe quotes, not something even attempting to be an encyclopedic subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - This topic is already covered in Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship, and it's likely not enough to warrant its own article, so it should be merged into that section. SemiHypercube (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, straightforward WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Wikipedia that provides nothing beyond what's already there and which seems to only serve to highlight a few extremely specific criticisms that the article's creator particularly agreed with. The massive length relative to the small number of opinions (which skew heavily towards opinion pieces) also gives the impression that this article, by its very nature, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to specific WP:FRINGE criticisms that would be better handled as one part of the larger criticism article. Devoting a massive paragraph or section each to numerous extremely-fringe / low-quality criticisms is WP:UNDUE, and if we were to clean that up the article would be like a paragraph long with nothing worthwhile that isn't better covered in the main article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't think this article is too bad, and I still think it should be kept because the topic is notable and not really fringe. However, I too feel that it looks like a collection of viewpoints that may mislead the reader. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to find sources (a review paper on a respectable academic journal?) that guarantee that the content presented in the article is complete and that the author did not perform original research work. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "guarantee that the content presented in the article is complete". I have already said several times in these discussions that the only people who write about Wikipedia's ideological bias (sic) are those who don't like what they think it is, and that clearly includes the person who created the article. That means that we are not going to find articles saying "Wikipedia's ideological bias is great!" (Unless, of course, you know of some.) All we will find are negatives. Not a good foundation for an encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "complete" I mean what is meant in academic research when someone writes a review: the review must include all the relevant research on a topic. With this I don't mean that we should find researches that claim that "Wikipedia's ideological bias is great!" (I suppose and hope there are not!). I mean that, if the topic is controversial, there should be published research showing that the bias is statistically insignificant and research showing that it is not statistically significant, for instance. If this article does not report both points of view, then certainly is POV and should not be kept. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geez it's frustrating discussing things here at times. I say again, for about the sixth time, in different words, nobody will be bothered to write that there is no bias in Wikipedia. It's only the whingers that will write about the topic. (NOTE: "Whinger" is an Australian word. Look it up.) If you disagree, find those articles! HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man this is really your own point of view. Please don't generalize. Academic publishing is not blogging. As a researcher, if I find that there is no bias while I am investigating possible biases I will certainly be happy to publish my result anyway. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can generalise all I like until you (or anyone else) find that source declaring Wikipedia's bias is fine. And we both know that not all the sources used behind this article are academic ones. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the WP:POVFORK. --bonadea contributions talk 15:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid subject. If this isn't a great article, it could be. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was just editing the Isaaq genocide article, and the title is completely made up. The date of the event is completely made up too. I don't think these were an innocent mistakes. Rather, this was ideologically motivated as a form of pro-Somaliland secessionism/nationalism. This is clear wp:synthesis. I'm planning to move the bulk of the content to "Hargeisa massacre" later, since that title can be attested. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bizarre reason for keeping this article, it has nothing to do with the institutional boas of Wikipedia or the article itself. You found an article you think is biased, you decided this was motivated by some kind of ideology, therefore you vote to keep a problematic article on the ideological bias of Wikipedia. Weird. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK; see Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bishonen Andrevan@ 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any new/unique content into Criticism of Wikipedia, then redirect this page there. Failing that, delete it. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, I know, this is going to be a POV-magnet galore. BUT, that's not a criteria for deletion, notability is, and I do think the topic is notable. I'm fine with merging the content into some related articles (not sure which one). Also, yeah, Netholic should be topic banned, for obvious reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate a bit, I also think the title should be changed. The reliable sources that ARE present in the article, while some of them examine bias, don't actually document much of it. I don't know, a neutral title would be something like Distribution of Wikipedia editors and articles ideological leanings but that's of course clumsy as hell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How would you measure the "Distribution of Wikipedia editors and articles ideological leanings"? Would you find a global standard with which to compare them? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not up to me, but up to the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - And btw, yes, I do agree that the version created by Netaholic was indeed a clear cut blatant WP:POVFORK (which is why I made the offhand comment above, agreeing with others, that they should be sanctioned). But right now it looks to me like most of the problematic stuff has been cleaned up by several other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect before delete. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: subject is notable but there are WP:POVFORK concerns. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is notable. The article is a legitimate expansion of Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship because there is now a great deal of sophisticated consideration of this topic by serious journalists and by scholars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say again, for about the eighth time, these allegedly "serious journalists and scholars" are just the complainers. "Serious journalists and scholars" who are happy with Wikipedia won't bother writing on this topic. That means this article can NEVER be balanced. The complaints in the article are also part of a narrow US perspective. Most of the world outside the USA is much more liberal than the USA. Any writings on the matter that only mention the situation on the less than 5% of the world that is the USA are simply unreliable for a global look at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article has good sourcing and is about a real and notable topic. Also, User:Netoholic gives some good reasons for keeping the article.desmay (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good sourcing, eh? Find me some good sources that say Wikipedia is great. That's right. They don't exist. Only the complainers write about the matter. An article like this can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, this article should be delete. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] GMG ^talk 03:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find GMG. It's certainly a positive review. And I like its emphasis, with words like global, every single person on the planet, sum of all human knowledge, and World Wide Web. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I f ail to see what your comment about finding a positive review was about. Yes it is fairly easy to find positive reviews and they should be included in an article like this. But if we found no positive reviews it would not be a reason for deleting the article. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize with due weight what is out there on notable subjects, and if we couldn't find anything good said about Wikipedia then that is what would be out there and how the article should look. Anything else would just be some editor pushing their POV. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me; thank User:Fuzheado. He wrote it. I also happen to like Clay Shirkey's take. The bit about one of the largest cumulative acts of generosity in history is damn near poetry. GMG ^talk 21:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on forcing me to say for the ninth time that a topic on which happy users don't write is not an appropriate topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the problem of subjects which are biased because only people with an axe to grind are interested in writing about it. However if a topic has been notably covered in secondary sources like this one then Wikipedia should cover it. We are not in the business of suppressing things we don't like. And as you can see above anything that is reasonably notable will have a range of reliable sources about it rather than being completely one-sided. Anything written about to a reasonable degree in secondary sources is an appropriate topic. It may not be possible to write somethings as 'unbiased' as you like but this is not the Bowdlerized Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does anyone else find the idea of Wikipedia deleting this article, I don't know, ironic, or something? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out above, there already exists plenty of coverage on Wikipedia of criticism of Wikipedia. We have, in fact, an entire category on the subject. Removing this doesn't censor anything. It was created by one editor as a weapon in their ongoing campaign of ideological POV-pushing and that shouldn't be tolerated. The longer this goes on the longer they've succeeded in disrupting the project and getting us all to dance like marionettes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this version has no bearing on whether the topic deserves an article. I'd like to read a neutral, well-sourced article on this topic but I think it's too early for Wikipedia. I'm not seeing enough support from secondary sources covering the whole topic. I recommend the author take on board the valid substance of many of the criticisms, modify the article accordingly, and submit it to a high quality academic journal for peer review and publication. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of POV do you think is being pushed and what is being disrupted thanks? Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The POV that all the intellectual elites are so, so mean to conservatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of a world where "intellectual" and "elite" revert to their earlier, positive meanings. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm probably one of that mean intellectual elite crowd then, that sounds like social conservatism where any ideas should follow well trammelled lines. I support having any article that conforms with the policy on notable topics. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the article is about a notable topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lionelt. This is a notable topic. If the article needs to be balanced, balance it. Don't delete it. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be happy for it to be renamed "Wikipedia's ideological balance"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what I said? Lepricavark (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just thought it was a reasonable question. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. No, I would not support such a title. Lepricavark (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me you prefer a non-neutral POV title for an article you think can be balanced. Interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the title fits the article very well. You are free to open an RM if you so desire. Lepricavark (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly thinking of it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of better organised Wikipedia articles about criticism of Wikipedia, and this one looks like it's going to be an absolute magnet for creationists and suchlike wingnuts. Additionally, in its current form, with all the wingnuttery taken out, what do we have? A page that, in enormous detail, says that a project of interest to the English-speaking world as a whole isn't on average as right-wing as American Republicans. No, really? Pinkbeast (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well-sourced, is of a real topic that has been discussed in reliable sources, and that User:Netoholic has made some good points on the COATRACK and POVFORK not being good reasons to delete the article and the topic is again notable enough to have its own stand alone article. I am also sure that most articles really lack the balance though the this one isn't that bad after clearing out some content through recent contributions. I further note there is an on-going RfC: Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#RfC. Pretty sure that content is important. Lorstaking (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Remaining pretty neutral on the other issues, but WP:COATRACK (which is an essay), doesn't even remotely apply. In any case, coatracked content is a reason to trim such content out, not to delete an article. People using this as a rationale should probably have their !votes ignored. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored, huh? A rationale that a coatracked page can be fixed by trimming the content out rests upon the assumption that something would remain after doing so. That is not the case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - or incorporate in broader article. If this has been the subject of serious academic investigations, then the subject should be notable enough. However, several of the given sources were slightly obscure; why should this be studied within the fields of economy or management? Moreover, some concerned comparison between Wikipedia and other encyclopediae, and possibly the subject might be broadened to Ideological bias in encyclopediae or something similar. Finally, the present article seems not to distinguish 'ideological bias' from 'left vz. right political ideology bias'. Wikipedia policies and practise strongly favours verifiability and evidence-based knowledge, rather than e.g. knowledge purportedly based on divine revelations. You could call this an 'ideological bias', but any effects it would have on a left-to-right political scale would be incidental.
Therefore, if kept, the article probably should be rewritten. JoergenB (talk) 2:21 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'm not sure what happened, but JoergenB appears to have accidentally removed blocks of text when he cast the above iVote. Galobtter reverted, but when he did, he didn't replace the iVote of JoergenB, so I copy pasted it here. I have actually had some strange things going on as well - some similar to what just happened. I'm trying to find out why. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject and the title is not violating NPOV. WP:COATRACK is irrelevant here. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Although my original impression of the article was to delete for giving undue weight to highly partisan scholars, it occurred to me that there are, of course, other articles just like that from a leftist point of view. Realizing my hypocrisy, I was still concerned about the need for a stand-alone article when Criticism of Wikipedia exists, but verifiably expanding upon a topic is a valid reason for creating an article. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept, but it still needs a lot of work and expansion. Nanophosis (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LaRell Muir

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

Mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor of a city where being mayor does not grant automatic notability. The coverage is all from local papers, and not the level that would suggest notability. I wish I could say that being a temple president was a sign of notability, but it just is not. Over 50 temple presidents get called each year. Nothing causes Muir to rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Murray UT is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article isn't sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of more than just routine local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (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 was a lengthy discussion, even without counting the proceeding AfD and DRV. However, despite the length, there is a near-unanimous consensus that this article, in its current form, is not suitable for inclusion, largely per WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. The minority of participants who !voted keep generally argued that the topic was viable, not necessarily this article. Some editors also suggested preserving the content by merging it into other articles, but didn't specify how or which. In the interests of compromise I would therefore be happy to userfy the article, on request, if anybody wants to work on improving it or reuse some of the content. – Joe (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of medicine

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

Not a viable article topic; there are insufficient sources on "Criticism of medicine" per se to allow a neutral and non-original article. Some aspects such as criticism of research methodology, ethics, etc. could potentially be put in relevant articles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to have been created purely for the purposes of pushing a particular point of view. Deb (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the fuller version, I see it as nothing more than an essay. I don't think it would be possible to create a neutral article on this subject. Deb (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, I endorse the initial decision to close the debate and delete. The fact that some "keepers" wrote reams more than the "deleters" doesn't make their arguments stronger. Deb (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Issue - Is an AFD appropriate where we have an AFD just so soon and it was overturned at DRV see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_May_18 for keep. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING already and disruptive. --Quek157 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

- Not disagreeing, but what would be your preferred procedure? Deb (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I am just commenting, as an admin can you advice me on? --Quek157 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

- I wouldn't call this forum shopping. AfD is the sole place for proposing deletion of articles. Natureium (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:will it fall under WP:SKCRIT 2(a)??? --Quek157 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~THIS IS THE DRV CLOSER STATEMENT --Quek157 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

text quoted from DRV

Criticisms of medicine – Overturn. There's reasonable consensus here that the article should be restored. The argument that we can't have Criticism of ... articles has been firmly refuted (and we certainly do have plenty of those now).

