Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 2 October 4 October >

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 per CSD G11. (Deleted by User:Jimfbleak under the rationale, "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability.") (Non-administrator thread closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hofer

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

No indication of WP:notability. Google searches show he existed and wrote some books but no reviews or anything to show notability. Only one source given is more than a directory listing. That is about what looks like a non notable documentary. Disputed prod. Article even says his books were mostly self published. noq (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He is mentioned in the context of the documentary Born Hutterite, in this article for those who have Highbeam access. The coverage is not substantial. I do not have access to this paywalled article but the subject of the article is the documentary so again, I suspect the coverage is not going to be substantial. This article about him getting jailed is completely irrelevant to notability and is the only significant coverage I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call the office

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

Non-notable rock club lacking ghits and gnews. reddogsix (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a lack of established notable coverage, and the page is poorly sourced. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Finasteride#Adverse effects. When closing deletion discussions, admins should weigh the strength of the arguments in addition to the number of users making them. Wikipedia has high standards for medical articles, and, when considering the strength of the arguments offered below, there seems to be a consensus that this article is not supported by appropriate medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome

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

Content fork of finasteride. Already discussed there with sufficient weight. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, how can someone check all references in two hours. This is a new article with all references are needed. But, I really wonder, how someone can read and check all of them in less than two hours. Even the term is valid. This is ridiculous. If you don't have the articles, get them and read them. --Brainbug666 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Brainbug666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This article is fully referenced to actual scientific studies and data. The information appears to be displayed accurately, and unbiased. Post-Finasteride Syndrome is now a medically recognized condition by many physicians within the medical community and this article is totally correct in laying out the facts regarding the condition. Those seeking to delete this article should be considered biased or perhaps working for the drug's manufacturer Merck themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.163.166 (talk • contribs) — 99.27.163.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • References in this article are being weighted much too heavily and there seems to be a lot of conjecture and discussion that has not been obtained from the sources. The first is a single case study on one patient. References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. References 5, 6 and 8 all contain significant biases ("...Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias..."). 25-29 are particularly poor. There are some acceptable references such as 14, 15, 16, 20 and 22, but all of these already exist and are discussed in the finasteride page. This article does present an apparent bias, and one example of such: suggesting an increased high-grade prostate cancer risk but not including a more up-to-date reference that indicates that it does not cause it (see finasteride). Since the only acceptable references are already included and discussed in the finasteride article, I can't see this one staying around without inclusion of some much better sources. The most I can ascertain is that case reports exist, but this has not been medically quantified or qualified aside from studies with significant self-disclosed flaws. This doesn't warrant a dedicated page or anything more than a section within the finasteride article. Please refrain from suggesting editors are biased or are working for pharmaceutical companies.DangerGrouse (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the user DangerGrouse says, "The first is a single case study on one patient. " What is not true. 698 Clinical analysis in young patient with persistent sexual dysfunctions after finasteride assumption to prevent male pattern hair loss. So where did you read its only one Patient? This only shows, you did not read it or even have it. But for your Info, "We enrolled in a retrospective study 78 patients affected by PFS" The user says"References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies." Count the animal studies in the finasteride article. the user DangerGrouse says,"References 5, 6 and 8 all contain significant biases." What about the significant biases in the finasteride article, where you can find many studies, done by pharmaceutical companies? What lead me to this statement of the user Dangergrouse, "Please refrain from suggesting editors are biased or are working for pharmaceutical companies." The user DangerGrouse says, "25-29 are particularly poor." Well, this are only a few references from newspapers, for the public interest and do not supp. any science background. Funny he mention that. The term Post-Finsateride Syndrome is used by many patient (just have a look on Propeciahelp.com), MD´s, scientists, media, people and lawyers. The PFSfoundation is also leaded by MD´s. It was also topic at the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine. This can not be discussed away. --Brainbug666 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content (especially medical safety and efficacy claims) is strictly governed by policies and guidelines. To understand the objections to this article you'll need to read and fully grasp Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and WP:POV FORK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS) warrants its own wikipedia page. There is much more evidence and reseaerch interest in PFS than Post SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD) and PSSD has its own wikipedia page. The study that launched the PSSD wikipedia page had just four subjects while the Dr. Irwig study had over 60. This was the major health alert on ABC News and NBC News, along with appearing on the front page of Yahoo! There are also the Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Traish peer-reviewed papers. There is massive research interest in Post Finasteride Syndrome for several reasons. With billions of dollars in lawsuits at stake, Post Finasteride Syndrome is quickly becoming a hot topic in health, finance, lifestyle. Post Finasteride Syndrome deserves its own Wikipedia page. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Gilmour120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia content, especially medical safety and efficacy claims, is strictly governed by policies and guidelines. To understand the objections to this article you'll need to read and fully grasp Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "debate" shouldn't exist, not the article. PFS is a medical condition recognized by various MD's and PhD's around the world. Not to mention several prestigious medical and scientific institutions.--99.27.163.166 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user/admin 'Jfdwolff' wants the article deleted because its a "Content fork of finasteride." But this argument is untrue as (despite the name) this syndrome can occur as a result of a number 5alpha-reductase enzyme inhibitors, not just Finasteride. Therefore this argument is NOT valid. As the article meets all other guidlines with respect to deletion it should be kept. Thanks! JacksonKnight (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate Postorgasmic illness syndrome for deletion. It looks to me like it breaches our content guidelines too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources cited in the article demonstrate that side effects of finasteride have been studied, as is the case with any modern medicine, but provide no evidence that this has been recognised as a syndrome by any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no bias, not having heard of finasteride before today, and have no connection to Merck. Let's keep conspiracy theories out of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user Phil Bridger says, this article provide no evidence that this has been recognised as a syndrome. What is not true. Please, if you dont have the sources, why do you take part of this discussion? The user says, he has not having heard of finasteride before today. Is the user able to have a look on the sources? Is he than able to say if they are valid or not? How can this be user Phil Bridger?
"The mentioned side effects are described as reversible. However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."
Taken from the first source. --Brainbug666 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thats not correct, you are thinking about something else. I am discussing the first reference in this wiki entry. This is a peer-reviewed paper published in an academic journal that uses the "Post Finasteride Syndrome" name. This is all the evidence this wiki entry needs! I only posted that link because it contains the abstract.JacksonKnight (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people please stop accusing me of not checking the sources when they clearly haven't done so themselves? That edition of European Urology Supplements has as its subtitle, "27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology – Abstracts: Paris, France: 24–28 February 2012". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and is written by University Profesors, it is also a secondary source for the name "Post Finasteride Syndrome". In fact this meets every 'reliable source' WP:MEDRS criteria, therefore this wiki entry should stay. To disagree you must clearly state why this article breaches Wikipedia's guidelines or you have no counter argument.JacksonKnight (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abstract itself is confusing and poorly written (ex: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled"). The study retrospectively enrolled 78 participants that presented persistent symptoms, but then goes on to say that these men were somehow given questionnaires before they started treatment. The only way this would be possible is if the researchers knew all men in the study would end up with these rare symptoms, which is quite unlikely. Additionally, the results of the hormonal tests were not discussed in the results, which leaves me to wonder why.DangerGrouse (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the syntax of the article has much to do with its reputability. When examining an article, I would think one would concentrate more so on the authors -- who, as has been mentioned above, are respected professors -- than on what some might perceive as a sub-par writing style.--Clampdown33 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Berger said, "The sources cited in the article demonstrate that side effects of finasteride have been studied, as is the case with any modern medicine,"
An extremely ignorant and presumptuous comment. Modern medicine doesn't scratch the surface of the known mechanisms of actions and side effects of a drug. Even the Accutane Wikipedia Entry mentions that much of accutane and how it affects a patient isn't known. Here is an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. It explains why side effects from drugs might persist. It's well known that drugs like finasteride cause long terms side effects, the reasons are just now being studied. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987709002916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignorant at all. The fact that side effects have been studied does not mean that there is a recognised syndrome. We have coverage of the side effects of this drug in its article, which is the appropriate place. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely ignorant Phil. You seem you think you know more than world renowned neuroendocrinologist Dr. Alan Jacobs, who discussed Post Finasteride Syndrome on Anderson Live. Dr. Jacobs has treated hundreds of patients with Post Finasteride Syndrome, and you claim you haven't even heard of finasteride before today. lol.
  • There is a known syndrome called Post Finasteride Syndrome. Dr. Jacobs let the world know Anderson Live. Dr. Irwig studied it his research. That's the point of this Wikipedia entry, to expand people's knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this syndrome does not appear to be appropriately recognized. The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in Finasteride) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.DangerGrouse (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papers published in peer-reviewed journals by leading academics and doctors is 'appropriate' - see the first reference. There are no biasis. Your personal beliefs and/or medical ideas are pointless in comparison. I also already explained above why it needs its own page. Thanks.JacksonKnight (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete the PSSD wiki page if we're considering deleting the PFS Wiki page then also. They don't have the nearly enough science as PFS and they don't have a non-profit organization or people protesting outside drug companies' buildings demanding SSRI's be taken off the market.68.96.97.46 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it World famous neuroendocrinologists Dr. Alan Jacobs mentioned the term POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME in front of millions of people on Anderson Live Anderson Cooper or anyone else didn't question the existence of the syndrome because POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME is known to exist. The only guy who questions the existence of POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME is an anonymous internet poster who doesn't know the difference between it's and its. Gilmour1201 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be used to establish the validity of a syndrome before there is a consensus among experts published in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Most thoughtful readers here probably agree it looks like there is some kind of syndrome here. But please understand the limitations of Wikipedia, and what we can and can't do here. If you read and understand WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS you'll probably realise what the issue is here better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single one of the posters posting for delete are in-fact biased. The conditon has been confirmed by Dr. Jacobs, Dr. Irwig and Dr. Traish as is properly and precisely referenced in the article. There are much more ambigious articles currently on wikipedia. This condition is by a huge distance far, far more medically verified than other such articles, therefore this heavy push to have the article deleted needs to be considered as potentially biased or even a direct action of and by Merck employees themselves.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — 24.227.159.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please nominate the articles you refer to for deletion. This article, presently, does not conform to our policies. Our policies are a little complicated and take a little time to master, but if you read WP:MEDRS, you'll be on your way to understanding the problem here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is deinitive and purposeful effort behind the scenes to have "this" particular article removed. The reason behind which is obviously to obscure the facts that have been confirmed by multiple doctors and the FDA themselves.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason behind the "delete" comments here is explained in each comment. I realise it's more exciting and much easier to understand if you simply attribute it to a Merck conspiracy. But the real explanation is very boring: the article, as it stands, violates our content policies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user DangerGrouse says, The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum. What is not true Have you read the first source? Please, quote where you can see that. The use DangerGrouse seems really have a problem with counting, as shown here too. He says, there are several animal studies. I only count 2 that even are not important for the article.
  • References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. Please do not suggest that I can not count when I have already specifically addressed these in a previous post. If you feel these are not important for the article then you agree that they should not remain.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was even one of the hot topic on the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine
I would love to know, why things like the Postorgasmic illness syndrome, Persistent genital arousal disorder or PSSD got their page and PFS, what gets a lot of media attention should be deleted. Can someone please explain me that? The term is used by tousands of people, I think this has now be proven more than often.
All the MD who are talking about this have no clue? Have a look who they are.
Nearly every arguments against this article are untrue or like, There are 20 1/2 animal studies and just adding this WP:MEDRS. What has nothing to do with the article, they can be removed and change nothing. Another is asking for a scoure, and doi or PMID...what easly can be found in the article references, it´s a ISSN, anyway. Than some posted a abstract and the other is asking if this is a poster...this is really all very ridiculous. Do people here read the arguments of other? Do the people, who say delete it read really the sources? This all makes competence of wikipedia (en) and some users very doubtful for me. This artical even has been discussed long ago in German wiki and kept. So it was proven in the German wikiWP:MEDRS that this article is valid. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia is a separate project with its own community determined inclusion policies and practices. That an article appears in German Wikipedia does nothing to show that the article or topic meets English Wikipedia standards. (and for all we know, the article in the German Wikipedia doesn't even meet their standards its just that no one but POV pushers are aware of its existence) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what you feel is fair or just, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No conspiracy, actually. It just fails our content guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The "arguments" being made now are simply too ridiculous to be capable of being refuted" Stop the meaningless, troll posts Phil. This is a serious discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.97.46 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps a "Criticisms" sections or "limitations" section would be warranted. But to delete the POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME article would limit people's knowledge of this serious disease. Gilmour1201 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There is an extensive such section" No there is not Phil.
I linked to the "adverse effects" section of the article on Finasteride, which constitutes over a quarter of the article. How does it not exist? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said 'the "adverse effects" section of the article on finasteride didn't exist' Philly Billy, so don't bog down the discussion with irrelevant comments. I said, in the POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME Wikipedia Entry, a section of the limitations of our knowledge about the Syndrome is warranted. For example, why do only a subset of men get affected? - as asked by Dr. Traish in his peer-reviewed article. What epigentics changes in the Androgen Receptor does finasteride bring about to induce the syndrome? 68.96.97.46 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After reading all the cited studies it is clear that there is a post finasteride syndrome and that finasteride can be devastating to a mans health.
It is hard to understand anyone's agenda for disagreeing with the syndrome or not acknowledging it after reading the cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbypig (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Chubbypig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - the SPA sock-puppetry going on here is absolutely spectacular. We now have 6 different IP editors / SPA new users all in favor of keeping an article created by (you guessed it) yet another WP:SPA. All with the same writing style, same inability to adhere to WP:MOS, same lack of civility and same near-hysterical support for the same (and only) article. Enough for me to go and start an SPI. Just ridiculous. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sufficiently numerous medical articles available and listed on this page to justify the existing of a Wiki on Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Debating whether a statement within the article should exist is a potentially valid but completely separate issue. Doors22 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize: The term Post-Finasterid Syndrome is used in this article, taken from the first source
"The mentioned side effects are described as reversible. However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."WP:MEDRS
There is no argument against this.
The term is also used by thousands of male patients and MD´s most of them are the leading in their field. One of them is the chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine and the others are based in a university.
The argument against this is, they are all biased. Can someone prove this, some please explain why they are biased or what is the reason they are biased? I don't see any, even the first source. Is that also biased? Why should they be biased? They don't get money for warning people and if, by whom? All I can see is that people, who are against this article are biased also and some can have more good reason to be biased. Or is this wrong?
The term is valid.
The term is also used by the media and used by medical professional there. There are countless newspaper and TV reporters, about this topic. Just google it.
Is there any argument against this or can some show that this is not true? no
There are other articles like, Postorgasmic illness syndrome, Persistent genital arousal disorder or PSSD who are on wikipedia and get less attention than PFS and have less valid sources. Or is this untrue?
Can some explain that?
The article about the PFS has been discussed in German wikipedia before and the term was proved and the article is valid.
Any arguments against this?
Arguments against this article are poor, everybody who wrote about this topic is biased, only two MD believe that, there are several animal studies inside. some sources are not good and the one talks about the sources that only belongs to public interest, sorry no one will ever write a medical book about a guy who did a hunger strike. So I can not find a medical source for this you will sadly only find this in a newspapers or TV. this is really ridiculous. --Brainbug666 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this article should stay. It contains factual data about a recently verified medical condition that appears to be generating a lot of interest in the medical and scientific communities. If anything this article may need to be expanded upon in the future. Definitely a keeper.--99.27.163.166 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)BPPH[reply]
  • Medical conditions that have been discredited, such as Morgellons, have lengthy Wikipedia pages. If that's the case, medically accepted diseases such as Post Finasteride Syndrmome, which can be induced by just about any 5-AR Inhibitor, (not just finasteride)certainly warrants its own Wikipedia page. Epigenetics "side effects" from prescription drugs is a hot topic in many scientific fields, and world class research institutions are investigating the problem. Mhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987709002916 Gilmour1201 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gilmour1201, sorry but this is also no argument. Please, have a look, what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is a encyclopedia that only shows secured knowledge. The term Post-finasteride Syndrome is knowen. It even doesnt matter if this term is used by a smal number of pat. But it matters if this therm is used by literature before what is the case here.