Its possible that this will end up getting split into multiple articles, or bits and pieces of it merged elsewhere (in which case, be careful to keep the attribution history intact, per WP:COPYWITHIN). It may also end up with a different title. All of that can be debated on the article talk page as part of the normal editorial process. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I am not against a "Criticism of.." type of article, in the present form this article has no reason to exist. It is basically just a citation. I would suggest that the editors restart from a draft and seek collaboration to try to produce something encyclopedic. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Just noting this is an editorial dispute where large chunck of texts are removed unilaterally without talk page discussion, the nominator just remove texts and then sending this to AFD??? Mere abuse of process. And now it is the same nominator who did the first nomination, wonderful. Will not care for this anymore but this is clearly outrageous, unacceptable --Quek157 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) **Quek157 makes a good point, so I support the Procedural Issue view. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC) *Will however, leave it to an uninvolved admin / experience user to do anything to this, I will just rescue myself and be neutral. Just as a passerby seeing a few people fighting around with small knifes, unarmed, untrained, so the only way is to call the cops, I don't want to die in crossfire --Quek157 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

~~Just to add to nominator, why do these things, can you guys talk it out. As a fellow 2007 user, I will sincerely hope this is a talkpage discussion not here. --Quek157 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Criticism of medicine despite being quackery is notable per sources provided. I've restored the good version, it is unbecoming to remove all sources which give claim to notability and nominated for AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except you've restored unsourced content and content which is sourced to sources which fail WP:V, and/or which are off-topic, which is bad. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is never good faith to removed 40 sources and then nominate for AfD. It would say this is bad faith editing. You made an AfD, so the version in question is up for debate. Removing an article down to one line and one source favors deletion and is bias. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly wrong. Editing of articles for deletion is encouraged: WP:EDITATAFD. And the discussion is not wholly about the present text but about the viability of the topic. If anything, your restoration of unsourced and irrelevant dodgy content is bad faith; it is certainly bad editing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There is nothing I can say here that was not said in the original deletion discussion. There is only the vague notion that there was a procedural error in closure. This should never have lead to anything being overturned, but of a simple correction of the rational. Carl Fredrik^talk 19:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Thanks for restoring a good version from before it was butchered by Alexbrn in preparation for AfD (and now again by CFCF). But in view of the procedural issues and questions that have been raised about editor conduct, I think it best to do nothing until we hear from the closing administrator who restored the page. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note:the admin who restore the page is sitting this out Quek157 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is framed as an attack page in an inherently biased way and so is contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. This article can only ever be either an apologia for quackery or a vast nit-picking back and forth. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether process had been abused or not, whether there are any disputes or not, this topic can never end, edit conflicts that have the potential to reach a level of full protection, there can simply be no one agreeing on this issue. This is a TNT and IAR delete. To the original editor, this is a topic that is so controversial that it cannot be easily dealt with, so I recommend taking on other less controversial pages in the future, at least a topic such as Criticism of Alternative Medicine may well be better or not? --Quek157 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, in addition to the above, this article in full is like a LISTCRUFT/SYNTH idea when list articles are mentioned and discussed. Is basically sourced information amalgamated together to form a topic where it can be better used in other articles. Delete the page. Selective ~~Merger from history will be the best process.~~ using the sources now to expand on current topic This is exactly what the DRV closer stated above. SYNTH can only be used for list but I find this argument relevant in a form of extended list. This can be called List of Criticism of Medicine which clearly then SYNTH applies. So delete with a proper rationale not IAR TNT. --Quek157 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC) clarified --Quek157 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

You can either delete the article, or merge content to other articles. You can't do both, because of copyright requirements.
I keep seeing this belief that nobody has truly criticized the institution and practice of medicine, and that anything that discusses concrete problems is just a made-up mishmash, and I keep being baffled by this. There have been multiple books on this subject, such as Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates (Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199212798). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are several overlapping problems here. The current (at the time of this posting) state of the article is essentially a content fork of alternative medicine. The longer version has that same problem; it is also something of a coatrack that also forks iatrogenesis. In any version, the ability to provide facially-acceptable sourcing has to be balanced by the demands of WP:FRINGE; and make no mistake, at least every recent version of this article serves as quiet advocacy of fringe medical positions. There are certainly aspects of this topic that can be addressed appropriately, but "criticism" of "medicine" broadly construed is always going to be a fringe-theory article with the inherent problems, and this falls short of the expectations of that standard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have read the so-called "good" version, and I'm actually sympathetic to some extent towards the notion of having an article like this. My liberal bleeding heart, always eager for a new excuse to ex-sanguinate, is moved by the assertions in the article that modern healthcare systems underserve women and minorities. But — big but — that is not a criticism of medicine. That's a criticism of healthcare. To take those arguments and lump them into an article with some alternative medicine woo-woo is WP:OR.

To come at this from another direction, I think that an article about historical criticism of medicine would be fascinating. I'd love to read about how phrenologists defended phrenology as their weird psuedoscience fell into discredit, but again, that's information that lives more happily elsewhere, in an article less likely to be a coatrack for fringe crazies. The fact is that there is never going to be a substantial amount of reliable sources that compile credible criticisms of medicine itself. A Train^talk 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't put it better than A Train did. Alexbrn turned the article into something resembling an actual Wikipedia article, and removed a lot of the problems, but no amount of editing can fix the fact that this is not a viable topic. --bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate process I think it makes sense for supporters of restoring this article (the vote among admins in the appeal discussion was, as I recall, 4 to 1 for restoration) to continue just sitting out this illegitimate AfD2. Of course, as the nominator said, WP policy encourages editing an article before and during an AfD. But obviously the purpose should be to make a good-faith effort to improve the article in order to see whether or not improvement is a better option than deletion. The policy of encouraging editing is not intended as a justification for vandalizing the article -- reducing it to an incoherent stub -- right before proposing it for deletion. That is simply disruptive editing, and it causes the whole process to become illegitimate. So I think that those who disagree with the Anti-CAM Justice Warriors that this article supports fraud and quackery should just sit out this illegitimate procedure. It's analogous to a bogus election in an undemocratic country -- often the best strategy of the democracy advocates is to sit out the "election" and challenge its legitimacy later; if there's no effective way to do this within the country in question, then maybe pressure from outside the country would help. In the case of Wikipedia, this means off-wiki sources calling attention to what's going on. This has already been done on Slashdot. In short, the conduct of the Anti-CAM Warriors does not bring credit either to Wikipedia or to the medical profession that a few of them belong to. This is unfortunate and unfair, because their conduct is an outlier. From all I've seen, the majority of veteran editors do not behave this way, and the majority of physicians and medical researchers do not share their simpleminded POV that criticism of medicine is the same as support for CAM and that anyone who has an openminded view of certain forms of CAM (e.g., 88% of Americans surveyed and 60% of U.S. medical schools) is promoting fraud and quackery.NightHeron (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding but I think you're making two points here.

First, you're saying that it's unfortunate that the article was stub-ified during the discussion. I concur with you, but I'm not sure that this is a big of a problem as you seem to think it is. Seeing previous versions of an article is trivially easy and experienced editors (such as those who tend to contribute at AfD) know how to do that. I read the longer previous version of the article before opining and it seems very clear to me that some if not all of the editors voting to delete here did as well.
Now your second point is making me worried. Are you saying that you've encouraged Slashdot readers to brigade this AfD? That is poor form, if so. I'm not sure what to make of "Anti-CAM Warriors", so you may want to re-phrase that for folks like me who aren't steeped in the jargon of alternative medicine.

Thanks, A Train^talk 16:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: Thanks for your courteous tone toward me, and I apologize if I was unclear. To answer your second point first, I had nothing to do with the posting on Slashdot. I've never used Slashdot and didn't even know what it was until it came up in the NPOV Noticeboard discussion. I was simply saying that some external criticism of Wikipedia should kick in if internal safeguards don't work. That's all.

In answer to your first point, I made up that term myself; I don't read pro-CAM propaganda, so I don't know whether or not they use it. My choice of that term was by analogy with the common pejorative "Social Justice Warriors" for people who think that their cause is so important as to justify censorship.

I personally agree with the objectives of both groups. I believe in social justice, and I also believe in combating fraud and pseudoscience. Where I part ways with both groups is that censorship is not the right way to go about it. Wikipedia policy very clearly says the same thing.NightHeron (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: Concerning your other point about the disruptive editing that occurred immediately prior to the nominator renominating the article for deletion: This could have confused and probably did confuse some editors about what was going on and what was the article being evaluated. There's no way to know. In any case it was an abuse of procedure, and so this AfD is illegitimate. It makes sense for people who oppose deletion to just throw up our hands and boycott such a travesty. I understand that WP policy allows repeated proposals to delete a given article. But presumably that is because some time has passed and new editing of the article or new off-wiki events showed that the article is now inappropriate. Renomination is not supposed to be used because the original supporters of deletion are unhappy with the concensus that emerged in the deletion appeal process. Editors spent 3 weeks debating this. Why not let normal editing occur now, wait a few months, and see whether the case for deletion becomes stronger or weaker with time?NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the speedy re-nomination isn't ideal. But we're ultimately responsible to Wikipedia's readers. Given a choice between pedantically following the letter of the rules and taking action to remove an article that isn't in keeping with our standards for WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, or WP:FRINGE, we'll choose the latter every time. That's actually the essence of one of Wikipedia's five pillars: there are no firm rules, just the goal of making a good encyclopedia. There's a good consensus developing here that this article isn't fit for purpose. That's not censorship, it's just maintaining the standards. A Train^talk 23:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: I'm sorry, but you're not really agreeing with me. I didn't say that the speedy (as in: within a half-hour) renomination "isn't ideal"; I said that it was a refusal to accept consensus (as in: consensus of admins in the appeal discussion) and hence contrary to WP policy. It is not "pedantic" to insist on respecting consensus.

How can you call the article "fringe" if every single one of my sources is a non-fringe non-CAM source, and several (Angell, Ernst, and of course the source about the Wakefield fraud) are strongly anti-CAM? Please point to a single thing in the article that is "fringe." Nor is it "synth"; please see WP:SYNNOT#Synth is not juxtaposition. It just blows my mind that anyone could defend Alternative medicine as not having an NPOV problem and accuse Criticisms of medicine of violating NPOV. Please just show the two articles side by side to any scientist you know outside of Wikipedia and ask them which one is biased or polemical. The claims that my article violates basic WP policies or that it would harm readers to see it are just absurd. Wikipedia's "responsibility to readers" is not to censor things.

There was no consensus, as 4 out of 5 admins agreed during the appeal process. There might be one now, since it's largely the pro-deletion editors who are happy to go ahead with this illegitimate process. Other editors think three weeks on this is enough, and I fully sympthasize with the viewpoint that it's a waste of time to debate people who refuse to accept consensus.NightHeron (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the outcome of the last AfD/review was effectively "no consensus", this new AfD is a good thing to get to that consensus. Relisting AfDs to widen consensus is routinely done, and this new AfD is no different in principle to doing just that. This is why nobody with any clue is buying the "abuse of process" argument; that argument looks to me more like an attempt to subvert the emerging consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: I suppose you'll also argue that it's perfectly normal and in line with policy to vandalize an article (18 delete edits reducing it to a stub) within minutes of the posting of the appeal outcome and immediately before renominating the article for deletion?

In WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE it says that an AfD nomination is in error if "Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome," and so merits a procedural close. Thus, if the first closing admin had ruled "No Concensus" (and so kept the article) and if you had immediately renominated, that would have been grounds for procedural close. This isn't, of course, what you did, since the first ruling went in your favor. But the appeal ruling corrected the earlier ruling to "No Consensus," so what you did was very similar. You expressed your objection to that ruling (in apparent anger, since it is not normal for an experienced editor to vandalize an article by 18 deletion edits to bring it down to an incoherent stub) by immediately (within about a half hour) renominating it for deletion. Your actions that violated policy were refusal to accept consensus, disruptive editing, and inappropriate use of AfD to object to an appeal ruling.NightHeron (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:RENOM it recommends waiting "at least two months" after a "no consensus" close before renominating. The admin who closed the appeal said in reference to this second AfD: "I wouldn't be surprised if the AfD got speedy closed by somebody, but I'm not going to do that. It's better I leave that decision to an uninvolved admin."NightHeron (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NOTVAND. Considering the circumstances my renomination was good and I believe fully aligned with the goals of the Project. We shall just have to wait and see if the wider community supports my judgement. In any case, the relevant policy (for post-review renomination) has already been quoted to you at AN/I: WP:DP#Deletion review – "Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate." Ultimately however, we are driven by the great tide of consensus, not by WP:WIKILAWYERING. Alexbrn (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of lawyering just because I'm making a policy-based argument. I'm talking about basic issues like disruption and censorship; I'm not a lawyer haggling about technicalities. I'd prefer not to haggle over words either, but okay, I read WP:NOTVAND it's clear that vandalism should not be used if an inexperienced editor did what you did. But it's not clear whether the policy says anything in the case of an experienced editor who knows the rules. According to the lede of Vandalism on Wikipedia, "On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or modification of the text or other material that is ... [in an] otherwise degrading nature." If the word "vandalism" seems inaccurate, then other possible words to describe what happened: disruptive editing and butchering the article right before nominating. I don't care which words we use. It was clearly against policy in any case. The "great tide of consensus" among the "wider community" is nonsense, since most editors have little patience for endless debates with people who refuse to accept a consensus reached at the admin level after 3 weeks. Only the diehards are in it now; others lose interest when the same arguments are being beaten to death for the 4th straight week.NightHeron (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're getting fresh eyes all the time, usefully broadening the consensus. So far as I'm concerned this is just a run-of-the-mill exercise to remove bad content from Wikipedia. No big deal. With your talk of butchery and censorship and off-wiki judgements and beating to death you're already quite a way up the WP:REICHSTAG. Have you considered that you might ... be wrong? Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether I was right or wrong to write an article on this topic. Apparently the most active members of WikiProject Medicine for the most part believe I was wrong. That's fine. The issue is the highly irregular procedure that is being used to overturn a decision reached by consensus after 3 difficult weeks of debate. All the "new eyes" this week on one side and none on the other side -- no surprise there. Your side can legally rally the troops. The other side cannot, or it would be canvassing. There's no "WikiProject Crit of Med", nor should there be. Also, most on the other side, including people who are more experienced and less naive about Wikipedia procedures than I am, don't want to waste their time -- just as it would be foolish to waste time campaigning in a rigged election. Apparently other people have had similar experiences long before I started editing.NightHeron (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As they should. Spouting pseudoscience gets you an admonishment and if you continue it gets you a ban. Wikipedia could not exist if we allowed every quack to WP:BLUDGEON all of our processes. Science is not a democracy, it is biased to the scientific method. Carl Fredrik^talk 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a "quack" now? Have I been "spouting pseudoscience"? Am I soon to be banned? Are other editors who have supported the article also a bunch of "quacks"?NightHeron (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using "censor" as a type of miscellaneous expression of annoyance, but rather in the precise sense of WP:CENSOR, where the first sentence states: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." The history of our controversy makes the central issue clear. I was led to the article Alternative medicine when looking for material on a subtopic of abortion that's also a subtopic of alt med, namely herbal abortifacients. I was shocked by the tone and POV of the alt med article, which I'd never before encountered on Wikipedia. Among other things, I tried to put in a section on criticism of medicine, in order to show that some of the appeal of alt med is due not to a belief in "magic, childishness, or the downright absurd" (to paraphrase a formulation that was in the alt med article's lede at the time, but since removed). Rather, this appeal might result in part from the less-than-perfect image that medicine has among much of the public. That section didn't survive, but an experienced editor advised me instead to write a separate article on the subject, which could then be cited from the alt med article in lieu of a section with that material. I much appreciated the constructive suggestion, and also the considerable help that editor gave me in improving my sandbox draft. When I posted it, the trouble started, with immediate suspicion of my good faith, e.g., a comment on the Wiki:Project Medicine talk page by a veteran editor saying "I smell a sock" (??). (In my comments on the alt med article, I had stated that I was strongly opposed to pseudoscience, quackery, and fraud, and that's why I wanted to improve the article. But since I was editing anonymously, editors had no way to verify that I wasn't lying.) Throughout the lengthy discussions on the crit of med talk page and three different delete-related discussion pages the persistent theme of the pro-deletion comments is that any article on the topic is automatically POV, essay-like, SYNTH, OR, and other nasty things. The reason is because of a "problematic agenda" (in the words of the deletion-nominator Alexbrn), namely to promote alt med. No one has ever pointed to a specific source or wording in the article that supports the alt-medists. But no matter. It's offensive to a dominant group of editors that includes some very active veteran editors in the medicine project, apparently because an article on such a topic is viewed as inconsistent with the need for an uncompromising battle against alt med. This is censorship in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Among my acquaintances in the off-wiki world I'm reasonably sure that every one of them would view it as such.NightHeron (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron, you are (again, I'm sorry to say) taking a pedantic, highly idiosyncratic reading of WP policy and bending it to your purposes. What WP:CENSOR means is that Wikipedia hosts content that some folks may find objectionable (viz. penises, images of the Prophet Muhammad, and Nickelback samples); it does not mean that we should ignore all of our content policies about fringe science or original research. There are over a dozen reasonable, highly experienced editors here who have collectively been editing Wikipedia for more than a hundred years. As Alexbrn asked you earlier: are you sure that maybe—just maybe—it's you that has the wrong end of the stick here? A Train^talk 23:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: Don't you at least find it odd (although perhaps justified from your POV) that the crit of med article is continually being labeled as "fringe" or "pseudoscience" even though every single source (over 40 of them) is mainstream RS, nothing the least bit fringe? Doesn't that tell you that there might be something strange about what's going on?