Than the question is, is the Post-Finastide Syndrome of public interest? Yes, because this topic has been very present in the media, what also can be proven in many cases as we can see above. I would love the remind each, who is writing here to read the WP:MEDRS what is wikipedia and what it is not. Sadly this whole discussion is, from the early beginning full with arguments that does not belong to wikipedia. The user, who started this says, this article or this term has been discussed before. So he dont have to read the sources, what is realy wrong. I dont know how or what articles has been used about this topic before. But the sources I used need to me checked and a big point is, if the user dont have the source he need to get it. A source you have to pay for is not against the wiki WP:MEDRS. If some used a book for his aricle he is not responsible to support other users with the book, that they can prove it. This is nothing like I dont what to give out this literature but it has something to to with copyright, I simply can not post here a full text, because I am not a pirate. So if someone wants to prove a source he sadly have to do what everybody else has to do and buy it.

If you dont have the source you can not judge. Some user here simply write the first source is about one patients, what is not true, as you can read above. Many statements done by some users here are wrong. Than finaly a user pops inside and claims, I´m all the users and IP´s that are posting here. Than the IP´s are fom other countrys, now its a army of "meat-puppets" as the user claims. Now everbody who says this article shout keep is a puppet in the eyes of one user. It is the same, like not every user who says, this article should be delet, is a employee of the vendor company. I would be very carefull with such statements cause this is not the place for any conspiracy theories. I´m realy shocked, what is going on here and I´m still waiting for a response to my arguments above. Some people seems to respont very quick with some statements, but if you claim something, please prove this. This whole thing is finaly far behind the good taste and please keep in mind, what wikipedia is and what it is not. Not a place for malicious misrepresentation. Thanks. --Brainbug666 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brainbug, I implore you to read and digest other user's comments before responding and abstain from going off on tangents so that this discussion can be kept relatively tidy. You don't appear to have understood the fact that Gilmour1201 actually agrees with you and wants to keep this article as it stands. The fact that you are arguing against him indicates that you may not fully be considering what other editors are trying to express. I don't say this to be insulting, but I wanted to highlight this so that this discussion may be productive. DangerGrouse (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many problems with this article. It may include copyright violations: the first sentence is identical to the first sentence of this activist web page. Google Scholar and PubMed searches find only one use of the term (the first citation in this article, a short, poorly-written report of a small retrospective study). The article "proves" the validity of the construct by synthesising findings from primary sources, in contravention of WP:OR. That is, the article as it stands fails our policies. All of this can be fixed of course, but once that's done there is nothing left but content already covered very well in our article, Finasteride. This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia except OR and it enlists the encyclopedia in support of one side of ongoing litigation. If you want to achieve recognition of a syndrome, the first place to do it is in reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly literature, professional guidelines, and graduate-level textbooks. Once that's done, we will welcome an article on this putative syndrome, based on those sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, the term is used in literature. It is in the first link. It has been repeated several times. Please read the article and the sources cited before deciding. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article. I'm a very experienced Wikipedia medical article editor. It is my opinion that this article does not meet Wikipedia's policies, and it contains nothing of value to an encyclopedia that is not, or could not be, well covered in Finasteride. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Constant repetition doesn't make it true. It has already been established above that that source is an abstract of a conference paper, not a peer-reviewed article. See [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you user Anthonyhcole for bringing up some real arguments. May I ask you If you have read and have that small retrospective study? As you say. Please read again what is WP:OR again, we discussed this a time ago in german and this argument even the synthesising findings came also up. this are good arguments. But, again, please read what is secondary literature. This is not OR.It is not synthesising finding, because this term is used in the public by many dif. MD´s, Pat. and so on. Please avoid to rate things in future like saying a "this activist web page" or "putative syndrome"
I dont see where this is a activist web page is that here also activists web page? Well, like I wrote, we discussed this in german before. The results were that this is no synthesising finding and the sources are not OR. Thats why the article was not deleted. can you explain that? OR do you have here other ratings? May be I dont see them, but the things I read here are the same in german. Here are less valid articles like I wrote before, why do you keep them and this here is such a big thing? The things you keep here never would have any chance to be keeped in german. I finaly have one quetsion, to you, who are "we"? I´m a also a member of wikipedia. --Brainbug666 (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks user Phil Bridger, first you say you never heard of finasteride before today and now you are very deep inside. What is now true? Again you say things that are not true, this is not only a an abstract of a conference paper. The only fact is that the term is used by medicals and even, when it is used also on a conference this shows even more that this term is in use by MD. figthing about a definition if its a conference paper or a peer-reviewed articleis to funny, you can do this with neraly every article. That makes me wonder, why no one did that at the Postorgasmic illness syndrome? And I´m also very experienced in publ. and what thewy are. Everybody knows, that a study, a paper, article or whatever is done before a conference and while on it. Where it´s later publ. doesnt matter, as long as its publ. But now we are only talking about one article. This article shows that the term is in use and it is not the only thing that shows it. Why dont you sendet so much time for other articles? Anyway article like the 5AR are nearly only OR. --Brainbug666 (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had not heard of finasteride until I saw this discussion, but I am capable of investigating sources via my university library. We do not base Wikipedia on editors' personal knowledge but on what has been published in independent reliable sources, which, for medicine, are described in WP:MEDRS. And I do spend time on other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is very ridiculous, you keep such a article like the Postorgasmic illness syndrome (just look the first sourcres anyway look all the sources) and here we are discussing about conference papers or peer-reviewed article. But what you are doing here, makes the english wikipedia very dubious for me. --Brainbug666 (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that article should be deleted then start a deletion discussion and it will be tested against the same policies and guidelines. This discussion is about Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Bridger there has been a deletion discussion on this article before and has not been tested against the same policies and guidelines. If you would have done a simple klick on it you can see it. Anyway, I still ask myself what are your are you doing in dis discussion anyway, first you say, you never heard of finasteride before and now you seems to know everthing about it. The only thing you do is repeting thing other user said. This sounds for me like a case of "meatpuppetry". Please respont on other arguments.--Brainbug666 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, other Wikipedia articles are irrelevant to this discussion. The previous discussion for Postorgasmic illness syndrome was several years ago, in which time our standards for medical articles have tightened, so if you were to nominate it for deletion now there would be a good chance of a different result. And please lay off the personal attacks. I am in this discussion as a Wikipedia editor working on improving this encyclopedia, not to promote any point of view, and I have had no dicussion with anyone outside this page about this topic. And if you were to read my contributions properly rather than treat this discussion as a battleground you would see that I have not only repeated what others have said. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, continual repetition doesn't make something true. The only source in an academic journal that mentions Post-Finasteride Syndrome (as opposed to the side effects of finasteride) is an abstract of a conference paper. Such abstracts are not peer-reviewed, and there is no evidence that the paper itself has been accepted for publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflist with the comment below) I have already provided a link above that shows that this is not part of the journal's peer-reviewed content, but a conference paper abstract. Here it is again. If you have access to the full text of that publication you can see that all that was published was the abstract, in a supplement to the main journal listing the 1,169 papers submitted to the 27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology with their abstracts. The journal European Urology is peer-reviewed journal, but European Urology Supplements, where this abstract was published, is not. It is really tiresome to have to deal with such filibustering comments that have already been refuted several times in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia is universally "just" in its procedures for allowing article content than this article would be proven valid simply by the mere existance of its counter-part on the German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-finasteride_syndrome (BPPH) --24.227.159.131 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, Phil Bridger, a continual repetition doesn´t make something true. And no, the only source is not only a academic journal(what is by the way not only a abstract) There are many valid sources that proves the existens. The is not only once source as you claim. Saying the other sources are baised can not be proven. The first source only shows that this term is used by science and MD´s. When it is used on a conference, this shows even more that this term is common, for MD´s who work in this field. The leading specialist like Dr. Irwin Goldstein who is the chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine. Used the term, even in public.