As far as Wikipedia policy goes, I don't believe you're correct. It's not just for offensive images that someone doesn't want their children to see or that offend some religious notion. The policy in WP:CENSOR seems much more to be a core policy related to major content issues. The one where much of my editing has taken place is abortion. Wikipedia explicitly tries in various ways to protect super-controversial articles such as the abortion article from POV-groups and it seems to me that Wikipedia is relatively successful there. Even the frequent IP-vandalism isn't much of a problem, since it's usually reverted within a few minutes at very little effort -- that's what the "undo" click is there for (as it took me over a month to realize). Right now I'm involved in two discussions I instigated to change the title of United States pro-life movement and United States pro-choice movement to NPOV-compliant titles, replacing "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" with "abortion rights." To my pleasant surprise, both discussions have been going well, with no real animosity, no insults or violations of WP:GF. Nobody accused anyone of a "problematic agenda" or being a "quack" or said "I smell a sock," and nobody threatened to have anyone banned. The only place I've encountered that has been in the alt-med and crit-of-med context. Doesn't that seem strange to you? It does to me. BTW, none of this applies to you -- you've been consistently cordial and never assumed bad faith on my part.NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: After I posted the above reply to you, I noticed that the edit summary of your last response to me (which I had not even noticed) had been removed by an admin for containing "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." Of course, it's too late for me to read it now. I want to say that the last BTW sentence above was meant sincerely, not as sarcasm (because if the edit summary did insult me, I hadn't read it). Second, if the issue in the edit summary related to something not directed against me, then please let me know what it was so that I don't jump to an inaccurate conclusion.NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see a deleted edit summary in this page's history, and particularly surprised that A Train would post an edit summary falling under RD2. On reviewing the deleted summary, I am comfortable saying that the deletion of the edit summary was in error. The deleting admin was – presumably – unfamiliar with the phrase "hill to die on". A Train's rather sensible advice to you was simply (NightHeron, find another hill to die on), which I suppose could be seen as rather threatening if one didn't know the idiom involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades:@A Train: Of course I'm not insulted by that expression, so my last sentence about cordiality in my earlier response to User:A Train still stands as correct. However, I think there's a U.S.-specific reason why it was probably correct for the admin to delete that edit summary under RD2. Many people in the U.S. are hypersensitive about certain things, especially coming from someone who's an adversary, and some wish for them to "die" (even if it's in a common expression) would be perceived as some weird kind of death threat. I kid you not. I'm not hypersensitive (if I were, I'd find something else to do than edit medicine-related articles on Wikipedia, that's for sure).NightHeron (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes; clearly he needed to delete it to protect the ignorant and illiterate Americans. It would probably be a good idea for you to stop replying. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I removed my negative comment alluding to literacy in America, since apparently it offended you. I thought it appropriate to reply, because it seems the admin thought that the edit summary would be offensive to me. So I wanted to clarify that I was not offended, but in view of various tensions in the U.S. right now and the sensitivity of people when someone tells them something about "dying," the expression, though an accepted idiom, might be taken badly by some people. Is that okay? Or am I violating some policy? Speaking of interpreting or misinterpreting things, could you tell me what you meant by "a good idea for you to stop replying"? Was that a warning or threat? If so, please tell me what policy I was violating by replying to you about the edit summary?NightHeron (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This page is a POV fork Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is simply an essay promoting a fringe POV, fleshed out with disparate sources. Any particular source or sentence could be justified as criticism of a relevant aspect of medicine, but no reliable source has proposed the same thesis as this article. The way it is assembled is tantamount to WP:SYNTH. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split the content to more relevant articles, and – eventually, when all of the usable content has been correctly placed in other articles – redirect this name to Medicine, which probably will end up with a ==Criticism== section as a result. You can see one example of a very simple split in this diff, which shows me moving a sourced sentence to an article that did not previously contain such a concise explanation of how cultural expectations affected the opioid epidemic. This is not a difficult kind of editing task, and it WP:PRESERVEs verifiable content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You split out one sentence, and now the article must be kept for attribution... Natureium (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can be solved with a history merge. It's a lot of extra work for some administrator, but it's going to need to happen now that this was done. All it needs to do is attribute NightHeron, but something needs to be done to ensure the diff is truncated — it is currently the whole article, which should under no circumstance be part of the diff. Just for the sake of it I will make it clear I strongly oppose a redirect. Carl Fredrik^talk 21:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or the single edit could be rev-del'd (i.e., from the target article). I made sure to document the diff, so that it would be easy to do that if wanted, and difficult to overlook the necessity if editors conclude that this title absolutely must remain a redlink instead of pointing at Medicine. I think that quite a lot of the material in this article could easily find a home in other articles.

Carl, I'd like to know more about why you oppose a redirect. Do you believe that this needs to be a redlink, or do you only oppose a redirect that has the article history behind it? ("Somebody might revert the redirect" could be reliably solved with page protection.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: (1) — The history of this article should be deleted as it is an unconstructive mass of diatribe and textbook WP:SYNTH. That certain passages may be relevant to other articles is cause to merge them without history, not to allow this WP:OR mess to continue and potentially be found. (2) It relays a false sense of legitimacy to have this page as a redirect — especially as there is no Medicine#Criticism section, and there is strong policy support to deny creating such a section. Carl Fredrik^talk 10:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia licensing requires attribution. And while that's most commonly done via the editor log in article history, it isn't the exclusive way for text to be attributed (I'm too busy to scrape up an example at the moment, but there are articles where, for various reasons, attribution of some text was made in a persistent talk page note). Or, to the point, having a line of text from here exported to another article does not immunize this one from deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of attribution, I notice that NightHeron is maintaining a mirror of this article at User:NightHeron/sandbox, including others' edits. How does this work? Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't understand how "userfy" works, and since whatever version I'd get access to might have deletions from it of material I'd want to keep, I saved a recent version in sandbox. On the question of attribution, I've mentioned that two veteran editors (one admin and one member of the medicine Wikiproject) helped me significantly with the first published version when it was in the sandbox stage. Neither one got attribution. The first posted version was certainly not entirely my work. At the time I didn't even think about that, since I thought (apparently incorrectly) that attribution was not important on Wikipedia.NightHeron (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for the legal requirements. Userfication is just wiki-slang for move to user space. In this case, the most likely location would be User:NightHeron/Criticisms of medicine. When that happens, the entire editing history comes with it, just like with any other article rename. And, should the page eventually be moved back into main article space, the history will continue to follow it. This preserves the full history of every editor's changes, so you can both see what the page looked like at any point in time, and we also have the full attribution history, so you can see who wrote what. Making a copy, as you're doing with your current sandbox, breaks all of that, and is against policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:PATT tells how to patch up the history to provide the required attribution after the fact of a copy-paste event. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thank you for the explanation. I'm unclear about the following question: If I ask for "userfying" a deleted article, can I specify a particular version of that article that I'd like to work on improving? What I'm afraid of is that in the version that's eventually deleted some sections will already have been deleted earlier. For example, the deletion nominator could again reduce the article to a stub, as he did immediately following your restoring of it in closing the deletion review (that is, immediately before again nominating it for deletion). Also, another editor added a section on maternal mortality in the U.S., which I thought was a very positive contribution. The nominator quickly reverted it, then I restored it (into a different section where I thought it fit better), and he again deleted it, so it clearly will not be in the version that's eventually deleted. Since the nominator and several others apparently believe that no article on criticisms of mainstream medicine should be in Wikipedia, he or others might want to make it much harder for me and others to write a much revised and expanded version for publication in a few months. That's why I copied a version without deleted sections (I didn't know at the time that this is against policy), and that's why I'd like to know if I'd be permitted to specify a particular version for userification. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is "userfied", it is moved into your userspace. The entire history of the article comes with it, just as it would if it were moved from one title to another within articlespace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically to your question, you can easily restore it to any previous version. The exact details vary depending on what client you're running, but with the web client, click the View history tab at the top of the page to bring up the full history. You can view any earlier version by clicking on the timestamp. Once you've found the one you want, click the Edit tab, and as soon as it drops you into the editor, click Publish changes. You've now effectively reverted back to that version (and, the history is still intact). -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that answers that question. I have two more questions: (1) After deletion would I have access to the talk page for the article with its current content still there? (2) Is there something I should do about attribution either for the two editors who helped me (in one case with direct edits) in the sandbox draft earlier or for editors who help me in the next sandbox stage after deletion? In an academic setting, they'd be either coauthors or mentioned in the acknowledgment, depending on the extent of their work on it.NightHeron (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it's possible to userfy the article and not the talk page, but I've never heard of that happening. Assume you'll get both. As mentioned above, read WP:PATT for how to handle after-the-fact attribution. One possible route would be a null edit and an edit comment along the lines of, Includes text contributed by User:Foo and User:Bar. Another alternative might be to describe the contributions on the talk page. I'll admit, the details of this are not really my area of expertise. WP:VPP might be a good place to get more specific advice. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is an essay with opinions gathered by an editor (WP:SYNTH) to show one side of a story (WP:POVFORK). Anything as complex as medicine is going to have a lot of problems (and misguided accusations of problems), and listing them should be done on a blog. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Split as a WP:POVFORK. Some of the content is criticism of the US healthcare system (which already has its own article and plenty of space for criticism), some is criticism of frauds (which exist in all fields, not just medicine - and a relevant article also already exists), some is criticism of historical behaviours which can hardly be attributed to the field of medicine alone, and the article overall is a haphazard collation of those, and it constitutes POV-pushing WP:SYNTH (since it is criticism taken out of context, see this older AfD - sure, there's criticism, but the article in this form is unacceptable WP:CHERRYPICKING). Relevant content can thus be split to relevant articles (if it isn't already there), and the rest can go where it rightfully belongs (i.e. the trash can, if you were not sure). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't a clear concept of what this article is intended to cover, so it's always going to be a neither-fish-nor-fowl laundry-list muddle. It's called "Criticisms of Medicine", but it's really a poorly-scoped agglomeration of anything negative that's tangentially-related to the past or present of medicine. There's stuff there that better fits in – and is often already part of – our articles on healthcare, or history of medicine, or informed consent, or scientific misconduct, and others. (The old editor's saw: What you've got is good and original. But the good stuff isn't original, and the original stuff isn't good.)
The novel synthesis and agglomeration of this grab-bag of bits and pieces isn't a helpful construction (except, perhaps, to an anti-medicine crusader looking for Gish Gallop fodder), and the lumping-together in this way isn't supported by suitable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No systematic framework, not likely to be anything but a tirade. WP:CRITICISM is always risky and I'd say any useful content should be merged to the specific phenomena being criticised, not the practice or profession of medicine as a whole. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the tittle, because no encyclopedic neutral article can exists there. I painstakingly surveyed all accessible so-called references, they revealed one thing: this article s epitome of WP:SYNTHESIS and concoction to paint picture that never was and push fringe POV masquerading as an encyclopedic article. I am also pertubed by the badgering by account solely created to mask identity and fight for keeping this mess in the name of article.Forum shopping after DRV and their apparent attempt to recreate the article after this is eventually deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is more like an essay or list that cherry-picks events where healthcare services have been substandard. There is no overall direction. (I have looked at the previous "good" version.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, what a mess. Yet, that's pretty much a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Even if each separate axis of criticism was supported by rock-solid RS (which is not really the case at the moment but it is within the realm of possibilities), what would be needed is sources (e.g. sociology studies; emphasis on plural) lumping all those separate criticisms together. A quick GScholar search did not turn up anything remotely resembling that, though I will admit that's not my domain and I might have overlooked something obvious. Also, the first AfD's closure might have been invalid, but plainly on procedural/closure rationale grounds, and it certainly is no obstacle to quick renomination. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have 17 deletes, 1 split, 1 keep, and 1 22kB argument. Are we going to make this run another 3 days? Natureium (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was up to me, yes. Leaving it open three more days is not likely to lead to much mud-slinging, but closing it three days early certainly is (for evidence, see previous AfD and DRV). Also, applying WP:SNOW (assuming that's the argument) is dubious when a previous recent AfD was certainly not within SNOW realm. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With only one supporter of the article not sitting out the vote, you're at 94 percent. Don't you want to try to raise that? The old Soviet Union would routinely get over 95 percent voting for the Communist Party. You should be able to match that.NightHeron (talk) 10:29 am, Today (UTC−4)
Comment It's a shame to see this article deleted. It's a good starter article that covers an important aspect of medicine. (NightHeron, you should strike that comment you just made. Others here are just are just as sincere in their opinions as you are.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it.NightHeron (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, you didn't. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did delete it, was told by another editor that I shouldn't have deleted something that had been replied to, and that editor (I think) then crossed through it.NightHeron (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to go out on a limb here, but being new to this discussion, I'm reading this objectively. I went over the different sections and feel there are enough criticisms that are properly sourced to keep this. This does not seem to be fringe, POV material. High medical costs; opioid and psychotropic drug over-prescription; and false findings by researchers are subjects that have been widely discussed elsewhere, and indeed some have their own articles. Likewise with discrimination against women and minorities. We could add forced sterilization of developmentally disabled people, and Nazi experiments on Jews during World War II as further black eyes on medicine. All unpleasant, but all valid and notable. I'm not sure I agree that inadequate therapeutic relationships is a valid criticism, but that can be culled, or defended with additional sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I'm reading, inadequate therapeutic relationships are a source of burnout among the newest generation of physicians, poor outcomes, and patient dissatisfaction. It is not a matter of social skills. It is a structural, institutional, and financial problem: you typically get 15 minutes to deal with a patient, including time to read past notes and document what the patient said and what you did and said this time (and, in some cases, what you didn't do and didn't say and what the patient did or didn't do), regardless of whether the goal of the office visit is a super-simple thing like "glance at a freckle and say that it's a freckle" or "inform parents that their child's cancer is untreatable and that the child is going to die". The difficulty of forging a working relationship in a few minutes, a couple of times a year, is widely believed to be one of the reasons that people with complex and chronic problems seek out alternative medicine practitioners. A physician effectively has eight minutes to talk to the patient, wants the patient to stick to the chief complaint, and may be visibly annoyed when someone asks another question just as he's reaching for the doorknob. By contrast, the acupuncturist will cheerfully schedule a 90-minute appointment every week or two, and wants to hear about everything. The acupuncturist may be doing no more good for your health than your hairdresser, but you will have a better relationship with the acupuncturist than with the over-scheduled guy who privileges you with ten minutes of attention a couple of times a year. Additionally, when the patient needs to spend time in the hospital, the odds are high that nobody who knows anything about that patient's normal life will be involved in the patient's care at the hospital, and the lack of that individual connection – the lack of that "adequate therapeutic relationship" – creates its own set of challenges (Read more). So, yeah, it's a known problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some bizarre comments above - anyone who thinks there is not massive criticism of medicine from within the conventional medical world is someone who has never looked at a leading medical journal, or for example ever read a review of one of Ben Goldacre's books. Conflict of interest in the healthcare industry is one massive topic, for example. The article isn't great, but the subject is entirely valid and important. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is not criticism (legitimate and otherwise) of pretty much all aspects of modern medicine, healthcare delivery, and medical research. The objection I think most of us have is that trying to smoosh all that criticism together into one giant gemisch results in a poor encyclopedia article. The information (mostly) belongs in Wikipedia; it just doesn't belong in one, big, impossible-to-properly-scope pile.

It would be like trying to create an article called Criticisms of food, in which was discussed

how some people couldn't afford to get enough food; or how it was difficult to deliver food to some parts of the world;
how large manufacturers and distributors of food used marketing tactics and sloppy science to misrepresent the benefits and risks associated with their products;
how some people become sick from consuming too much or the wrong types of food;
how the practice of preparing and serving food has changed (sometimes in very harmful ways) through history;
how improperly handled foods can cause food poisoning; and
how poorly-regulated charlatans can sell fad diets that are expensive but useless (or even harmful).

All of those things are worth discussing in the context of various Wikipedia articles, but trying to mash them all together in one place doesn't work. Those bullets could all be loosely described as "food-related criticisms and concerns", but they don't work collectively as "Criticisms of food".

The notion that editors endorsing deletion of this article are intent on suppressing or ignoring criticism of medicine (or are somehow ignorant of such criticism) is a non-starter, bordering on insulting. We just don't think that this article's format is an effective or useful way to provide the information to our readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the article Criticism of science, which underwent an AfD that closed quickly after unanimous or near-unanimous keeps? Please look at it. Would you argue that it is better (less of a gemisch) than the one under discussion?NightHeron (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: I just checked that article, in fact the exact version which was discussed at AfD, and what I can see is that the criticism there is much more of science as one whole field than of individual aspects of science. In contrast, this article just cherrypicks on all the negative aspects, and loops them in together, and all of that despite none of them being really directly relevant to medicine, merely one of the many aspects of it. Therefore, even if the subject might be eventually worthy of an article, the article in its current form is in clear breach of policy/accepted standards and WP:TNT applies at the very least. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: and 198.84.253.202. Please take a look at Criticism of Christianity, which "is about criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity," just as Criticisms of medicine is about criticism of both the science and practice of medicine. The table of contents of Criticism of Christianity lists a wide range of topics that are covered in a single article. Perhaps surprisingly, in view of the strong feelings that many Christians have about perceived criticism of their faith, the article is there, and has been since Sept 2005. That's a nice example of adherence to WP:CENSOR. I think that editors of Wikipedia who have strong Christian views deserve credit for not trying to get that article deleted.NightHeron (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Except that article is actual "criticism" (critical thinking), as exemplified by say the first sentence of the first sub-section, "Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods used since the Enlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply to biblical documents the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts." That is critical thinking, and surprise, it implies nothing negative... The current article "Criticism of medicine" is however just criticism of the "ripping on" form, includes a gratuitous statement to promote quackery (i.e. CAM), and lacks balance. Stop making desperate comparisons - we are talking of this article, not of every single other article whose title is "Criticism of [something]". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the historical section of Criticism of Christianity, which describes many extremely negative things that sources say about what Christianity has done in the past. Concerning "critical thinking," the beginning of the lede of Criticisms of medicine contains a sentence written in much the same style as the one you quote from Criticism of Christianity. Can you be more specific about which section or sections (the one on scandals? on harmful effects of treatment? on historical discrimination? etc.) you believe to be lacking in critical thinking that should be there? If you mean fleshing out details, in an article of this sort that's normally done by wikilinks to full articles on the given subtopic. Finally, what do you mean specifically by "a gratuitous statement to promote quackery"? That's a very serious and insulting accusation, since I've repeatedly stated that I -- and, to the best of my knowledge, other editors who have contributed -- are strongly opposed to fraud and quackery. So please be specific.NightHeron (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: The discussion here is already long enough - see comments on article talk for "specifics". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To respond to both User:Johnbod and User:timtempleton, if you look at this carefully, you will see that the lead perfunctorily summarizes a good source -- " The critical study of medicine is multidisciplinary, using methods from history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and quantitative science."... but the actual page ignores that. What is in the body is not a "critical study" (an analysis using the tools of those various disciplines - in other words, critical thinking) but rather just plain old ripping on (an entirely different sense of the word "criticism"). The results of authentic critical study are rarely entirely negative.

This page is really Here is a Bunch of Bad Stuff about the Biomedical Establishment in the United States (due to the inclusion here of stuff like the Scandals section which is all about research, and some of the Conflict of Interest section which is also about research). Taking that out, it is really Here is Bad stuff about the Healthcare System in the United States, or perhaps better Why you should not trust medicine but instead use CAM, and is just a POV fork of Health care in the United States.

Tim you added mention of Wakefield, but it is remarkable that there was no discussion of anything like that before, nor even now of other healthcare fraudsters like Burzynski Clinic, the scandal of dietary supplement advertising (HGH "supplements", anyone?), the conspiracy theorizing and misinformation that websites like Mercola spew into the public sphere every day, the proliferation of celebrity doctors like Doctor Oz flogging dietary supplements or their fad diet books, celebrities who aren't doctors like Gwyneth Paltrow selling expensive jade eggs to cleanse your vagina, the horrible, hyped reporting about "health news" in the mainstream media; people's own bad behaviors that destroy their health that they look for others to fix for them -- all the shit that people who are trying to be healthy and well actually face.

It would be more... worthy of some kind of consideration if actually was looking at all the flaws in the healthcare economy.

This page, however, is a sloppy piece of crap masquerading as an encyclopedia article -- criticism (ripping on) masquerading as criticism (critical thinking). That is why the !votes are overwhelmingly "delete". Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that calling me "juvenile" and "sloppy" and using obscenities strengthens your argument? It's no credit to Wikipedia that the subculture seems to tolerate such verbal abuse.NightHeron (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you anything. I have characterized the page. Also, I removed the "juvenile" before you replied; that was also about the page. Everything that is there, is accurate. You have dumped garbage into WP, and we are wasting a bunch of community resources shovelling it out. Please leave your ax at the login page; this is not a place for grinding it. (that is a comment on your behavior, not on you) Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing "juvenile," a word that refers not to a page, but to the person who wrote it. Your hostility and extreme language ("crap," "garbage," "sloppy") is an insult not only to me, but to others who helped with the page or who voted to keep it. That includes the veteran editor who suggested that I write the article -- a member of the medicine WikiProject, who I'm sure disagrees with me about a lot, but chose to provide some constructive guidance. He also provided valuable suggestions (in draft stage) as have others. But the deluge of anger and verbal abuse from several veteran editors during this AfD2 (including threats implying that I might soon get banned) exceeds anything I was prepared for. It's no wonder Wikipedia has such a huge attrition of new editors. Most people are not accustomed to taking abuse, and if they do get abuse in their daily life, they're even less inclined to want more of it by editing Wikipedia. For example, very few women I know would want to edit Wikipedia if they heard about the barrage of insults one has to put up with.NightHeron (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nom says "Not a viable article topic; there are insufficient sources on "Criticism of medicine" per se to allow a neutral and non-original article", which seems completely wrong to me. Various other deleters have said similar things. I see no reason why there can't be a good, neutral summary article of the various kinds of criticism of modern medicine, which, yes, will probably have a lot on the US, like most Wikipedia articles. This article certainly isn't that (yet), but I can't agree it could never become that, and I reject the premise of the nom. AfD should generally concentrate on the Platonic ideal of the article rather than the text at this point, which is not happening here. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was distracted by User:Jytdog's insults, I neglected to respond to his point about Wakefield and CAM. The original title of the article, Criticisms of mainstream medicine, was shortened to "Criticisms of medicine," if I recall correctly by User:CFCF, who didn't like what he saw as the implication that there's such a thing as non-mainstream medicine. The article is not and was never intended to be a critique of CAM. The reason for the inclusion of the Andrew Wakefield scandal is that his fraudulent work was peer reviewed and published in The Lancet, one of the world's premier medical journals, and that was a high-profile embarrassment for mainstream medicine that had the effect of strengthening the fringe anti-vaccine movement. I don't agree with the recent edit that puts the Wakefield scandal in its own separate section on "False criticism". However, I think it was a good edit earlier today to mention the anti-vaccine movement as an example of false criticism; it's just that the Wakefield case itself was a failure of the research-review process.NightHeron (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to respond to this. Publishing is a human endeavor. Fraudulent research being published in high profile journals is the result of an act of fraud followed by a series of errors. Retractions are corrections of those errors; they are painful but they are good things, and are part of the process of publishing. Would it be better if humans and their institutions were perfect? If nobody tried to fool the system, and if anytime someone did, they were caught timely? Sure. But trying to put something like a laundry list of high profile retractions into an article about "Criticisms of Medicine" is bizarre. The research misconduct in the biomedical sphere is similar. This is not a problem with biomedical research, but with some people who do it. Its being uncovered by other people, is a good thing, and again, mechanisms to report, investigate, and take action with respect to research misconduct is part of the system. Naming instances of these self-corrections as "criticism" is kind of juvenile (am now bringing this back), in the assumption that some perfect world exists, or could exist. Kids often do this sort of thing before they understand that their parents are human, too, and before they understand that institutions are human creations.

Lots of this is bizarre. This -- "in Cuba hospitals have been plagued by shortages caused by the U.S. embargo" -- is not something wrong with medicine per se.

This page is a grab bag of "bad stuff" thrown at the wall without regard for what are systemic problems that are intrinsic to "medicine" per se, what are problems specific to the US healthcare system (which is its own thing, and a strange one at that), what are societal problems expressed in the field of medicine (which is part of society), and what are not systemic problems at all but rather, ways that the system deals with the humans inside it.

It would be more encyclopedic and less prone to absurdity, to deal with these things where they belong -- and most of it in Healthcare in the United States -- than through this badly thought out, invalid POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started thinking about how this could be merged and redirected to a section within medicine instead of just being a straight keep. There is a similar criticism section with Alternative medicine#Risks and problems. I'm still not sold that would work, because you could also argue that similar info should be added to healthcare, and therefore it might require less duplication of content and effort to keep this as standalone. Instead, medicine and healthcare could be linked to this one in an easier cleaner way. There is some hodgepodge, but most of the info is properly sourced and notable - and therefore worthy of inclusion. BTW - I just undid the new section I created - realizing that the scandal was not the vaccination study fraud but was instead the associated peer review process failure. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:timtempleton, thanks for your reply. My reading of the section you added was that some of 'criticisms" at "medicine" are ridiculous or even fraudulent - like Wakefield's clsims that vaccines cause autism and there is a huge conspiracy hiding that, or almost anything David Wolfe says about medicine. That's what I thought you meant. About adding this stuff to Medicine -- again almost none of it is about medicine per se, but rather the Healthcare in the US - the actual system through which care is provided and paid for... Mainstream medicine in Europe for example is really different; homeopathy and other alt med practices that started becoming widespread in the US in the 1970s are embedded deep in German culture, and are widespread in Germany and have been since the 19th century... Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog - right - it was a bit of a Gordian knot. The issue was not that the vaccine study was an example of medical criticism which was then proven wrong, but instead the criticism was that a fraudulent study got traction and legitimacy, thus exposing a systemic problem within the medical peer review process. That problem may still exist, bolstering at least one point made by this article. I hope my edit made that clearer. Back to the AfD - it is a bit of a blurry distinction between medicine and healthcare. Healthcare is of course broader. If I could see a merge of the meat to healthcare, with some linkage from medicine for readers interested in reading about medicine-specific criticism, I might be convinced that a redirect would work. And mind you - I'm on the side of science and medicine here - but the criticism, like other unpopular subjects including 9/11 inside jobs, chemtrails, holocaust deniers, etc. is a notable enough part of our culture to outweigh WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just as long as we use reliable sources and there's no bias. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your dismissal of the policy violating aspects of this page as simply IDONTLIKEIT, I will say that if you "like" pages that violate policy, please go work in facebook or something. I imagine that a WP article on critical thinking about medicine could be created, but it would not be a laundry list of "criticism" (as in bad stuff). This page is trash. Most of the the "criticism of X" pages in WP have been turned by fuckwit editing into "laundry lists of bad stuff" in whole or in signficant stretches. Look at them. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH, per Jytdog this content all fits elsewhere, and it is largely criticism of healthcare in the United States smooshed with some other stuff. I also agree with TenOfAllTrades comment on "criticism of food" and 198.84.253.202's comments on Criticism of science being actually broadly on criticism of science. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of the article could be improved, but it is a valid topic. A more accurate title would be helpful, or perhaps a redirect to Medical sociology. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment It is an example of the need for a summary overview article on the topic that the 23 articles in Category:Unnecessary health care were not linked to Category:Medical controversies until I did it just now. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Johnbod, the current title implies, at least at first glance, that medicine itself - in general - has significant criticism. Maybe the article could be recreated under a more appropriate title, such as mainstream healthcare controversies, although the risk of it becoming a POV fork would still be very real. The current title/article is not suitable, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I'm very ready to agree that the title, like the present text, could be improved. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and merge Split and redirect~~ The article title and subject is silly, POV and fringe, and the sources are not criticising medicine in general but rather failings, scandals, etc. Thus the article should be deleted. That said, some of the content appears to reliably sourced and to cover notable issues within medical care and could sensibly be merged to more focused articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete and merge. You can either delete, and (having lost the history, which is required for copyright reasons) not merge, or you can merge, and not delete. The closest you can realistically come to "delete and merge" is to split the useful content off to other articles (that's the "merge" part) and redirect the page someplace sensible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, yeah, thanks. I think there is an argument for a more suitable name such as renaming the article to e.g. mainstream healthcare controversies. User:Johnbod has made a valid point that there needs to be a summary article of our various medical controversies articles. The current name implies that mainstream medicine in general is validly criticised as a whole.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content in the article seems false to the article name as pointed out by others; most of it is Criticism of healthcare (in particular parts of the world). Some parts of what currently makes up the article could maybe fit in their relevant article, but not in one with this name. --Treetear (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism of health care would be an improvement on the current name 'criticism of medicine,' so long as it was monitored for POV pushing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the history of medicine is full of techniques that were once considered "cutting edge" and "scientific", that are now considered nonsense - phlebotomy, bleeding to drain bad humours, for instance. On the other hand, there are techniques now used that seemed like quack techniques, that are now universally accepted. Semmelweis, the 19th century obstetrician who first argued doctors should wash their hands prior to delivering babies was sent to an insane asylum. No offense but it is only recentism that makes fans of scientific medicine see it as above criticism.
Will kooks try to stuff Criticisms of medicine with kooky nonsense? Maybe. But that is true of articles on any notable topic. And the remedy for that is for non-kooks to put the article on their watchlist, and insist that new material complies with WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If we think new material seems kooky, but our check shows us it complies with VER, RS, NPOV and NOR, it wasn't kooky after all, it was only our unexamined biases that made us think it was kooky. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I support being tolerant of non-orthodox views on Wikipedia – since most of our modern views were considered unorthodox sometime in the past – here I have to agree with Jytdog and others that the very concept of this essay is not in line with what Wikipedia aims to be, and having an essay (!) that tries to list together, under a single weasel heading, all the varied challenges facing modern medicine, science, healthcare systems, politics, publication practices, financial systems, etc., is a non-starter. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather incoherent hodge-podge of miscellaneous complaints about nation- and field-specific problems with how medicine is researched and provided. Even the problematic Criticism of science is more coherent than this article, actually trying to focus on criticisms of the very idea of science, at least insofar as science is commonly defined. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Someguy1221's comments. Throw everything a crock pot and cook it and call it a stew? It stinks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2018 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