Prof. AM Traish Professor of Biochemistry at Boston University School of Medicine uses this term in public, he says: "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug. We don’t fully understand why, but it is as if something shuts off biologically, and stays that way." Prof. Dr. Arthur Burnett Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and president of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America have spoke about this topic, now tell what kind of authority do you need more? It was even a topic on the The World Meeting on Sexual Medicine. This term is used by the best doctors and most knowen in their field, for them it is a common term. This has been proven. Fot tousands of patients, members of the patients, MD´s, Media and even lawyers this is a common term. The attention even in the media, shows that this article deserves its place on wikipedia what is a encyclopedia. User Phil Bridger, you said you never heard of finasteride before, now you jump on a train and only pick up arguments and adding untrue statements. For me this sound more and more as a case of meatpuppetry. You even where the one, who aded the TEMPLATE for avoiding other´s people, who might have heard of this on other websites, to write here. The weird thing on that is, that you did that long before, all those IP´s started here. why is that so? do you have more information, than you show? What is now true? --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to Finasteride and lockitdown. it appears to be a widely enough spread fringe theory that it may be a search term but certainly currently insufficient actual medical evidence and coverage in reliable sources to merit a stand alone article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes user 24.227.159.131 What you say its true he is referring to this it is a peer reviewed medical/scientific research Journal. But without having the article he is only referring to the headline of the articles. Fact is it is published in a peer reviewed medical/scientific research Journal. Its so weird to call this article a abstract of a congress. Just klick on the other issues. Anyway the user Phil Bridger only repat what another user wrote (what was the first good and real argument against this entry and should realy be discussed). He does not have the article and says he nver have heard of finasteride before. But like I wrote, we discussed this also in german before and I realy think its importent to discuss such things (and not arguments like someone is baised or not) We came to the conclusion that the first source is in fact valid and this is togther with the other reasons. The fact why this article was keept on the german wiki site.

--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated I do have access to the source in question via a library subscription. Stop lying about me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I too have access to the abstract you are citing for this syndrome via my university library and I have read it. It is not a strong enough source to support the existence of a syndrome named post-finasteride syndrome, per WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire discussion is surrounding the value of the term "Post Finasteride Syndrome" itself. There should be no argument as to if this is, is not a content fork as it clearly is not since the syndrome has been found in fomer users of Avodart, and Accutane. Also the term "Post Finasteride Syndrome" has been used and verified by medical doctors, and scientific institutions in studies published in peer-reviewed Journals such as the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and the Journal of Sexual Medicine. (BPPH)--24.227.159.131 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Phil. The 'conference abstract' is written by top University Professors in their respective feilds. Theres a good chance they will soon publish something thats meets your criteria in the future (this is not a 'fringe theory'). Will the chance to have a wiki entry on this subject be lost forever if it is deleted now?JacksonKnight (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, deletion is not permadelete. If significant coverage in reliable sources becomes available in the future, then an appropriate article can be created even if today it is deleted because there are no such sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User JacksonKnight, I think you are mixing something up. We fist discused this article where the term Post-Finasteride is used and if it is a source that fits in the WP:MEDRS. Anyway, this source was publ. in an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to urology. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right Mr. PB, we should probably get rid of the article because the term Post Finasteride Syndrome wasn't used in the study itself, only after the studies publication was the term used by the doctor's who performed the study themselves. So I guess your saying the syndrome doesn't exist? Perhaps you should give Boston University Medical School a call, or George Washington University Medical School.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Phil Bridger says, identify which articles in those journals identify this as a syndrome.
Have a look here again: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."
Phil Bridger,please have a look for the definition of a syndrome. As you can see above there is an article 1 that even says, is named Post-Finasteride Syndrome. If you would have a look on the other sources you will see that they all describe the a comblex of symtoms, what is by defenition a syndrome. Anyway, Dr. AM Traish (Boston University) who wrote, with others this article. Says in public: "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug" by Dr. AM Traish
--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) The first of the sources that you linked is the conference paper abstract that I have already discussed ad nauseam above. And it doesn't matter what Dr. Traish might have said elsewhere - it is what he has published in peer-reviewed journals that counts. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Bridger, what you call the whole time a "the conference paper abstract" what is is totaly wrong is publ. in a peer-reviewed journal.--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained that perfectly clearly above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would have a look at WP:SYN and WP:V you would see that you are barking up the wrong tree and not presenting anything that changes how we should be assessing this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrainBug, in which peer-reviewed journal did Traish publish the assertion, "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug"? Did any other authors respond to that assertion in that or another journal? If you're quoting something he said in an interview or elsewhere, it has no weight here. None. None. Researchers frequently hyperbolise about the strength of their theories in a way they never could under peer review. That's why we rely on peer reviewed publications. See WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The essence of good Wikipedia-writing is mastery of sources. In medical article-writing that's mastery of WP:MEDRS. Until an author fully understands and applies this in their writing here, they will fail. You may write a very good article, but until it conforms to our sourcing guidelines, it's not a Wikipedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, there's no mention of this term in PubMed; I checked the NHS Clinical Knowledge Summaries database and there's nothing there either.[2] As other editors have mentioned, this term appears to be mainly promoted by an advocacy group and a handful of doctors; until it features in peer-reviewed journal articles I don't believe that it warrants an article. Pondle (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thinking out loud. Are there good secondary or tertiary sources documenting the public controversy around the reported symptoms? That is, I don't think we can name a syndrome without WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing to support that, but if the rising concern, court cases, industry response, medicine's response, etc. are well-documented in reliable sources, I would welcome an article on those. It may, if a good secondary source says it, say that this or that specific person or group has used the term, "post-finasteride syndrome", but mustn't use the term itself until WP:MEDRS-compliant sources do. And such an article should not be called Post-finasteride syndrome.
We could create a "redirect" from "post-finasteride syndrome" to whatever the new title is; then readers searching Wikipedia for "post-finasteride syndrome" would be automatically taken to the new title where they would find an explanation of the term and the contexts in which it is used. The new title could explain who the PFS Foundation is, if the foundation has had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a mention.
If/when medicine adopts the term (when it is defined by scholarly or professional societies, when it appears in endocrinology textbooks, etc.) we can then have an article named Post-finasteride syndrome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no issue with having an article about the social activism surrounding the claimed long-term effects of this drug, so long as the article doesn't present this as an accepted medical condition and significant coverage can be found in independent reliable sources such as reputable newspapers - not just activist web sites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::comment if you do a google search on this term, you will get about 2.100.000 hits. As showen, more than once this term is used in many many cases, by patients and the leading medicals in their field and like I wrote before it was a the topic on the world meeting of sexual health. We should keep an eye on what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is an free encyclopedia. That shows common knowlege an common used terms and this is a very very big point the wikipedia WP:MEDRS count for every entry here. Nearly 80% of the entrys in wikipdia does not fits those WP:MEDRS. As you can see for many persons, drugs, bands, movies an even Pharmacompanies who are doing self promotion here. There are NON of the wiki WP:MEDRS. So but why are those terms on wikipedia, because they are common used terms. So if someone reads in a newspaper (there are many about) or see something in TV or google that term with 2.100.000 hits. This shows more than good that this term is knowen in puplic, If you klick on random article this is only a example what you will get. There are sorces that totaly fits in the wiki WP:MEDRSare written by experts in the relevant field. Those fitting articels do not use the term but describe a complex of symptoms and the authors of those articles call it in puplic Post-finasteride syndrome. The only argument against this, is that another souce, where the term is used in a publication. The only valid and good argument againt this article is what the user -Anthonyhcole said. The user Phil Bridger took this argument and did a deeper look inside and said this: „all that was published was the abstract, in a supplement to the main journal listing the 1,169 papers submitted to the 27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology with their abstracts. The journal European Urology is peer-reviewed journal, but European Urology Supplements, where this abstract was published, is not.” This is the only real argument against this article. But on the other hand we have many other. Fact it the term is used in science. Fact is the term is well established by the leading experts, patients media, google, newspapers, TV and so on. This term was used on the world meeting of sexual heath. The attention by the media is enormous. Even the attention in this discussion is enormous. This whole discussen started less than 2 hours the entey was done. With no valid arguments for deletion. Other arguments were that the writes like a ,Prof. Dr. AM Traish (Boston University) are baised and other useless and untenable statements. The next thing that came up was, that everbody who is not against this entry is a case of sockpuppety and than also meatpuppety. Everbody who was not against this were put on the list. There were also totlay useless comments by new users who came on with just an IP. But these were and im very sure patients or may be other MD´s who know this topic. Calling all a case of meat puppety is realy a jocke and also shows the world that something strange is going on here. I never believed that employee of the company wrok on this discussion and I never believed in some conspiracy theorys, but what is going on here is realy breath taking. The arguments that the authors are baised were useless, but the more I read here the more I see what kind of things are going on here, the more I believe that many of the users, who are writing here are more than baised. This is also the picture many of my colleagues get now after they read this whole discussion. What is going on here is not good. The most things I and other read here against this article are useless statements and claims. This does not show a good picture of wikipedia and I´m realy shorcked, what is going on here. Fortunately this discussion will be archived and the “world” can see what was going on here. People will get their owen picture. For what I can say, I realy get a very bad picture of the englsih wikipedia and for me the english wiki isn´t a credible source, when a entry will be deletet by such a single arguments. It only shows that wikipedia is a source driven by ..........