94.2 FM

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

These pages has little content; just one non-notable station for each entry, that's all, no sources. They're too small to have their own articles right now, and at the very least should just be redirected to Radio broadcasting. ToThAc (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability in here. Its scope seems promotional. Cheers Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 102.4 FM, no opinion on 94.2. The basic premise of this nomination (and the only potential cause for deletion) is that these are lists comprising entirely non-notable elements. But the notability of a topic is independent from the existence of an article on that topic. That is, Wikipedia isn't complete – and it's especially incomplete regarding African topics. So what needs to be determined here is whether the listed radio stations would be notable. I'll admit to punting on 94.2 SNRT Chaîne International. For a number of reasons, it's much harder to search for than the other, and if we have to delete a list here, I'd have substantially fewer objections to that one. The situation for 102.4 is more interesting. It is the regional broadcast frequency for Luxe Radio out of Agadir. Luxe Radio, although a redlink here, would be notable, and gets a little attention even in English-language sources. It was one of the second round of broadcast licenses granted by the Moroccan government, and is described here as the market leading station as of 2012. And while a primary document that probably doesn't contribute directly toward notability, this indicates that the US Ambassador to Morocco gave an interview on that station as part of US-Morocco relations after 9/11. A Luxe Radio journalist even got involved with his very own racist Twitter controversy, as is currently the trend. It broadcasts on several different frequencies in the various media markets in Morocco (98.0 El Jadida, 99.2 Casablanca, 100.4 Safi, 101.2 Marrakech, 102.0 Essaouria, 102.4 Agadir and Settat, 105.4 Rabat; I assume most of these are actually repeaters, but that's for an editor in the topic to sort out for the eventual Luxe Radio infobox); vaguely comparable stations, like Australia's 3TR FM appear on multiple frequency-based lists (99.5 FM and 99.9 FM respectively). I see no reason why a major Moroccan radio media enterprise wouldn't be afforded the same outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the articles in Category:Lists of radio stations by frequency, which is what this article and the other one alluded to above (102.4 FM) have in common, have useful encyclopedic information in the lede (sometimes even sourced like at 690 AM ... bonus!). But to the extent these lists of radio station by frequency articles are just lists of radio stations by frequency, that's not something that we can or should try to maintain. Vadder (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
can consider 91.0_FM also.Quek157 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any notability 61.16.234.196 (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in AfD discussions without being registered does not seem a good practice. Please log in! :) Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Locco

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

This person has certainly been around, as evidenced by the large number of citations in this article. Nevertheless, only one of those sources discusses this man in a nontrivial manner, and I have not found any further sources on the web. Fails the plural part of "sources" in WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Poorly written article, horrible sources and though, supposedly a multitude of references, I question 99.9% of the cites. In that this involves a WP:BLP I fall back to policy which states; “…Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step.” As such delete.. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a minor place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Locco is not just a Mayor he the founder of the Brighton Icebergers, the man who ran for council to prevent the Brighton Baths closure he is someone who stands up for what he believes in and wants his voice heard such as in this video in link shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVXE22-6aS0 --Gulfzero Charlie (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Gulfzero Charlie.[reply]

--Gulfzero Charlie (talk)Gulfzero Charlie~ —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the article is source-bombed, none of the references make any showing of notability, apart from possibly The Age feature article, which is about the swimming club as much as it is about him. Doesn't get across the line as a mayor, either, since he seems primarily notable for the swim club. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a rule about reference bombing, wherein a person is made to seem as notable as possible by augmenting the number of sources without regard to the quality of them — but that's exactly bass ackward, because the quality of the references, not their number, is what determines whether a person passes GNG or not. The sources here are not solid or notability-supporting ones on the whole — there are far too many primary sources and far too few reliable ones — and none of what Gulfzero Charlie pointed out about Locco above constitutes notability at all. Founding a local swimming group is not a notability claim in and of itself, fighting the closure of a local recreational facility is not a notability claim in and of itself, standing up for what you believe in is not a notability claim in and of itself, and being mayor of an Australian suburb is not a notability claim in and of itself, if the sourcing available to actually support an article on any of those grounds is this poor. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this is not article-level material. Whether to add the mention and the redirect proposed by Squeamish Ossifrage is an editorial matter. Sandstein 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet

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

The article mentions two systems of writing Hungarian in Cyrillic: one in the text, another one in the picture. It states that the first system is used in Vojvodina, but in fact it is not. The second system is mentioned in the Omniglot site, but it does not make it notable. Omniglot is a site which comprises actually used writing systems, but also fancy ones constructed by the site’s visitors. You may create a new way of writing English, send it to Simon Ager’s email, and it will be published in the Omniglot site, but it does not make your way of writing English notable. Burzuchius (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and the slightest of smerges) to... probably Hungarian language, although one of the subpages might be an option. Omniglot isn't reliable, and I can't find anything about the "Vojvodina" version of this... but this paper in International Journal of Russian Studies at least confirms the existence and purpose of Bateman's Hungarian Cyrillic. That probably earns it a one-sentence mention in an appropriate context, but not article-level treatment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if we take the Omniglot information at face value, nothing there indicates that the alphabet has ever been in actual use, and I can't even find anything about its author, Samuel P. Bateman, purportedly an "American-Soviet linguist". I don't think that this even deserves a mention in Hungarian language. By the way, I redirected Samuel P. Bateman from Sovietization (?) to Cyrillization of Georgian, where he's actually mentioned, although the latter article might be worthy of AfD too. Google search even for Самюел Бейтман comes suspiciously empty. No such user (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive finance

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

Not sure about this one - frankly I don't understand enough about economy to decide whether this is about an established and notable concept, or a new coinage. There only seem to be 2-3 authors who use the term "cognitive finance" per se (basically, Rapp - [2]), which makes me think that this is a big fat piece of WP:SYNTHESIS intended to generate notability where none exists yet. Financially savvy editors please have a look.

(The article needs major style cleanup in any case, but I'm ignoring that for now.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an offshoot of behavioural finance there might (someday) be enough for an article on this, but it wouldn't be this article, which includes great promises of "new science", railing at the limitations of economic theory (which most of us agree on) and nothing in the middle - the real work of science. It might be WP:OR or just BS. Who knows? So delete per WP:Not yet, or WP:Crystal, but don't salt. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The author (Ferikali) has added a comment on their talk page, which I am copying below:

Apparently, we cannot completely follow your argumentation on that subject. The concept and definition of Cognitive Finance was developed by Dr. Heinz-Werner Rapp, the founder of FERI Cognitive Finance Institute, which is a non-commercial think tank deploying the concept of cognitive finance. Furthermore, this concept aims to be a new capital market theory that is scientifically approached in a published book by Springer. However, the concept is not fully elaborated yet but we suppose that this concept will play an important role in the future, like behavioral finance 15 years ago. In sum, we hope to keep the article posted as we would like to raise awareness on that subject and find new and helpful thought that develop the concept even further.

I'd like to note that this pretty much confirms that there should not be an article on this topic at this point. Wikipedia does not cover things that are supposed to "play an important role in the future", that are "not fully elaborated yet", or that are added to "raise awareness" on the subject. All these intentions acknowledge that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable, and WP is not the forum to make it so. We'll cover it once it is (as demonstrated by substantial secondary coverage). Please have a look at WP:GNG, specifically at Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, and at WP:CRYSTAL.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:40, 1 June 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laya family

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

Non-notable family page. Was deprodded with the addition of a single citation which was a trivial mention. Nothing in the article shows this to be a family which would meet WP notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing coming even close to showing notability. Also a major problem in a lack of identifying when events mentioned, such as the move to Davao, happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete by admin Clpo13. Per G11 / G12 (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea

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

Like International Union of Reformed Churches, the notability of this organisation is not attested to by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, nearly all of the content and the citations have no relevance to the organisation itself with the exception of the one very long quote/copy-and-paste from the organisation's website. Caorongjin (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been introducing information on the organization on the official website to the article of this wiki for a long time. However, the homepage is now in service due to hacking. Therefore, it is illegal to request deletion as information on the current organization as unconfirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James kel (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G11 / G12. No sense of secondary sources that support the article that will fulfill GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. --Quek157 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that an article about the broader topic of tax scam labels, or possibly individual such labels, would be much more likely to be deemed notable than this article about one tax scam album. Sandstein 14:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rockets (1977 album)

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

No evidence of notability given or found apart from a single source, which stated that it is not generally considered part of Rockets discography and the band members did not discuss the album in interviews [3]. Fails both WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the band's official albums charted or have a Wikipedia article – an unofficial album with no reliable sourcing certainly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an interesting case. The album was not approved by the band and was released as a tax scam, and over the years it has been considered a "bootleg" for obsessive collectors. The article's creator also created an article for the scamming label, Guinness Records (record label), which is more viable. As a noteworthy (i.e. one or two media mentions) item in that label's scamming history, the album can be mentioned there but it does not have enough independent notability to qualify for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I created the article my plan was to cover specific albums published by tax scam labels which typified the types of practices used by tax scam labels. In the end I chose to focus only on albums where a comparatively well known performer was involved, which is why I also covered Hotgun which victimised R. Stevie Moore and then ended it where it did. Tax scam record labels are an obscure, but integral part of the US record industry. For example several of the albums published by Tiger Lily Records originated as albums previously published by companies associated with Artie Ripp and in writing these articles I thought it a good way to bring these practices to the notice of a wider audience.Graham1973 (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However much we may like to, individual editors cannot decide by themselves what is notable without reference to established criteria for notability, such as significant independent reliable coverage per WP:GNG. If the album is indeed notable as an example of a tax scam scheme, then there would be significant coverage, of which there isn't, therefore the album is not notable. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham1973: I like your plans for that sleazy side of the record industry, but I think you will have much better luck focusing on articles for the labels, which in turn can discuss particular album releases as historical events. Articles like the one being discussed here, based on a specific scam album, are unlikely to survive in Wikipedia because such albums largely disappeared without a trace. And on behalf of the musicians, that seems like good news to me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doomsdayer520 – an article about the practice of tax scam labels is probably more viable, as there is likely to be more independent discussion about it to use as references than for any of the individual albums released as a result. The albums can probably be mentioned as examples within the wider article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scammers (band)

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Article asserts no claims of notability and while the guideline suggests it be a "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works", all I can really see/find is a short section referenced from Impose (magazine) in a past revision. (The page was created by User:Closetgodrecords who was blocked minutes later for a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME.) Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 07:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bandcamp is not a reliable source; that really is the extent of "coverage" devoted to this band which says nothing for GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2018 (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. A Train^talk 09:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Ibizarre

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

Non-notable musician. Searches did not turn up the necessary in-depth coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Aguswiss (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep influential musician covered in sources such as the book Global Nomad and FutureMusic magazine. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "influential" might be pushing it a bit, but the artist is certainly a well known figure on the Ibiza club scene. It's the same problem that all Wikipedia articles about DJs and dance music producers have – it's likely there are articles about him in back issues of dance publications like Mixmag and DJ Mag, but without online copies available, it's very difficult to confirm or deny this. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or optional Redirect or Merge to DJ Awards: A non-notable person. A BLP is held to a higher standard of sourcing. There is one reference that goes to a Google book search result page and the "External links". Unsourced material is considered as original research. Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 25 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reet Sharma

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

Non-notable child artist with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON to merit a page. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This has been already discussed over Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reet_Sharma. There is another link referencing Mid Day link to the article. The reference presented is from Times Of India, India's biggest news channel.Tanishq (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tanishqsh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@Tanishqsh: FYI this passing mention by Mid Day nowhere mention anything about her life or career except using her picture and the TOI source is the only source that support her role in Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?...Ek Baar Phir which is insufficient to support WP:GNG as explained by Shrikanthv and Anupmehra in the previous AfD. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD discussion. Ross-c (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: can you please explain briefly which point from the previous AfD made you vote as Keep here? Let me tell you that none of those claims were verifiable so if you can provide some soruces that support her role in films or TV series listed in the artcile you are most welcome otherwise I ask you to reconsider your vote position. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: - sufficient roles in films and sufficient mentions in sources such as Times of India. I read the AfD discussion, agreed with the keep conclusion, and don't see that enough has changed to change that conclusion. Ross-c (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: Are you sure? The TOI source reads ...and the kids will be played by Lakshay Wahi and Reet Sharma. can you please point out where it says about her role in the films listed in the article or anything else? GSS (talk|c|em) 05:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I have voted and I have explained my reasoning. I'm not interested in debating this any further. Ross-c (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: Perfect so it means you are simply ignoring to have policy-based argument where you failed to prove the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and this sound like WP:JUSTAVOTE. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--What GSS sez and Anup said......~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actors who have appeared in only one TV show is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person therefore I can't see any significance. --Saqib (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is just not enough reliable sources to pass GNG or NACTOR and especially with the single source that states "and the kids will be played by Lakshay Wahi and Reet Sharma". This BLP (held to a higher standard of sourcing) fails BIO1E possibly because it is far too soon. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 12:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, & WP:NACTOR hands down. I could find just one source & it mentions her in passing. BTW, the creator of this article was paid to take her photos, so there seems an undisclosed WP:COI as well. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene writers

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

Notability has not been demonstrated. Not meeting minimum inclusion requirements of WP:BAND. Fails at WP:GNG too. Hitro talk 12:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: zero participation again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have some minor media notice, all of which is already cited in the article, but nothing (except maybe this: [4]) rises above basic introductions to their existence. WP:EXIST and WP:TOOSOON are relevant here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert 'Cowboy' Coward

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

This actor has three credits, among them a minor one in Deliverance and a starring role in something called Ghost Town. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Time to git along little dogie. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:NACTOR guildlines. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 02:27, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Union of Reformed Churches

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

The notability of this organisation is not attested to by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, nearly all of the content and the citations have no relevance to the organisation itself, with the exception of one citation which shows an incidental reference to this organisation. Caorongjin (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to International Conference of Reformed Churches and add a line? Is this a sub synod or an indepedent synod? If it's sub, redirect as not much to merge , if it's independent, delete as did not meet gng. I am looking through this also and decided to pass Quek157 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been introducing information on the organization on the official website to the article of this wiki for a long time. However, the homepage is now in service due to hacking. Therefore, it is illegal to request deletion as information on the current organization as unconfirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James kel (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why we would redirect to International Conference of Reformed Churches - the organisations seem unrelated. IURC is not a notable organisation, and I have doubts as to whether it is a real organisation at all. But there is no way to find out really - the website doesn't even tell me who its "members" are, so it is hard to check. But there are basically zero Ghits apart from that website. St Anselm (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good points raised, no way to verify either, is it a hoax organization? I don't think so "Ghits" are always not a good indication, but I will think more RS need to be coming out. --Quek157 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think figured out what is this organization already, click on the picture (logo), linked to [5] which states Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Korea and website [6]. The former page was G11/G12 today, this is a WP:ROTM kind of coverage. Would like to save this either way, but the sources are linked to the doctrines not the organizations.--Quek157 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If the content is true this is potentially a notable organisation, but it is a very bad article, just as the official website is a bad one. My immediate question was who are the 11 members. They might be big denominations such as Church of Scotland or small splinter denominations, but neither the article nor the website tell me. I suspect the article's section on membership is a copy-vio from the website, since both lack spaces in the same places. The references (except the website and a couple of irrelevant items) answer the question of what is Reformed/Presbyterian/Calvinist, and are not specifically about the organisation. The article needs to be tagged for additional verification, which should include a list of member denominations (with links to their articles); and ideally verification that they are members. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subi Jacob George

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the latest revision,The article has relevant notability which includes gov. and sources from US patent numbers and Authority controls and local news and media. Stalin Sunny^Talk2Me 02:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC) This user is creator of the page[reply]

Removed disruptive header. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: May or may not "squeeze by" (I dislike that term) WP:GNG but certainly WP:PROF as a co-author and contributor to peer-reviewed scientific journals as an expert (a doctor) in the field. Otr500 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two high cited papers on GS but seemingly little else. Not remotely as pass of WP:Prof. WP:Too soon.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC). [reply]
Strong keep clear pass of WP:Prof per Eppstein below. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Google scholar profile shows 17 of his papers having over 100 citations, and an h-index of 44, well above threshold for WP:PROF#C1. Xxanthippe, where are you seeing only two highly-cited papers? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed. Where did I go wrong? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2018 (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. Although there is consensus that the topic is theoretically notable, there is a compelling policy-based reason to nonetheless delete the current content: the unrebutted argument that all cited sources are unreliable, which makes the content fail WP:V. Almost everything is cited to SkyscraperPage, a user-edited website that clearly fails WP:SPS. Core policy, which local consensus cannot override, mandates that we must delete material that we cannot verify through reliable sources. Sandstein 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fuzhou

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

Zero buildings with articles, all sources are unreliable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notable entries, unreliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep, develop lists of tallest buildings in major cities, and even in pretty small cities in the U.S. and Europe. This is one of (about 32?) provincial capitals in China, and the population was 7,115,370 in 2010. Probably bigger than NYC by now. We also consider any buildings over about 100 meters to be individually notable, I think. This includes a 273 meter tall building. It and other entries are going to be individually notable. Sure it can be tagged for sources and development, but this is notable and important and there will exist sources, though maybe not conveniently in English in webpages found easily by a few Americans who happen to be looking at this AFD right now. --Doncram (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The city was bigger than every U.S. city besides NYC in 2010! Has taller buildings than any in List of tallest buildings in Boston. City has greater population than Massachusetts and 37 other U.S. states. Okay to delete this if will simultaneously delete all of the corresponding List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin etc.! --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After all, this city has more people than every city in America except NYC. If a list of tallest buildings in, say, Indianapolis is notable (it is) than a city in china over 7 times its size absolutely deserves an article. This is a way to help expand the reach of Wikipedia into more content that is also notable and fits within the goals of an encyclopedia. SuperChris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles are not inherited for the reasons that the topic city is larger than another topic city which has an article covering the same content. Ajf773 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the cited sources are simple listings of buildings, with their details, such as height. They're like phonebooks. Nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject by itself, or that there's some kind of encyclopaedic interest. The arguments in favor of Keeping are, so far, based on the fact that other, similarly non-interesting stuff exists in Wikipedia; they are irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The notable topic is "tallest buildings", and it is reasonable to split the world-wide list of them by geographical areas, esp. by cities. We don't need to grunge around and try to prove again and again that "tallest buildings in X" is a topic which has separately received reliable coverage. The world-wide list is obviously of interest, and it would be ridiculous to delete randomly one big chunk of it, just because a temporary local consensus of English-speaking editors, perhaps all being Americans, has a brain freeze. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, tall- or tallest-buildings lists possess inherent notability in Wikipedia. Is this what you're saying? And thank you for your kind comments. Most gracious. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bottom line, this isn't referenced to reliable sources, and a quick web search didn't offer up much for me, either. So that's it, right? Well... I'm nervous about arguing for deletion here, on the grounds of systemic bias. The project has a longstanding practice of accepting these tallest-building lists in places where building heights and history are easily sourced to web-accessible, English-language media. And I think we are right to do so, because Wikipedia is a gazetteer. "Sources must exist!" is explicitly an argument to avoid... but I think sometimes it is the right one to make. Large-city media operations discuss their city's skyline. It is news when major buildings are constructed, and completed. I'd accept those statements as virtual axioms. The principle behind WP:BEFORE is that we should check for likely sources before deletion. And here, the likely sources are from the Fuzhou Daily, Fuzhou Evening News, Southeast Express, and Strait News: the four major newspapers in the city. None of these news organizations has an English-language web presence. I can't even pretend to read Chinese, and Google Translate's skill with the language is deeply inadequate for this sort of task. Heck, I'm not even confident of my ability to identify what website goes with which outlet. I think this is the Strait News and this is the Fuzhou Daily; I can't identify with certainty websites for the other two (if they are even extant publications). Whether they have searchable online archives is far beyond my capacity to judge. If the goal here is to determine that these tallest-building lists need to be re-evaluated for project inclusion as a general principle, that needs an RFC, not an AFD; if the problem is this list, I'm simply unwilling to advocate for deletion until someone with access to the appropriate sources (and the required fluency to evaluate them) can pass judgment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brute-forcing my way through the Fuzhou Daily site with the help of Google Translate and some lucky guesses on search terms, I'm sort of sure that this is an article explicitly about the most recent round of skyscraper construction in the city. I think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for sources and development. A Chinese metropolis is not less notable than any other metropolis in the world. The fact that there are less sources in English does not make the list less notable. EnWiki has worldwide readership, so I warmly ask the help of Chinese speaking editors to find reliable sources and improve this article. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's correct the current article sourcing isn't great, but Fuzhou is in the top 100 in the world for most skyscrapers [7]. Since this is ultimately a language issue, I'm actually going to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: there must be sources in Chinese that would get this past WP:GNG on the basis it's similar to other cities which have properly sourced lists. SportingFlyer talk 18:36, 25 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Shafir

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

Non notable either as a professional wrestle or MMA fighter. PRehse (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Four Horsewomen have received lots coverage when they were in MMA and have received lots of coverage now. I believe its enough to meet GNG - Galatz ^Talk 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. The coverage stems more from being a teammate and sharing a residence with Rhonda Rousey than for her own achievements. She definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA and has just signed with a developmental wrestling promotion. If it's true that The Four Horsewomen "have received lots of coverage" then perhaps an article should be created on them. Of course, if most of that coverage is focused on Rousey, then WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Right now, I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage that makes her obviously WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMABIO. Being associate with Rousey as a teammate (4 Hoursewomen) does not inherit a stand alone article. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Based on my own search, and lack of response to my query above, I believe the required significant independent coverage is lacking. Papaursa (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Andelman

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

I'm not seeing any substantial seconday coverage apart from the single Jewish Journal article. Does not seem to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:ORG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References can be found. they do exist. He coproduces Phantom Gourmet with his brother Dan. If is brother is wiki worthy, then Dave should be. The only difference is that Dan is the host but Dave appears on the show as well. If anything, articles can be merged! MensanDeltiologist (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a co-owner of a two screen drive-in movie theatre is clearly not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (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. Clear consensus for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wellyn Totman

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

Fails GNG. The name "Wellyn Totman" does not appear in a search of Google News. A search of Google Books only finds credit lines (e.g. "Screenplay: Wellyn Totman") that provide no biographical information. A search of JSTOR returns no results. The article is currently sourced to one website: a local, Duluth, Minnesota publishing portal. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral An article based on trivialities because there's nothing more substantial out there. Why should Wikipedia's readers care that someone who once wrote some screenplays was once arrested for drink driving? Exemplo347 (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per fail GNG and marginal WP:BLP1E--Quek157 (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for his notable work. Much of it has been reviewed. Coverage such as here establishes notability beyond any doubt. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, Google News only has very recent articles. So searching a subject's name and newspapers.com is more useful since Google News did away with its archives. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FloridaArmy. It is useless to discuss Google News for a subject not recently deceased. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes (just) WP:ANYBIO: persistent (if occasional) coverage, in this case years after his death. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:FILMMAKER. Screenwriter with a 10 year career, and numerous notable credits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as above) Wpgbrown (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, still a marginal case of WP:BIO1E and another weakly sourced article, we need more RS to be into the article should it be a keep. --Quek157 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt it will ever be anything much and I'm not keen on Wikipedia's increasing tendency to become another version of IMDb but, nonetheless, it meets the guidelines. It is the guidelines where the fault lies. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa M. Axelrod

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

A run-of-the-mill model who at the age of 50 started a PhD studies in psychology. There are plenty of sources confirming various aspects of her bio, but AFAIC well below the WP:GNG level. Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the political work? She was a DNC delegate from California in 2016 and 2017, that is something most people from the USA would find noteworthy for inclusion. I think that you have a good argument for why certain aspects of the entry need to be edited, but the political work I completely disagree with you about.