This goes back, to what is wikipedia and what is it not. So wikipedia is an free encyclopedia and it is not a medical encyclopedia, it has a medical part. It´s ridiculous that you can get 2.100.000 hits on google, many media and tv reports of this topic and term but that can not find it in wikipedia. I realy know, that it doesnt matter what, Dr. Abdulmaged M. Traish, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry at Boston University School of Medicine say in the Men’s Health (November 2011) "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real" this only showes that this term is common by experts in the relevant field and spoken in pupic. This can not be discussed away and I would be happy to see how someone her give him a call and tell him that term does not exist. Even it was used by other writers as you can see in the first source. The guidelines are important to protect wikipedia and make it a credible source. But exactly this point here at the moment and the whole discussion doesn´t makes it to a credible source. The methods used here and the way a single entry is handelt are shocking. This doesnt help wikipedia. Even, by reading this whole discussion and what is going on here and interesst, time and work all user who wrote her this entry deserves his place on wiki. Another point is the deletion of the PFSfoundation. The arguments is that it is spam and self promotion. Were are talking about a non-profit-organisation. Simply the existens of this foundation, leaded by MD´s shows even ore that the PFS exists. Self promotion or whatever, wikipedia is a source of information for humans. As we can see there are more than 2.500 patients worldwide. What abut ethics? Whats going on here s realy a shame. --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brainbug666 I think Phil Bridger and Anthonyhcole have made some useful and constructive comments about this wiki entry. It doesnt quite meet the WP:MEDRS just at the moment. Hopefully in the future it will, and that will prevent the creep of original research and allow better contributions from others. Your just burning your bridges with comments like this.JacksonKnight 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I did not mean to imply that Dr Traish is biased. My point was that, because there is little real review of or restraint on the claims a person may publish outside reviewed journals, scholarly textbooks or statements from scholarly or professional societies, we cannot accept assertions made outside those kinds of sources for the definition of a syndrome. This is just how Wikipedia works. We have to decide what claims we can and can't print, and for medicine we are guided by claims made in these types of sources.
If you or someone else does as I suggested above, you will have an article that in all likelihood will rise to the top of the Google results for "post-finasteride syndrome". If you or anyone else wants to take that on, contact me on my talk page and I'll guide you in the arcane ways of Wikipedia. I would welcome input from Dr Traish or anyone involved in academic or professional research on the topic, too. If you don't wish to take that on, feel free to pass on my offer of assistance to anyone you think may be interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to Finasteride#Adverse effects. The sexual side effects and aftereffects are well documented and are already described in the Finasteride article; the paragraph on sexual side effects could be expanded somewhat. However, the term "Post-finasteride syndrome" is not widely used, and there is nothing to suggest that this one side effect is so notable as to deserve its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthinyhcole, this is what i said before. The only real and valid argument against this article was done by you, all other comments are more or less some ....less statements, with no proof, I think you know what I mean just look above. I love to discuss about real arguments but a statement like "the term is not widely used" is just a statement and nothing more. I said it is used by patients (there are about 2.500 if not more) Professor's and in science and media and was a big topic in the media. Those reports can be found. Now such a comment is useles. The user MelanieN even only talks about the sexual side effects. Even that shows, that she does not understand, what a syndrome is or may be even have not read the Post finasteride article. And this is exactly what I mean and is totaly useless in this discussion.

Well, as said by users here, the fact that this term is in use is proven. I changed the the first lines of the article that it now fits much better in the WP:MEDRSand just add this in the article

Those things seems to be possible and are here done in many many other article too. like it was done her this article in 2008 (I realy wonder why are all so mad abot this? It´s even better proven an gets much more attention in the media like many other things i the here. Why the shouters here dont have a look also on such things?

here are some other examples, Multi-infarct dementia Organic brain syndrome Caregiver syndrome Exploding head syndrome FACES syndrome2009 Crigler–Najjar syndromeAlien hand syndrome First arch syndromeand so on just have a look here, simply there are to many some articles are many years online. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbug, if the term really is "a big topic in the media", you sure can't prove it by Google News Archive - which finds only three hits, none of them from a major or reliable source. And if professors and scientists use it, you sure can't prove it by Google Scholar, which finds only one hit. Your assertion that the term is "widely used" is not supported by the available evidence. As for your repeated argument that there are other articles here about non-notable syndromes, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is an example of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Those other articles are not here for discussion. If they do get nominated for deletion, we can discuss them, on a case by case basis. Meanwhile we are discussing this subject, which does not have the significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources required for a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN google news is not the only thing in the world. sorry is yahoo, than look here also ok for you? here are just a few and this are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 many more you can find propeciahelp.com or just use google. Once again just a statement. but if you have any doubt or still belive you know it better, just pick one of these, Dr. Michael Irwig (George Washington University),Prof. Dr. AM Traish (Boston University), Prof. Dr. Arthur Burnett (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and president of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America), Dr. Irwin Goldstein (chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine), Dr. Eugene Shippen (author of the book "The Testosterone Syndrome"), Prof. Dr. M. Zitzmann (University Münster,Germany), Dr. A. Jacobs (neuroendocrinologist, New York), Dr. John Crisler, (Director, All Things Male - Center for Men's Health) give them a call and tell them what you thing. That it is not a used term and they dont know what they talking about, but please can you make a record of it? I would love to her what they said. I would love to quote you "Meanwhile we are discussing this subject" What you are doing is not discussing, you are just making some subjectiv statements.--Brainbug666 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me summarize. On the one hand, we have a term, used by MD´s Prof. who are the leading experts in their field, tousands of patiens (the propeciahelp forum has about 2500 members) , media, lawyers and other people. We have a lot of other articles, that totaly fits in the wikipedia guidelines and are describeing a lot of the same symptoms, even not only the sexual symptomes. What is by defenition a Syndrom. The syndrom is named in a publication, This publication is publ. in a suppl. and was topic on a conference, where the term also was used. That also proves more that this term is in use.