(Also, no need to shame women for being 50. Everyone turns 50.)Superheidi (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- There are about 4000 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. It isn't inherently notable, and the lists of delegates aren't an in-depth source that is useful for meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any claims of meeting any WP:SNG, neither WP:ENT nor WP:NPOL are met. Most of the references don't even mention her, the exceptions being things like IMDb listings, so WP:GNG is not met either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails notability criteria. Being a political convention delegate is most definately not a sign of notability. Not even if someone was a delegate to conventions from 1832-1972 when the conventions actually had some infleuence, and the presidential nominee was not chosen until the convention. With modern conventions just being rubber-stamp rah-rah conventions, being one of the delegates there is even less a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the men on Wikipedia always this angry when they delete women's pages? Your opinions about modern political relevance is not relevant at all to the rest of the world. If you have a grievance it should be based in objective reality, not your anger towards the DNC. Superheidi (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one looks like a pretty clear delete to me on WP:GNG. Definiitely fails any political notability test. If someone wants to argue she passes WP:ENT I might support that argument. Someone should also look into AfDing Max M. Axelrod for similar reasons. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Sehar Haidari

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

This BLP was nom for deletion last year but somehow kept so here I re-nom it for deletion. Journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST which the subject clearly fails. Apparently the BLP is being written by the subject herself Sadiahaidari. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award winning photojournalist in Pakistan. Noted as the country's first female photo journalist. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And who say she's the country's first female photo journalist? This article which is written by the subject herself? Anyways, she's not the country's first female photo jour but maybe female video journalist as per this news story but this alone does not establish WP:N. None of the awards she received are significant or notable. --Saqib (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some additional citations. She is an award-winning journalist and was the first female journalist for two major news organizations in Pakistan (Associated Press of Pakistan and Geo News). Passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above she is not the first female journalist in Pakistan. Please do some fact checking before !voting here. Working for news organisations does not make one notable and being "first female journalist for two major news organizations in Pakistan" is not something special. None of the awards she received are notable. You need to provide some coverage here to establish the WP:N.--Saqib (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she was the first female journalist in Pakistan. That was someone else. I said "She is an award-winning journalist and was the first female journalist for two major news organizations in Pakistan (Associated Press of Pakistan and Geo News)." I didn't say that is why she qualifies; I said she qualifies because her article satisfies WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I believe that has been satified here.[8][9][10] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK and I believe she does not meet GNG because I don't think the coverage is significant as GNG requires. Two of the sources (WAN-IFRA and The Media Line) are of dubious quality so I would not even consider them to establish the WP:N. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journalist with non-notable work and awards lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Looking at the sources it sounds like she was in news for receiving Press Freedom Award in 2011 so WP:BLP1E applies. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:07, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

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

This is very clearly a WP:FORK of 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis. The chronological scope of this "proxy conflict", which supposedly makes it special enough to have a standalone article, goes back to the 2002-2008 period, during which Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Qatar. However, no RS from back then describe the tension as a "proxy" conflict (nothing I've found describes it as a "rivalry" either). And this is already mentioned with similar detail in the 'Background' section of the diplomatic crisis article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a CFORK; the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict exists but I don't see any evidence the Qatar-Saudi dispute is a "proxy conflict". Neutral as to a redirect to 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient enough coverage as a separate topic. I wish to add, Qatar's diplomatic crisis involves other countries as well, this topic is specifically about Qatar and Saudi Arabia.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does appear to be a fork. I don't see how synthesis is not a factor. There are 86 references and I did not run across anything to do with any "proxy" that would be what, a Proxy war? . Even the use of the word, apparently just taken at face value, is confusing and I don't see a "proxy conflict" either. Equally confusing is the above statement, "this topic is specifically about Qatar and Saudi Arabia". The article does not indicate this nor the sources provided that include a multitude of countries. Otr500 (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course to leave. What can we talk about here? The significance is obvious, the sources too. -Victoria III (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The conflict between the two states is highly significant to the Syrian civil war, and the article should be edited as to reflect as such, not deleted. Plumber (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Plumber (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we already have 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis for you to edit. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a proxy conflict between Qatar and the KSA which largely intensified since the Arab Spring began in 2011, especially after protests in Bahrain. Otr500 is right that the article should perhaps be renamed; perhaps the Second Arab Cold War? Since your comment, the article has been revised to better reflect its scope, though there is always room for improvement. There is information from other Arab Spring pages (Al Nusra, Libyan Civil War, Syrian Civil War), which would probably be better on this article (especially since many of those articles are too long and convoluted), but the response should be to further edit the article. To delete this page entirely would strike at the heart of NPOV. Plumber (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict you speak of (the one that "largely intensified since the Arab Spring began in 2011") is hardly even notable to warrant a standalone article. And we already have a 'Background' section in the Qatar crisis article to cover that, as I noted above. Saudi Arabia has very little to do with Libya, and it doesn't appear to have a quarrel with Ahrar al-Sham in Syria. Qatar has no issue with HTS (formerly al-Nusra) either. In fact, it is still being accused of collusion with HTS.[11] What might be a significant topic is the Qatar-UAE rivalry, but that's another subject. And, in case you're seriously thinking about it, can you tell me how many reliable sources (if any) refer to this supposed proxy conflict as a "Second Arab Cold War"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article perhaps should be retitled to include the de facto Saudi / UAE alliance, which does exist in Libya.^[1] Reliable sources regularly indicate the UAE plays the junior role to the Saudis within the GCC. Indeed, the lack of a COMMONNAME is why the article is titled so. I still see no reason why the article should be deleted — the rivalry of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in Syria in particular is a major reason why Assad was able to hold out during 2013, and the resulting repercussions have vastly affected the Middle East, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. This article is far more significant than article on the 2017-2018 Qatar crisis, and I was highly surprised it did not exist until recently. Plumber (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Athey

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He apparently passed in 2004 from my WP:BEFORE search, so any BLP issues will need to be resolved if kept, but I couldn't find any substantial coverage. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a mayor is not default sign of notability, not enough sources to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cumberland MD is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article isn't sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of more than just routine local coverage — one reference to the local newspaper, a thing which every mayor of everywhere could always show without fail, is not enough by itself to make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee N. Fiedler

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor without significant press coverage and WP:GNG. Tagged as needing additional BLP sources for 8 years now. SportingFlyer talk 05:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the city has 20,000 people. The mayor is a part-time position, that alone generally screams "holding this position is a sign of non-notability". Not that full-time mayors are default notable, but part-time mayors are very rarely such. Nothing indicates that Fiedler is a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Admittedly the town is fairly small, but Fiedler may barely meet GNG with articles like this Wall Street Journal profile on the family. It seems he may be more notable as a CEO than mayor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cumberland MD is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article isn't sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of more than just routine local coverage. There may potentially be enough notability as a CEO to get him past our inclusion standards for businesspeople, but one Wall Street Journal article about his family is not enough in and of itself to clinch that — and it would also have to be shown, not merely presumed, that the depth and volume of sourcing needed to make him notable for that actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasso tool

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

No claims of notability. Out of three references one is Wikibooks and rest two are just mentions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A universal part of nearly every image editing program. This is a definite WP:SOFIXIT case. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a widespread and important concept in its field. I've replaced the Wikibooks with a proper GIMP ref, but honestly, we could ref this to every graphics tool in existence. For example here it is in Paint Shop Pro. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A well-known tool utilized by the vast majority of people who do photographs. To be honest, to post the references and cites regarding this application, as shown above, is only redundant. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could benefit from some more references, but the concept is clearly notable. Brad v 20:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the concept is important enough to be covered on Wikipedia. That said, if there aren't several independent sources that can be found focusing in depth on the tool itself, I would think that a redirect to a subsection on a different topic might be appropriate. I'm torn, however, on what topic to recommend as a possible parent. 68.173.149.120 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would have no problems directing either to Photoshop or Corel (or any other photo software program). However, doing so in my opinion, would promote or give undue weight to that particular program. As such, believe it should be a standalone article.ShoesssS ^Talk 18:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: given that the tool is widespread, it would be inappropriate to force it into any particular corner. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyush Bhartiya

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

Notability concerns. Starting several non-notable businesses is not a claim of notability. None of the references suggest WP:GNG is met (and many don't even mention him), and I find nothing on Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2018 (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. A Train^talk 09:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Master (Meher Baba)

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

I fail to see much notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Trivial mentions in related books are located. Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, sourced and a notable article, and per noticing that the nominator is coordinating many recent deletion noms and tags within the Baba universe of articles on Wikipedia, thus attempting to "gut" a notable topic here. As with other pages under this deletion blitz, I am sad to say that I must even mention that I am not in a cult about Baba nor belong to any related organization. I'm an editor who is seeing a topic under "attack", with language and talk-page discussions used for this purpose. I would suggest that all of these noms and deletion attempts be removed because of the bias shown in the communications about these pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and congratulations on your finding.Now, please provide the sources, since you've gladly forgot the main criterion of defending the notability of an article.And, you may like to read WP:ILIKEIT.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition bloated by walls of text from self-sourced info. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source already on the page, a book published by Allen & Unwin, a major publishing house, is listed as a citation and reference. Does the nominator not look at and study references of each article he (or she) lists? Please close this nomination as unwarranted. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the part of the book?~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note, have you ever been to AfDs before?~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have been to AfD quite often, and have seen the attempts to deep-six important topics and articles on seemingly a daily basis. Have helped to save quite a few. My reading material is none of your business, thank you. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading material is absolutely my business because, you alone know how you could make a determination of the supported facts et al, without reading the book.I though concede that you might have......
Since you've visited AfDs before, you can do miles better than the newbie-sh pleas of requesting some greater wiki-mortal to close this nomination as unwarranted, even in cases whence other editors have agreed with me.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you the benefit of WP:GOODFAITH so as not to add further commentary to this reply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And the reason to delete this is what? This is an important well-referenced article that many in the religious and new religious field may find extremely helpful. Note this is part of a dozen article sweep of Meher Baba related articles listed for deletion and initiated by two editors on a breathless jihad. I quote one of them here: User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#Walled_garden...: "I'll be attempting unilateral culling(s) and AfD despatches on some of the easier ones but given the amount of established SPAs devoted to the topic, I guess, tearing the wall down is going to be a difficult." Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced?Sigh......~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Perfect Master is a dab page, this article offers a useful alternate meaning. For the lack of stronger sources, for this and for more articles of this topic blitzkrieg, I repeat that there is a well-known issue of systemic bias on this topic, caused by the very attitude of Meher Baba's followers of not causing publicity as well as by the current trend of the western world to consider spiritual topics as crap. I have agreed with deleting various figures of the Meher Baba saga, but this is a term with explanatory value, so I think its presence in Wikipedia has value for those who care to learn about such matters. Hoverfish Talk 10:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:ILIKEIT.....Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources always equates to no article unless it's in a field whence the presence of systemic bias has been clearly established.And, it may be prudential to note that systemic bias does not equals No media does cover our activities!! We are victims of systematic bias....~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spare me the first plural, please. Hoverfish Talk 10:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edward321 above. I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability per WP:GNG "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My relisting comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer apply equally here, for the most part.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-All the offline and online references of the article are !independent...Fails WP:GNG — F R ⁺ 10:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reference from a book published by the independent publisher Allen & Unwin is on the page and mentioned in this RM (you may have missed it within the length of the RM). Allen & Unwin, whose lineage was established in the 19th century (the good ol' days), is a known and well-respected publisher. And then I've added another independent source below this comment. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference added, University of Chicago Journals Signs and Society, Vol. 2 S 1, 2014, a reputable publisher, reputable Journal. Source added to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A research journal hardly adds anything to passage of notability.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you believe research journal articles should be excluded from notable references? WP:ASTONISH and WP:INEEDADRINK. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - More proof of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Hoverfish Talk 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "a research journal hardly adds anything". Come on. Nothing in this nomination has persuaded me that this article isn't notable. Keep Egaoblai (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears well referenced enough to meet GNG. --RAN (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (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. As Steve Smith writes, the "delete" side is clearly stronger argued. On the "keep" side, only Randy Kryn makes (valid) arguments based on sources, while everybody else makes non-policy arguments such as about how important prayers are, or speculates about other people's "knowledge about this subject". And since Randy Kryn's arguments haven't convinced anybody else, I can't give their opinion determining weight. Sandstein 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beloved God Prayer

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, other biographies and self-sources.Yeah, he wrote it but how it's encyclopedic stuff?!Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this prayer was used on an album by Pete Townsend, and is a prominent part of the Meher Baba Wikipedia collection. The language used in the nom is copy/paste from over a dozen (maybe two dozen) deletion noms by the editor who, as the language of the nom and on talk pages shows, is clearly biased against the topic. I have asked him to remove all of these nominations, as I've never seen such a blatant attempt on Wikipedia to put so many pages of a topic-collection up for removal at one time. This wide-scale same-day placement of deletion noms for the same topic seems to create a confusion and presents a time-consuming task for anyone who wants to counter this attempt. This is a sad use of the process, and I hope an admin would remove all of these nominations. As on other pages, due to the language and bias shown, I have to say that I am not a member any organization concerning Meher Baba, nor do I know anyone who is. I'm an editor who sees a willful attempt to "gut" a Wikipedia topic-collection by using the AFD rules in such a way as to create a huge amount of work for any editor in opposition to it, something I've never seen here before. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being used in an album by Pete Townsend grants standalone notability? Nothing is much mergeable anywhere and at best a redirect can be sought, either to Meher Baba or the album. As to the rest, sigh........~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of independent sources is a strong indicator of lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a cannon of prayers by a real religious movement. See by Meher Baba. Why would the prayers of the Meher Baba movement be deleted and not the hundreds of prayers on Wikipedia. Prayers are in prayer books. Should we go hunting through Category:Prayer or List of prayers for whose prayers are holy and which not? Sounds like bias to me. How is any published and used prayer notable, and another not? There's no criterion. But if you want to delete this prayer be sure to be thorough and delete ALL Baba's prayers, for being especially not notable. A witch hunt for anything to do with the Meher Baba movement if there ever was one. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not been able to find independent sourcing. There may be some content that could be merged into the Meher Baba article, but there isn't enough for a standalone article. I'm sure there are many articles about individual prayers from other religions that should be deleted from lack of notability, but that's irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I sort of hate to relist when this has already been relisted once without any additional discussion being generated, but I think it's the right move here. I almost closed this as delete, on the basis that, while the delete !votes are based on the WP:GNG, the keep !votes are not based on any identifiable Wikipedia policies, but I'm just not comfortable declaring a consensus to delete when the actual !votes are evenly split. So hopefully we'll either see more delete !votes, or some policy-based keep ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Concurring with those above...absolutely no independent reliable sources — F R ⁺ 10:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite simply I don't believe that anyone in this discussion has any knowledge about this subject. In such a case I believe that we must err on the side of caution and at the very least before deletion, let someone in at least the geographical vicinity give us their judgment. Egaoblai (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Egaoblai:--RFLMAO.I and FR are both Indians and could be rationally expected to have access to regionsl sources, if any, about the issue.You need to try something better.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite your seemingly targeted deletion attempts at a good collection of Wikipedia page, I am sorry that you have lost your ass. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm...You need to see the statistics and the relisting comments......~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Independent source added, Sourced in The Who and Philosophy 2016 by Lexington Books, an independent publisher and notable book, see page 155. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-trivial coverage.Mere mentions doesn't suffice.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable coverage. The text discusses how Pete Townshend based a song on the Face Dances album on this prayer. The Wikipedia page on the song, "Don't Let Go the Coat", lists several more independent sources for this topic (please bring them over if you'd like, but this one is enough to source the topic for the page). Apparently this is one of the main Meher Baba prayers. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not into prayers, but I am into Who, and this reference is new to me. I didn't know the connection of this prayer to Tommy. Which means I learn through Wikipedia something new. I'm sure this means nothing to Winged Blades of Godric, but others may not share his interest or disinterest in some topics, and to them this may be information. I care for Wikipedia and I don't like to see usefull information gone. The reference is good enough: Keep. Hoverfish Talk 21:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Misread source (subtitle is Tommy, but next page is missing) => invalid arument. Remove my vote. Hoverfish Talk 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The song wasn't in Tommy, but on the Face Dances album, but...I think in the same reference there is coverage that Tommy was based in part on Meher Baba's silence. Townshend seems like quite the fan, and seems to have been greatly influenced by Meher Baba's work and writings, and expressively honors him in many of his projects. Yes, learning on Wikipedia is enjoyable. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Townsend is a follower of Meher Baba. He has whole records dedicated to him. Even the Parvardigar prayer, which just got AfD'd BTW is the title of a song of his. Hoverfish Talk 23:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know Face Dances isn't as well known as Tommy, but removing your comment? You must really be a Tommy fan! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remove my vote because my argument was its connection to "Tommy" of The Who. Now Townsend is a follower of Meher Baba and I do not know to which extent his work lends itself as independent RS. If we agree here that it does, I will vote again but will consider the Face Dances album instead. Hoverfish Talk 01:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source would have lend to notability iff had it covered the subject in a non-trivial fashion.The single line about the subject, in the source is:--The song "Don't Let Go the Coat" on Face Dances is an homage to Baba's "Beloved God" prayer, which admonishes his followers to "hold fast" to the hem of his robe until the very end.....Nothing more.Nothing less.~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Hoverfish's last point, Townshend's work obviously can't be treated as an auto-indicator of notability of works that he has derived from.But if reliable sources have discussed the source of the work, independently and in a non-trivial manner, that will obviously add to the notability of the subject.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At best, there's a scope of redirect to Don't Let Go the Coat.~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The song's page has four major sources, if editors want to go take a look or pull them over to this article. Four reputable and independent books. Independent books discussing an important prayer of one of someone's very notable followers seem adequate as sources. The prayer was important enough to Townshend to base a song on it (as he did other Meher Baba related topics). I hope the closer notes that the nominator of this topic has nominated many Baba pages for deletion, good faith attempts although, as a result, this particular deletion may make the Baba template devoid of prayer, which is apparently an important part of adherents devotion. The reduction of subject matter on the template as a result of this mass-deletion project has resulted in less of an overall view given to the reader who is looking at one of out topic-templates to ascertain as complete a story as possible. The consensus seems to be leaning Keep now, or at a minimum no consensus, so maybe this one has a prayer of a chance (to not coin a phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Samaj Sewa Sansthan