This term was also used on the world meeting of sexual health. On the other hand we have delet discussion, that started less than two hours, after the entry was online, we have the arument that, the other valid articles are baised and taht alle the IP´s here are meatpuppets also like the Users who are for keeping this entry. The only good argument we have against this entry is, that is hte first source, where the term is used and publ. in an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to urology. But the suppl. is not. Ok Ok, for me this sounds very strange, cause here are tousands of articles that does not match the guidelines, whatever, we are discussing this entry. I changed the entry to the so-called "post-finasteride syndrome" so it fits in the MERDS. I think we should keep nin mind what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is first of all a free encyclopedia, that should give humans informations, a free encyclopedia is not made for encyclopedia, it is made for humans seeking for information. --Brainbug666 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many editors have expressed their reasoning for why this article should not stay. The term "Post-finasteride syndrome" does not exist in any appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly sources and it simply doesn't matter how many people use this term (media, forum members, lawyers, etc.). Secondly, most of the sources supplied are single studies, small scale and generally weak. These would be fine to use as supplementary sources for other larger studies that might come out in the future, but they don't hold enough weight to be used on their own. It's already been suggested that you defer from using the existence or absence of other articles as an argument to keep this one. It holds no bearing on the outcome of this article whatsoever. Your change ("the so-called post-finasteride syndrome") isn't a way around MEDRS. Based on the sources supplied, the term can not be used at all. It has not been defined as a distinct condition or syndrome, so it can only be described as a phenomenon. Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed, and the content trimmed down drastically. At this point it would be a very short article about a finasteride-related phenomenon, and most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. To avoid all of that work, I would argue that the finasteride article have a subsection (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein) added, which may be able to use a few of these sources. If and when appropriate materials are available that define this as a syndrome and use the name (whatever it may be) then a separate article would be appropriate. DangerGrouse (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a look here WP:NOR again. Saying that many editors have expressed thier reasoning for why this article should not stay, doesnt matter. First, this is not a majority voting. Secondly, only the arguments count here. It doesnt matter, how many editos or users here say, the articles are baised or they don't hold enough weight. This are just subjectiv opinions. The user Dangergrouse, says, simply doesn't matter how many people use this term (media, forum members, lawyers, etc.) But the user misses simply one very important point, that this term is used by MD´s. Now, lets go back what wikipedia is and what it is not. For term that is knowen WP:IRS. There are many sources, that uses this term and this shows and proves that this term is in use by MD´s. And yes it does matter a lot, if it is changed to the so-called. Because, we are than talking just about a term and the existens is proven. Once again, please read, what wikipedia is and what it is not. The user says, Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed. What is untrue, it doesnt matter, how a user weight a source, it doesnt matter how many subjects where is a studie, all that counts here are that this is are Secondary sources/or peer-review. What nearly all sources are. Even this source, was publ. in a valid way. It realy doent matter If editors here say, everbody is baised or on this source was only one subject. This source counts. The user says, Secondly, most of the sources supplied are single studies, small scale and generally weak. It doesnt matter, how the user rates that. See also above. The user says also this, Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed, and the content trimmed down drastically. At this point it would be a very short article about a finasteride-related phenomenon, and most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. The whole argument is based on his owen statement. What also doesnt matter, as seen above. The user also says, most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. Well, this is very funny, because no one here cares to work on the Finasteride entry, there are many valid sources that are not inside the Finasteride entry, Finasteride is also a inhibitor of the 5AR3, I tryed to metion that a few times, but no one cares about that, I realy wonder, why it´s like that? Do the most people here only care about to remove a entry like the Post-finasteride syndrome? While they dont take care about the Finasteride article? Why, are all so mad about this entry, do not change the entry about Finasteride and all the other "syndromes" that you can find here on the english wiki. Why this entry was added to delete und 2 hours it was online? Many arguments came up, that all authors of the sources are baised and everbody, even users here were added the same way like the Ip´s that showed up to first a Sockpuppetry case than also to a meatpuppetry case. All these facts makes the english Wiki very doubtful. This is a picture I didnt had before, but the more I see, what is going on here the more I get this subjectiv picture of wikipedia and I belive many other get this too. This should not happen to wikipedia. The user wrote, To avoid all of that work, I would argue that the finasteride article have a subsection (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein) added, which may be able to use a few of these sources. This I like the most, why? Because the FDA and the Propecia leaflet says that. But they dont say it like, (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein). What is going on here?--Brainbug666 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This HERE perfectly shows, what I mean.--Brainbug666 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont think that you have read WP:OR for full comprehension. You should start with "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. ... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." And the content from subsection WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You also need to always also keep in mind WP:NPOV particularly the section WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. ... In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just need to check what OR is and what is a reliable source. I just pick up this source, Now it is published in a journal here, Now you can look and see that this Article has References and is cited. This changes a lot. Just have a look for other sources here on wikipedia. The article has a very neutral point of view, it is more than one time written, that this is a very rare "syndrome" But if it´s rare or not this also doesnt matter, there are about 2500 patients with a growing number. 2500 are on the one hand not much, but on the other when you take 2500 pat. and the MD´s also the media this term, and I am talking about the term, this has been showen more than often. The Term is knowen by the public also as you simply can look on google. Sadly here are things on the blacklist like the the examiner, I dont know why. but when you look here you can see that this is a term in use. Just google this, post finasteride syndrome examiner. Like i wrote above, the more I look around on the englsih wikipeda, the more I see that here things are going on, there are since years weird entrys, no one cares about, no one cares about the Finasteride entry, only avoid Informations. Keep in mind what Wikipedia is. Than you can see even in useless entry about a guy like Raymond Gilmartin or many other people and terms here this is realy ridiculous. I never thought that before and like I wrote above the more and more I look around here the more I see what its going on here. I´m am not against any Pharmacompany, cause the world needs it. But what makes me realy realy wonder the user TheRedPenOfDoom removed the short part about a the non-profit organisation the PFSfoundation, The argument was it is spam and selfpromotion. But when I have a look on the Merck entry, there is a Link even to their website the whole entry is a self Promotion, nearly all sources are based by owen informations. What is going on here? What happend to wikipedia? Alls whar I see and this is subjectiv, makes wikipedia not to a reliable source anymore.--Brainbug666 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire to care for people with problems is admirable. Your desire to use Wikipedia to accomplish that end is not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and re the foundation Your desire to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes IS ABSOLUTELY not allowed. The foundation is not a reliable source for promotional information about itself and there is no third party coverage to indicate the foundation is in any way a representative view of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break one

edit
  • Redirect. No ambiguity that the term is being used in the popular press and should redirect to something. Every page on drugs has a side-effect section, and that on Finasteride says that side-effects abate on discontinuation of use. If that is disputed, a note in the finasteride article should be there, even if deemed unlikely or a minority view, simply to inform readers of what the medical consensus is, in case they are redirected. Agree that separation of a drug article from a (alleged or otherwise) side-effect article is a WP:FORK. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this is my job this has something to do with ethics and not wiht making money. I´m working since a long time with sick people and I have seen a lot, but what happend to people who took this drug are the worst. No possible treatment, many looses job, wife, girlriends everthing that makes you feel alife, just read the symptoms. Those people has been healthy before and most of them are very young. They use this term is the biggest part of their lifes since many years like the doctors who try to treat them. Telling them that this term does not deserv to have a entry on wikipedia but a artikle like Raymond Gilmartin deserves it, is a slap in the face of people who are sick, a hit in the face, for the parents, whos beloved sons commited suicide by this, For them the term is there, everday! Also, the term is there for MD´s who try to help the people. Sometimes, it lookes like the history seems to repet. The patients has been warned in Europe only about the sexual sides, but not the people in the USA, Why is that so? So when the company had to change the label in Europe, why didnt they canged it in the USA too? Doesn´t the company want all it´s patients bewell? Now the same is going on here, or is anything wrong, what I wrote before? Doesn´t such articles like Raymond Gilmartin exists? We are talking now about a term and the term deserves more than many other entrys here his owen entry. Thanks --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get your own blogsite and stop hijacking Wikipedia. Comments not related to why policies support or do not support the retention of this article need to be taken elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User redpenofdoom, just look on the Merck entry, its the same, and the foundation is not selfpromotion (they dont earn money in their owen pocket). There are newspapers read here about the foundation (more than this, you can find more on the examiner.com) about the PFSfoundation, I never said that this foundation deserves its owen entry. But for me it seems to belong to this topic. So now please explain me, why a entry for MERCK it is allowed and not for this one? Why is that so?

User redpenofdoom, please explain me that--Brainbug666 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • User redpenofdoom, I did not start this discussion. Am I not allowed to answer anymore, just because you say that? Please, explain me, why such things are totaly possible on other entrys and you delet this one? Saying this, Comments not related to why policies support or do not support the retention of this article need to be taken elsewhere. Doesnt answer my question. Why do you avoid to answer? Is asking something you something, why you did it, also not allowed here? I made a entry and now we have a discussion about this topic, that is hijacking Wikipedia? I did not start the discussion. What you are doing, says all to me. Please answer my questions, or does other MERDS count for this entry than for Merck? --Brainbug666 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your questions have already been answered again and again above, so are becoming tendentious. Please read the answers, especially those that explain that this discussion is about this article, not others. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no answer of my question and no, I did not ask a general question, I asked a question, that belongs to this topic. I asked you, why did you delet the part about the Foundation and why you are not deleting it in other entrys? Even, now, when you know it. Just claims, that it is spam and selfpromotion is a weird reason. This is just vandalism. There was also a vaild source about the Foundation as you can see here again. And you are the sheriff of wikipedia? Like I wrote many times before, I did not started this discussion and now you tell me I´m not allowed to answer? You are allowed to make the last statement and I have to shut up? No one forces you to read here, no one made you to the sheriff of wikipedia and no one forces you to answer. IF Wiki is so important for you please, than also work on the other entrys. You know which one now? Or is only this discussion and entry important for you?--Brainbug666 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Redpenofdoom, you deletet a part in this article and I´m asking you, why you did that and this many times and no, you do not give response to that, can you please explain why you did that, there was a big article about the foundation and the so-called "post-finasterid syndrom" links are above. If you are not able to give an answer or simply dont want, please undo this change or it is just vandalism. This is still a discussion an not a forum, please keep this in mind.--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't possibly grasp how there is an ongoing discussion about the existence of Post-Finasteride Syndrome. It is a term commonly used by the media, doctors and people who have been suffering for years, sometimes even over a decade. I'ver personally been suffering for 2 years and this term defines my every waking second ever, and you want to tell me this does not exist?--BarneytheBanker (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a discussion about the existence of "Post-Finasteride Syndrome". For intents and purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if the condition actually exists or not, all that matters for this article is if the term "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" is recognized by acceptable scholarly sources as per wikipedia guidelines. At this juncture, it appears that sources do not meet requirements for it to be a named condition (or syndrome). Barring the outcome of this discussion, the article will either stay or be deleted until stronger sources become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerGrouse (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Burzum. Procedural redirect, as the merge has been carried out. In the future, any user can redirect post-merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum / Aske

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

I have merged as much of this article into Burzum's article as seems appropriate. can this now be deleted? Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Camp Dublin. Complete duplicate; evidently the creator did not realise you could move a page and recreated the page under the correct capitalisation. The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp dublin

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

Page is a different version of the page at Camp Dublin. Suggest merge and delete Celtechm (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per CSD G11. (Deleted by User:Jimfbleak under the rationale, "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability.") (Non-administrator thread closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employabilitree

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

Non-notable neologism and promotion Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with a possible rename to List of hairdressers. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity hairdressers

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a trivia repository and "hairdressers who have celebrity clients" is a pretty textbook definition of trivia. PROD was removed without comment. Buck Winston (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red links are especially useful in this case because they help us to create articles about neglected topics. For example, I have now started the article Champagne (coiffeur) who was so notable that a play was written about him and it is due to this that we have the word coiffeur. Warden (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I can. Read this: "In an effort to foster a spirit of WikiLove, this page provides some referrals to alternative outlets which do allow content that Wikipedia does not." There is no such thing as a "celebrity hairdresser," since few, if any, hairdressers limit their clientele to "celebrities," itself a term that cannot be strictly defined. Since the term "celebrity hairdresser" is meaningless, we obviously can't have an article about it. True, there are similar articles on WP, but that's WP:OTHERCRAP. Thus, since this "celebrity hairdresser" stuff is nothing more than errant nonsense that is used by self-important barbers in order to promote their barbershops--uhm, excuse me, "salons"--the information can easily be transferred to anyplace on the Internet that allows patent nonsense--and that would be just about anywhere, except of course here. Thus, WP:ALTERNATIVE. Qworty (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggested WP:ALTERNATIVE is not appropriate because that encyclopedia has already been published and so is not open for contributions in the way that Wikipedia is. You could use the same argument against all topics on Wikipedia which have sources. It's an argument for not having Wikipedia at all. Warden (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such posting is permissable if it is limited and neutral, as it was. The person in question may have a special interest for several reasons. They have worked upon the article hairstyle, e.g. adding an image of a celebrity. She is the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation and so is herself something of a celebrity. And she has campaigned about the way that women and female topics are neglected on Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cuz this belongs in a category, not an article pbp 04:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules state there is no reason not to have both a list article and a category, and you should never destroy one because you believe another would be better. Dream Focus 04:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you should, in this case. What constitutes a "celebrity hairdresser" versus a regular one? This list violates the premises needed to have a list on Wikipedia. And, if you think that the rules state that there are "no reason[s] not to have both", I think you'd better read them again pbp 05:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dream Focus is correct - the relevant policy is WP:CLN which states that lists should not be deleted to prefer categories. Lists are superior in several ways — they enable citations to be supplied and may include red links, as in this case. Red links are helpful in building the encyclopedia when the topic area is neglected, as here. Warden (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of those on the list have their own Wikipedia articles, they notable for being hairdressers with famous clients. Dream Focus 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? That doesn't make the category itself notable, and certainly not notable enough for an article. Richard Nixon, Danny Romero, and several other people with Wikipedia articles went to the same high school, so should Whittier High School (Whittier, California) people be an article? No! Notability is not inherited, and frankly, this "Keep" vote should be ignored due to not having any basis in policy whatsoever pbp 05:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nixon is not notable for having gone to a particular high school. The hairdressers in this list are notable for being hairdressers, and one source covering the list's topic as a group has already been supplied in this discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a group of things are notable for the same characteristic, it belong in a category pbp 05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rules clearly state WP:CLN you do not destroy a list just because you think it would be better as a category, that both list and categories for the same thing can exist without problems. Dream Focus 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's argument is a bit glitchy given that "hairdressers who have celebrity clients" is not the stated definition of the list's scope. This is a list of "famous hairdressers" -- hairdressers who are themselves celebrated in their field, not "hairdressers who have celebrity clients." In any event, Warden has already referenced reliable coverage of the topic of this list taken as a group, which helps it pass muster with regard to the relevant notability guidelines. User:Qworty's rebuttal of Warden's source is unclear to me; that is, the manner in which Qworty puts it is such that his rebuttal could be applied to almost any source. And WP:ALTERNATIVE is an essay that offers suggestions for other places that an editor can submit content to when that content wouldn't be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It's certainly not an essay that attempts to define the relative value of other types of sourcing (and interpreting WP:ALTERNATIVE to mean that we don't accept printed books with the word "encyclopedia" in the title is quite a stretch in any case). Regardless, WP:LISTN looks for reliable coverage of a list's topic as a group, and Warden has supplied that. That the coverage is itself an encyclopedia does not make it faulty coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thank you for twisting my words around into your own private knots. You could have just as easily admitted that what I was saying was way over your head. I am arguing for deletion. There is no such thing as a "celebrity hairdresser," because very few, if any, hairdressers limit their practice to celebrities, and there are plenty of hairdressers who have cut just one celebrity's hair just one time--this includes my own stylist, who once cut Bill Clinton's hair. Since the article therefore does not belong on Wikipedia, I am arguing that The Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History, a book that was mentioned by another editor, is in fact the perfect place for "information" such as this. Thus, WP:ALTERNATIVE. Do you get my point now? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When nominated the article looked like this and its text other than the list of names was "List of celebrity hairdressers is a list of hairdressers and hairstylists who work for celebrities." It was then changed to read "List of celebrity hairdressers is a list of famous hairdressers." before it became "This is a list of notable celebrity hairdressers. Hairdresser is a term referring to anyone whose occupation is to cut or style hair in order to change or maintain a person's image. This is achieved using a combination of hair coloring, haircutting, and hair texturing techniques. Most hairdressers are professionally licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist." The list was conceived as a list of hairdressers with celebrity clients before the scope was changed without discussion.
  • I am not suggesting that the subject of celebrity as it relates to hairdressing is not notable. That doesn't mean that a list of famous hairdressers is any more encyclopedic than a list of hairdressers with famous clients. If the list is supposed to be for famous, which is to say notable, hairdressers, then the list becomes completely redundant to Category:Hairdressers and its subsidiaries. An article on the culture of celebrity hairdressing would be a welcome and encyclopedic addition to the project. A list of every famous hairdresser isn't. And making it a list of "celebrity" hairdressers makes the inclusion criteria hopelessly vague and subjective. Buck Winston (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase celebrity hairdresser seems to be the common name. For example, I added a source which has a entire chapter devoted to the topic which is entitled The Rule of Celebrity Hairdressers. If sources use such language then we should follow them rather than devising our own terminology. Warden (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying your nomination, Buck; I see that the rationale was certainly more applicable to an earlier version, and apologize for the oversight in my own argument. It doesn't change my overall conclusion, but certainly changes my former assessment of your rationale. As for Qworty, I don't appreciate your obnoxious suggestion that your argument "was way over my head," but that's beside the point. Your response to Warden's source seemed clearly an attempt to dismiss it, and you referenced WP:ALTERNATIVE in doing so. Put another way, you, having already determined that the article's subject doesn't exist (based on your own reasoning), are dismissing a source explicitly covering this supposedly non-existent subject simply because it represents the kind of source that covers non-existent subjects (or "patent nonsense"), I guess. That's something of a fait accompli, and is also based on interpreting the list as covering only hairdressers who have celebrity clients and not famous hairdressers, which is its current (and more defensible) scope. If I'm still not fully comprehending the dazzling complexity of your argument, I surely apologize for my insufficient intellect. Perhaps you can rephrase your argument in terms more more easily comprehended by those of us without your advanced Wiki-fu. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. As to subsequent arguments that this is a list of hairdressers who are THEMSELVES celebrities (would that matter?), the article content is clearly (partly at least) a list of hairdressers who dressed the hair of the famous (as per the nomination), making that point irrelevant. Celtechm (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it irrelevant? AfD policy requires us to judge the article on how it might be improved, not to delete it because it's inconsistent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List is too indiscriminate. Every biography on Wikipedia is arguably a "famous" person and they each have a hair cutter! That's millions of possible entries. A list of famous hairstylists would be different story since it can be controlled through sourcing requirements, it's a discriminate list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those 11 were mostly added by one person when the article was created two years ago. You may be right that no one really cares to add more will keep it in check. My concern is COI, it will only attract editors who want to add people they know and become a somewhat skewed and odd list. The list of potential is very high vs. how many are actually listed will be very small. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, suggest making the criteria for inclusion explicit in the article itself and set the bar somewhat high. Since the list is defined by having sources, it needs to say "this is a list of hairdressers that have sources". See for example the header at the top of this list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to list of hairdressers since we currently do not have a list of notable hairdressers, and the article introduction/rationale now refers to hairdressers in general not merely cutters of celebrity hair. It's reasonable to have a list of notable hairdressers that also includes any notable people whose hair they've cut. People arguing for deletion should read WP:CLN which clearly states that having a category is not reason to delete the list. A list of hairdressers would easily pass WP:L and related policies, so there's no reason to delete this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could we stop making the gender gap on Wikipedia WORSE by deleting anything which might conceivably be of more interest to females than, say, the minutia of scores for every soccer team ever, or lists such as List of sports films etc.? Seriously, guys. Think this one through. This is of interest to others... just not to you. Those arguing that there is no such thing as celebrity hairdressers clearly don't know much about the topic. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you making the sexist assumption that females would intrinsicly be more interested in hairdressing than males? It appears that the list as it currently exists includes both male and female hairdressers and the person adding material is, as near as I can tell, male. "It's interesting" is not a reason for keeping material. Someone finds every article subject interesting; otherwise they wouldn't have been written in the first place. Buck Winston (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a real problem here, perhaps it was not well explained in the nomination. The title appears a bit problematic with "celebrity hairdressers" in it. It seems to suggest that any hairdresser who worked on a celebrity should be in it. The content however seems adequate for a WP:SAL. It includes only hairdressers which are themselves notable (for their work, which may of course include that on celebrities). Tijfo098 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the last few comments. I agree that "celebrity" is a problematic term, but plenty notable hairdressers do exist, so List of hairdressers would work on the same level as List of fashion designers and similar, with someone to maintain it and ensure that it was kept red-link free. Mabalu (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to list of hairdressers and expand to suit the broader topic. The current article title can be read two ways: list of celebrities who are hairdressers or list of hairdressers of celebrities. Either way, this is a subsection of a much more notable topic. I don't see the need for this to be separate from the main topic, and the notability of this minor topic is much more dubious than that of the parent topic. ThemFromSpace 21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of the three choices presented: List of hairdressers who have cut a celebrity's hair; list of "celebrity hairdressers"; and "list of hairdressers", as the nominator the only one that makes sense is the last. If a list article is needed, one that encompasses all hairdressers without qualifying it based on the "celebrity" status of their clients or the "celebrity" status of the hairdressers themselves is the only one that makes any possible sense. I see no real need for a list of hairdressers but if we end up with a list of them, there we go. Buck Winston (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid navigational list of our WP articles on notable hairdressers per WP:LISTPURP, as a complement to Category:Hairdressers per WP:CLN. I think a rename is in order to drop the "celebrity" from the name simply because we don't state "notable" or "famous" in list titles even if their entries are limited only to those who merit articles. The confusion over whether the list is intended to be hairdressers who are celebrities or hairdressers who have celebrity clients is really beside the point given that a hairdresser who has celebrity clients likely got them because he is famous or became famous because of those clients, but ultimately restricting it to notable hairdressers only renders the distinction moot to the extent there is one. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Postdlf (who posted my thought exactly). Satisfies WP:LISTPURP. The scope of the article should read so that it is limited to people who have their own Wikipedia articles and whose primary fame is associated with hairdresser. Not everyone listed in Category:Hairdressers will qualify to be listed in the article. The article should be renamed List of hairdressers as we usually keep "notable", "celebrity", "important", etc. out of article titles since the topic has to be notable to be in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For policy reasons (WP:LISTPURP etc.) already cited by other keep voters. Of course, I can see the point of the underlying rationale for this AfD: fashion and grooming is a trivial, not particularly intellectual topic, which ought to have no place at Wikipedia. It is for this reason we expend so much virtual ink on X-Files episodes, MMA/UFC fighters and Pokémon. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems relevant for Wikipedia. Also see the discussion on the gendergap mailing list. Shlomif (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of hairdressers, per Postdlf, Uzma, etc., as long as it's crystal clear that this is not a list of people who have dressed the heads of celebrities (per WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS). I'm a guy, and don't give a shit about the topic, but you know what? The deletion nomination does seem to act to confirm our gender bias here. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep Notable, all the ones with lots of articles in WP:RS about them. Hmmm, it would be fun to have one on "Notable people who cut their own hair." I can think of a couple. :-) CarolMooreDC 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is certainly not "trivial", it's part of pop culture and certainly worth mentioning. However, the question is whether it's WP:OR because there is probably no secondary literature on "celebrity hairdressers" you can rely on for writing about them as such. If this holds true, I would be in favour of deleting the list, otherwise it should be kept.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not encyclopedic, neither Wikipedia is a directory as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep WP:NOTDIRECTORY isn't applicable here. It's a list of notable hairdressers, not hairdressers of notable people, so there is no issue of inherited notability. It's a little crufty, but the inclusion criteria is pretty concrete... or at least as concrete as the guidelines for notability. The list length is managable. I don't see a problem with it.Roodog2k (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and useful, though I'd prefer to see a list of notable hairdressers without (or regardless of) the celebrity angle. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dhriti Pati Sarkar