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

Quite many hits in reliable sources but none covers the society in detail or in a non-trivial manner.Quotes by members of the organisation are all that can be located in the news-pieces.Fails rigor of WP:NCORP. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete-Quite a few reliable sources could be found mentioning the organisation and its members in passing but none could be found which cover the organisation in detail (at least in English).That being said I have a feeling that there may be some coverage out there in local newspapers in indic languages — F R ⁺ 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kartsev

AfDs for this article:

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

Although additional sources have been added since the last afd, none seem to have any value as references or suggest any real notability to meet WP:NACTOR Jac16888 ^Talk 14:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of sources on Googlr Books note him as a popular and influential comedian of Odessa. Part of a variety team duo and then had numerous significant roles in film. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep These reliable sources assert that he was a popular comdedian: [12][13]. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played Schwonder in Heart of a Dog (1988 film), the most notable adaptation of the book on screen and had a minor role in The Master and Margarita (miniseries) another fairly popular adaptation. Is both an Honored Artist of the RSFSR and a People's Artist of the Russian Federation. As for sources there plenty of them on the Russian article.--Catlemur (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Russian article shows that WP:GNG is passed and those references can be transferred to the English version, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 18:22, 25 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Richards

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

Appears to fail GNG. No in depth coverage and a promotional article. The references include a number of youtube vids Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. || Regards // 12LA 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. Damselfly7 (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. http://www.pulse.ng/gist/juliana-richards-nigerian-born-entrepreneur-covers-kontrol-magazine-id7134605.html http://thinkpynk.com/getting-to-know-entrepreneur-creator-of-slim-girl-shapewear-juliana-richards/ http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/03/09/from-college-kid-to-ceo-how-juliana-richards-turned-slim-girl-shapewear-into-a-global-brand/ https://www.bellanaija.com/2016/09/yummy-mummy-slim-girl-shapewear-brand-ceo-juliana-richards-releases-beautiful-baby-bump-photos/ http://www.xonecole.com/how-slimgirl-shapewear-founder-juliana-richards-turned-the-turmoil-of-starting-a-business-into-a-triumph/ http://www.transparentnigeria.com/news_entries/43472/Nigerian-Entrepreneur-Juliana-Richards-CEO-Slim-Girl-officially-announces-New-Lingerie-Products http://woman.ng/2016/09/the-cutest-part-of-juliana-richards-maternity-photos-isnt-even-the-baby-bump/ Ross-c (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a search doesn't come up with any reliable source coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the mentioned sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Coolabahapple. The sources cited by Coolabahapple are reliable secondary sources which covers the subject in great detail. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: That Coolabahapple added only a link to a topic list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Found just one reference, an interview in atlantablackstar.com. Article relies heavily upon her own Youtube promotional channel "Jules Uncut". Blue Riband► 13:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional citations to the article. I'd never heard of her before so I did a search on Google News and saw many hits. I learned Slim Girl is a global brand and currently has a strong online presences as well as physical locations in the US, Nigeria, London and Qatar. She has received international attention for the success of her shapewear, lingerie and swimwear lines. There has been significant interest in Richards as a person, and there are many examples of independent secondary shources publishing articles with significant discussion about her life. Passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep solid sourcing found during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Withdraw.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The new sourcing added to the article are not reliable sources. Atlanta Black Star describes itself as a narrative company (whatever that means), but looking at its website [14] it appears that people can submit articles to them and they will publish it. Another source pulse.ng is questionable at best. xoNecole.com [15] is another website that takes submissions. There is not enough information available about Women.NG to determine if that is reliable either. What I'm getting at is, how do we know that these "articles" being used as sources haven't been submitted by the subject herself or her pr person?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space She and her brands have a social media presence, but I take Rusf10's point about Black Star. More to the point is what I'm not seeing, like coverage in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta Daily World, Essence (magazine) or of her company in the business press. I do see that she has a book coming out (pub. date 26 June,) writers and their publicists often create Wikipedia articles as pre-publication publicity. Suggest that we move this to user space while we see whether the book draws sufficient attention to make the author notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewels Of Rhythm

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 10:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be honest, the article is useless. -Victoria III (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nanny (season 5)

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

No source provided nor found to suggest notability for the season, therefore fails WP:GNG. There are for example no reviews for the season - [16][17] Whether the main article The Nanny is notable or not is irrelevant as the notability of the season is not inherited from the main article. The season needs significant independent coverage which is unfortunately absent. The same goes for many of the other seasons. Hzh (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like seasons 2-4 and 6 also fail GNG. I am also nominating them:

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, a pre-internet tv series broadcast nationally on CBS and popular enough to have six seasons will almost certainly pass WP:GNG for each season with offline and /or paywalled sources if not available online. The parent article The Nanny TV series and The Nanny (season 1) are well referenced and pass WP:GNG so it is a strong sign that the other seasons will as well. It is also debateable as to whether the individual seasons need to demonstrate individual notabilty as they can be seen as splits from the parent articlw where notability is clearly demonstrated. It is also unhelpful to have added the other seasons as showing notability for season 5 would have been enough as evidence of the other seasons. Haven't searched yet but offline sources should exist. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New articles split from a main article need to be sufficiently notable themselves per WP:SPLIT, it is not a debatable point. Do improve the sourcing of the article if possible, and if the sources are good then the articles can stay, but try to avoid assuming that sources must exist, assumption that could not be substantiated with your previous deprod. Hzh (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid split of an inarguably notable topic, and even for the sake of argument it's not, it could be merged into a list of The Nanny episodes. That, however, would be beside the point. SportingFlyer talk 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SportingFlyer; we've got a lot of info broken out into their own seasons already and it's well organized. No point merging into a messy 'list of'. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ignoring all the basic requirements for WP:GNG on sourcing, verifiability, etc.? I haven't seen any argument presented for keeping that is found in accepted policies or guidelines. Hzh (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The seasons inherit their notability from the series just like any other elements (episodes, characters) because they are are WP:SIZESPLITs from the main topic. As long as they are kept consolidated to an appropriate level based on the amount of their content, they shouldn't be challenged on notability. Its almost unheard of for a season to truly not have sources available - some source must have been used for the titles, directors, airdates, etc. and needs to be fixed via editing process. Feel free to tag them as needing sources or check some other more well-developed seasons of other series to see what sources they use. -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion that you don't need citation for series and episode is simply wrong. Please read WP:EPISODE All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, and that while it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page ... such pages must still be notable. Wikipedia is littered with episode and seasons articles that are not supported by sources, which create the impression that such articles do not need sources as can be see in the discussion here and their notability are inherited, this is clearly wrong according to accepted guidelines on television. If you are want claim that it is falls under WP:SIZESPLIT, please read the lead of the guideline that says the article can be split but only if the new articles are themselves ... sourced (note also that Netoholic changed the requirement for notability without discussion). Hzh (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do need to have sources (citations). My point was that the notability shouldn't be debated independently. Could you imagine deletion discussions where seasons 3-5 of series were deleted as not notable, but seasons 1,2, and 6 were kept? Too weird. Put {{More citations needed}} on them, contact the page creator, or fix it by finding sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can very well imagine them. There is simply no inherited notability for articles. otherwise there would be no need for WP:EPISODE to say that the episode and series/season need to be notable themselves, and to suggest that any problem articles should be dealt with. If you have an issue with the guideline, then take it up in the talk page there. Hzh (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that during the airing of Season 5 of The Nanny that there wasn't significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it disturbing that Netoholic changed the article on WP:SPLIT to remove the requirement for notability [18] that directly contradicted the editor's position in the page cited. This deliberate changing without discussion to bolster an editor's case is just wrong. The fact is that the requirement for notability of individual episode and season is well-established, without such guideline the amount of trivia in Wikipedia would simply proliferate, as there is no way of determining whether any individual episode or seasons for any television show deserves its own article. Given the number the television shows and the absolutely gigantic number of episodes aired around the world, the idea that any season or episode of a show should have its own article without any demonstration of notability is just horrifying. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because I don't think it reflects common experience. I didn't need to change it to bolster any case. To do that, all I need to do is ask you (again) - Do you think that during the airing of Season 5 of The Nanny that there wasn't significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I think there was or wasn't is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is that I can't find them. You need to demonstrate its notability, rather than making assumptions. I have considered creating many articles, but finding sources to support them had been difficult for a variety of reason (e.g. sources not archived as they were from a pre-internet age, the country or language involved, etc.). Even though I know that something equivalent in the present day or found in the US or Europe would be considered notable, I didn't create these articles as I know I cannot adequately source them. Keeping an article simply because you believe them to be notable but cannot demonstrate to be so is wrong, as is removing an accepted criterion in a page you used to support your case. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references, this one was published in 1997 when the fifth season was aired Hollywood Reporter, this one also in 1997 The Hollywood Reporter, and again 1997 Hollywood Reporter, this an overview of all seasons printed in 2000 People Magazine, and a review of series 4 Entertainment Weekly, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

I'm afraid two of the links appear to be faulty and I cannot see them. The only ones from 1997 I can see are from the end of season 4 [19][20] (dated May 1997, season 5 started in October 1997). Overview of the series is relevant to the main article, not specific season. Hzh (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I think an overview that relates to every season is a relevant source for every season article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, have fixed the refs, the first one is sig cov and the EW one is a review of the 4th series which has been bundled here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per my Keep vote above, I agree with this sourcing. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are for season 5 though - the date of the Hollywood Reporter article clearly suggests that it is for the season 4 finale, and the Entertainment weekly one is actually for Season 3. These may support season 3 and 4, but not 5. Hzh (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Camilla

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

Unnecessary disambiguation. I don't see much of an indication that the Duchess of Cornwall is commonly referred to as "Queen Camilla", and the only place our article mentions that description is in the title of a Guardian article from 13 years ago. The disambiguation page should be deleted and Queen Camilla (book) moved back. Huon (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Where would Queen Camilla (book) go to - would it be merged with Sue Townsend? Vorbee (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the book back to the undisambiguated title (where it was from 2007 until a few hours ago), where the existing hatnote does all that is needed. All was well until recent page move. PamD 08:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PamD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral / Weakly support Keeping. (First off, just clarifying that we should absolutely move the book from the basename of "Queen Camilla" when Queen Elizabeth II dies.) However, for now, I'd personally argue that the situation should stay how it is now. I mean, more sources refer to Camilla possibly becoming "Queen Camilla" (a possible future title as queen consort) than people referencing the book at all. But, alas, the book is currently the only thing OFFICIALLY and CURRENTLY titled "Queen Camilla". However, although the book's page has a hatnote directing people to the person, I'm not sure if the BOOK is even the primary topic for this possible future term. ...But no matter if the book moves back to the basename, it DEFINITELY needs to be moved to "Queen Camilla (book)" when Elizabeth II dies (if she even dies before Cami at all, at this point...). Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert per PamD. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: Camilla might not become Queen, and if she does she might not use the title Queen Camilla. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't have disambiguation pages for two pages anyway, particularly when one of the links isn't an article (yet). Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 14:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Gregorić

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

Not convinced this meets WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. What notability there is relates to his atheism rather than his scholarship, and those sources that refer to this mention him only tangentially or in passing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - associate professors rarely get to keep their own articles. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment - may meet notability requirements for an author based on reviews of his books. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2018 (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 Userfy. There is general consensus that the article doesn't meet notability requirements. The strongest arguments were for userfication rather than outright deletion. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Day Defense

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NGAME (also hasn't been released yet). ... discospinster _talk 00:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be WP:TOOSOON and the game lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete/Userfy - Whilst an article being created for a game that hasn't come out yet doesn't mean it's WP:TOOSOON, a WP:BEFORE search brings up three usable articles about the game VRTheGamers,German VR-World which isn't from a particularly good source, and a short mention in Twinfinite. This is also an inexperienced wikipedian who created the article, however, so I tend to be a little more forgiving. It may well become notible once the game is released as well, as a few reviews are usually enough to pass WP:GNG. I'd have no prejudice for an article being recreated once the game is released and more press has been launched. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as above and recreate when it gets reviewed in reliable sources,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Day

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

No References and barely any information. Has some relevance but no contributions should be a draft. Lemonpasta (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2018 (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.

^ "UAE, Saudi Arabia aiding Libya eastern forces, blacklisting Qatar for alleged support for other Libyans". The Libya Observer. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

[1] "UAE, Saudi Arabia aiding Libya eastern forces, blacklisting Qatar for alleged support for other Libyans". The Libya Observer. Retrieved 13 June 2017.

[1]