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

An Indian businessman. No reliable sources in the article. Only able to find social media links during a search. The page to his company, Abater, is given in the article, but it goes nowhere. Only search results for his other companies, "Flyingup Entertainment" and "Yocomsoft", are to Wikipedia. Prod was contested for, "I have provided many true references for my delopment of this article. This person is truely inspiring people for society.I am searching for more true refrences". Bgwhite (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article never significantly indicates his importance and I haven't found any reliable English sources with Google News US and Google News India. Considering that the subject is from India, it is possible that reliable sources may not be English but it's better to delete the article for now or possibly userfy. I will offer the author advice at their talk page. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided some new link please verify them . Its a important article for wikipedia because this person admired and followed by thousand and thousand people. Please see also article external links.More references is coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datacon (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Starlight

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

game that may have been created by the author...anyway there's no indication of importance and no sources other than the game's site Go Phightins! (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this game was created by the author. Apologies I am new and have just read the COI information and suspect I am conflicted. I can provide links to references if that will help prevent deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamlatchem (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that'd be a start, but I think a major issue is notability. See WP:GNG...Go Phightins! (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSOFT would also apply here too. --Drm310 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears that the game has received little coverage and therefore is non-notable. While searching with Google News UK (after finishing my unsuccessful Google US search), I found this which claims that morningDewApps.com reviewed them but I can't find an exact link to confirm this but rather, I have found mirror links (blogs, iTunes, etc.). Considering that the game was only released nearly two months ago, it may be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I've seen enough to convince me this should be kept...it is at the least borderline notable, and that's good enough for me. Self-close. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cattleman Restaurant

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

This article appears to fail WP:CORP. I notice there are two sources from The New York Times in the article but I can't seem to access the content. I did a Google search for additional sources but came up pretty dry "Cattleman Restaurant" New York City. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be pretty obvious that a restaurant that closed in 1989 is unlikely to have many usable Google hits. That said, I could find nothing substantial in LexisNexis (which has coverage back to 1980), and the first reference sounds like it's more about the owner than the restaurant. That leaves us with only one source, which isn't enough to pass CORP. Weak delete, though I'm willing to change my !vote if new sources are found or if I guessed wrong about the first reference. T. Canens (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, seeing the wisdom in that I did a search via my university's EBSCOhost and came up with nothing. I also searched The New York Times here and got what may be a couple more sources from the 1970s [6] [7], but unfortunately the full text is apparently unavailable (or at least I can't get to it). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely a celebrated restaurant in its time ("a riotously successful steakhouse"[8], "one of the best dining emporiums in New York"[9],"one of the nation’s most successful restaurants" (with its own cookbook published) [10]). The amount of sourcing available free online is not great, but what you can see does suggest notability. Anyone have access to the New Yorker archives?--Milowent • hasspoken 12:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good finds and will add to a "reception" section. I have the New Yorker DVD archive, there is one incidental mention from 1974 not worth adding. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. I can see they advertised a lot in the New Yorker too. Some of the references to the restaurant out there seem to assume familiarity by public, like a silly 1960 news story where a singer was arrested for throwing a steak at Ellman at the restaurant.[11][12]. I wonder if a bio could be written on Larry Ellman, he had his paws in a lot of stuff.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A GoogleBooks search shows adds in New York Magazine but not sure about New Yorker. Don't have access to New York Magazine archives other than GB. The best description of the restaurant is the link you found for the cookbook[13] but it's not an independent source since it's a commercial book selling site. But maybe it could be used? Not sure. Larry Ellman seems notable enough research might turn up an interesting story. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They ran for 30 years, and were making millions of dollars a year for much of that time. Sources found by Milowent prove its notable. I did some checking on my Highbeam account, and added in sources about the successful musical that started there. Dream Focus 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough sources to justify a keep now. The restaurant is also mentioned incidentally in a number of novels, trawling through Google Books, but hard to say if those novels are important enough to be mentioned in the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 9 inline citations, including The New York Times and New York Magazine, and the link to the musical Pump Boys and Dinettes, this restaurant was well known and very popular, and entirely notable. An easy keeper! --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above; aside from the 9 cites in major sources and specifically a book about notable NYC restaurants, the fact it inspired a highly successful musical tips it over, IMHO. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group 5 board game

edit
Group 5 board game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Note: the prod tag was removed by the article's creator) The article provides no references and I was unable to find any. So much so that I suspect this is more or less made up. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Riley

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

This does not appear to pass the general notability guideline or the basic notability guidelines for people. The one source provided does not resolve (HTTP 404), and the article included unsourced negative information. I could not find any independent, reliable sources for this article—everything I found was on sites like tumblr and facebook. (A lot of it was highly derogatory too.) Furthermore, this violates WP:NOTNEWS even if sources could be found, so I believe that this should be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm gonna give this AFD a couple of days to give others a chance to source it. I have a nagging suspicion he may actually be notable, so I'll give it a couple of days for someone else to come up with sources. If none are forthcomming, I'll most likely be back to !Vote Delete at that point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell from the unreliable sources, he was the topic of interest for a brief period of time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G5: Created by banned user in violation of ban Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 De Havilland Dragon crash

edit
2012 De Havilland Dragon crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sad event but not unlike thousands of other private aircraft accidents is not particularly notable just recent news (not relevant but just to note article was created by a banned user), contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has a Checkuser confirmed that? , if so then there is no more need for discussion.Petebutt (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily, Carlos. At the age of 10 years, a DH.84 Dragon would likely have been in airline service and thus more likely to be able to sustain an article. The number of deaths does not necessarily denote notability, although the higher the death toll the more weight is added. We have many articles where there were no deaths at all, yet the accident or incident is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad to be saying this, but with it just being a small private air crash it has to be deleted. There has been a lot of coverage here in Aus, but not much worldwide attention. It has no criteria to demand for an article.Springyboy (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      • Delete it now!!!!

Sockpuppet of Ryan Kirkpatrick!!!!Petebutt (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vestal Review

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

A low circulation literary magazine. There are only two sources cited, both to books of short stories that reprinted one of the stories that was published in the magazine. One of those books was written by the editor of the magazine. The article has been tagged as needing more citations since 2008, but none have been presented. I've looked and I haven't found any independent sources about the magazine either, so I believe this topic fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've kind of looked for sources for this on the side, as someone tried adding a hotlink to this to the article for flash fiction itself. What I've seen so far is that the magazine has had notable people write for it and re-published some of the stories, but not really anything about the actual magazine that's in-depth. I'll try to scratch a little deeper, but so far I'm mostly finding incidental/trivial mentions as far as news and book sources go. There's so far not much to show notability or back up any of the claims, at least not really anything that would be seen as a RS that'd show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search and here's what I've found: there's nothing to show that this site has notability. There's incidental and trivial mentions of this site in relation to other people, some of whom are notable. Trivial mentions don't add up to notability, no matter how many there are. There's brief mentions of this book in various writing books that tend to list multiple such sites directory-style, which also doesn't really count towards notability since it's all pretty much trivial at best. As far as awards go, the site hasn't won anything that would be seen as being notable enough to warrant keeping. It isn't highly circulated either and as far as longevity goes, that actually doesn't mean that the site is notable. Considering that pretty much the only place I'm seeing this claim is on the site itself and non-usable sources, the validity of this claim can and probably should be questioned because ff is such a minor niche it's entirely possible that there's an even older magazine that never got mentioned somewhere. In any case, this is pretty much a delete. There's no notability here. Admins, you might want to look into the original editor, as there's some serious potential COI going on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is permissible for people with a connection to a subject to write on Wikipedia. So long as they do so in an appropriate manner. It is not permissible to use COI against someone as part of a content dispute. Rather, open a case at the COI Noticeboard if there is reason to believe inappropriate editing, it's a separate issue from AfD. Our question is if there is room for an article on this topic on Wikipedia, regardless of who wrote it, per the WP:GNG guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Afuang

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

A Filipino college basketball player. Played for University of Santo Tomas. References are stat sites or about the team. Unable to find any references that go into detail about him. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Note: There are other basketball players for the same team that appear to be similar to Afuang. Clark Bautista and Karim Abdul are two prime examples. Bgwhite (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano/a Movement in Washington State History Project

edit
Chicano/a Movement in Washington State History Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a borderline case, but I think it should be deleted or merged into Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project because it doesn't seem to have attracted much independent notice in reliable secondary sources and does not inherit notability from its parent project per WP:NWEB and WP:N. Batard0 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

InterCity West Coast

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

This is already covered in the Virgin Trains article. There is no need to confuse matters by having two articles that cover the same topic. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see why the franchise and current operator are not both notable enough for an article, like a group company and susidiaries can all have articles. There are 7 franchise articles, so this is a wider issue than this one - if this is deleted surely all 7 should go? Rwendland (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article will give a history of the West Coast franchise post Virgin Trains tenure, the Virgin Trains article will only give a history up until its termination date, currently December 2012.D47817 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball(?) Keep. This is about the franchise, not who paid to run it for (some period of time). This differentiation is more significant in the case of Virgin Trains; which held the XC and ICWC franchises simultaneously, and operated them as as one organisation under one brand for that period. —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very notable topic. See eg this article in The Independent for 4 October. Virgin Trains was only one of four bidders for the renewal. If there is duplication, it should be removed from the Virgin Trains article which should concentrate only on the aspects specific to that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that. Having a deletion template in an article that many people will be reading to get some background on the current incarnation of the omnishambles simply makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Notability is beyond question, as is the separate nature of this topic from Virgin Trains. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi cricket team

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

Non-notable cricket team. Contested proposed deletion. See also the related Dr.Sampurananand Stadium‎ (AfD) and Uttar Pradesh Cricket Cup‎ (AfD). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bidsar. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bidsar, Rajasthan

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

Same article already exist on wikipedia Beedsar. There is no sense to create the same article again. Chu86happychu 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is better is irrelevant. If there are concerns that the existing article has inadequate referencing then the referencing in the Bidsar article should be improved. If the article is protected then the edit request should be made on the article talk page. If there are concerns about the articles title, then a requested move should be made at WP:RM. Setting up a duplicate article is not the correct way to do things. Valenciano (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agung Supriyanto

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harris View, Ingersoll

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

Residential housing development in a small town with no properly sourced indication of notability. To be perfectly frank, I strongly suspect (but cannot definitively prove) WP:COI promotion by the development company themselves. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The same editor created Ingersoll, Ontario Town Hall, redirects for Ingersoll District Collegiate Institute and has also edited Ingersoll, Ontario, generally. I don't think this is company promo-spam. Probably just a local fellow contributing to articles about his home town. As a courtesy, I have added a note to his talk page so he knows this discussion is under way. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sheldon

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

I'm not 100% sure if this is a candidate for speedy deletion, so I'm AfD'ing it. Subject is an author and has contributed some writing to a film. Ican't find any significant coverage about Sheldon, or either of his books. Doesn't meet the notability threshold, generally or as an author. Sionk (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is marginal but there's stuff on Highbeam I can't read. Telegraph review of Smiling Affair[14]. Reviews in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday on Highbeam that I've not read and may even be the same article[15][16]. Aside from that there's a brief mention in the Guardian[17], which also had a short review of Comfort Zone[18]. He has also apparently been interviewed by the New Straits Times in Singapore but I've only seen it reproduced in a blog[19] and a dead link on another blog[20]. Smiling Affair was reviewed on Tangled Web[21] which has a terrible design but seems to be a well-established online publication[22]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have access to Highbeam. This one from the Daily Mail (March 14, 2003) is a review of Comfort Zone as is this one from The Scotsman (March 1, 2003). Both are a decent length. This one is a decent length review of Smiling Affair, again in the Daily Mail (June 24, 2005). The original (and lengthy) New Straits Times interview (February 25, 2009) can be accessed via the WayBack Machine here. The Straits Times interview was apropos of the "Writing the City" project, also covered by CNN, with mention of him, here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are reviews of multiple books of his he is undoubtedly notable by WP:CREATIVE. Nothing more needs to be proven, though they should of course be added to the article. It would have been well to check this before nominating for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with DGG. I had added the extra sources here intending to return to the discussion. I'll now add them to the article as well. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No policy compliant arguments have been asserted to keep the article; there is no evidence it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. I recommend that if someone thinks the group should have an article, they either go through [{WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] or contact DGG or myself for review of a draft prior to attempting to incorporate into mainspace. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITEC Group

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

Advertising, page mostly created by a single user with multiple sockpuppets. User probably Jacques Duyver, whose page has been deleted after an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Duyver, and the user User:Southwiki was blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Article was recreated identically by users User:Ings Gr and User:TravisB85, now blocked too. The last user also created this article nominated for deletion ITEC Group, of which Jacques Duyver appears to be the founder. Seems to be no relevant company, links on google mostly to its own webpage and Wikipedia. Delete as spam/advert and lack of relevance Chris 73 | Talk 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was one of the authors of this page, and while I can agree that previous attempts to improve the page could have been interpreted as somewhat "spammy", the company itself should be worthy of inclusion and shouldn't be judged on the failings of its various authors. I have included a couple of resource links outlining Itec's presence in the public eye during the formation of its BEE deal, which was one of the first of its kind in South Africa. These articles were published on respectable South African news sites such as Financial Mail, The Witness, and iWeek:

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate any kind of constructive feedback on how to improve the page.

Travis Booth CapeTown (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment copied from the talk page — Frankie (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are two things that would be necessary to write a viable article here. The first would be some references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not press releases, or material derived from press releases. Until you have them, there is no way an acceptable article can be written. Once you do, try writing a article without using adjectives of praise or importance, and not repeating the name of the company, or making what we'd consider promotional links to the names of the notable products it distributes, or notable racing drivers who are merely members of an association of a which a driver of a company-sponsored car is also a member. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback, I will get onto it straight away!

Travis Booth CapeTown (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Travis_Booth_CapeTown[reply]

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

The result was keep. The reviews & best seller status prove notability DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. This discussion and the subsequent updating of the article has confirmed the subject has been the focus of substantial Chinese media coverage. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Di An (writer)

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

It really doesn't seem to me based on the article that this person is a notable writer or notable anything else. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems like she has very little coverage in english media, but from what I can find she does seem to be pretty successful. Articles on her here: [23], [24], and [25], among others. Her first major success, Memory in the City of Dragon, sold over 500,000 copies [26] and apparently got to number 3 on some Chinese fiction bestseller list [27]. Article needs a lot of work, and I'm not the one to do it, but she's notable. -Runch (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am loathe to bring up "Ghits" in an AfD argument, but the reason I'm mentioning it is because there are so many news hits here and my skills with Google translate can only go so far. I've added a bit to the article but it is far from everything because I'm not sure what I'm mistranslating as far as titles and reception goes. She looks to not only be one of China's literary darlings and has received lots of coverage: [28], [29], [30]. It also looks like she's being taught in the classrooms of China. ([31]) In any case, I've added enough to the article to where it's sourced. It just needs someone who actually knows Chinese and can track down her book titles to list them and properly flesh out the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete, and the article can be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williamson

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dan Williamson" sports did not appear to produce much more than some short news stories about him becoming sports director at a television station. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News and Google News archives found zero relevant sources and he's probably only locally known. Additionally, radio hosts rarely receive news coverage about themselves but rather event appearances or topics that they may have discussed. Exclusions are nationally known personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This radio personality is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete, and the article can be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Lifestyle Awards

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

fails WP:GNG. an award that is mainly reported in TNT (magazine) [35] which is a free, heavily advertising based publication and not really a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I have my doubts about the article, I assume there is no doubt that the awards were given and that the article accurately reflects this. If that is the case I would not want to be too worried about thesourcing of the information. A much more pertinent question is whether the awards are notable. Not being a Londoner, I do not feel qualified to judge. If we were dealing with a category, I would be calling for it to be "listified and then deleted", which would lead to the creation of an article such as this! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Young Writer of the Year Award

edit
Sunday Times Young Writer of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. an award that does not get a lot of coverage, some mentions of people winning it and of course coverage in the times own website which can be discounted as a primary source. [36]. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"that it was viewed as worthy of note within the publishing world" is not a criterion in notability. WP is an encyclopaedia of topics that meet notability guidelines not notability in the publishing world. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are general and sometimes don't fit every case perfectly, we have to use our judgement, that is the purpose of AfD. Notability at the end of the day is an opinion, that is why AfD's can be so contentious and not clear cut. Also, we do use the sources from the literary world in determining the notability of a literary topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there can be discussion but inventing notability guidelines to suit an AfD is hardly good practice. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is inventing guidelines. It's your opinion that there are not many sources. It is an opposing opinion that there are. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Consulting

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a link, but to its own website. A google news search shows a few press releases, and some other non-related group "Institute of Consulting Engineers" but nothing establishing notability. Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English words without vowels

edit
English words without vowels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if this were a notable topic, nearly all information in this article is covered in Vowel#Words without vowels. Pokajanje|Talk 16:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Merge to Vowel#Words without vowels. As said, almost all of the useful information that is covered here is already covered in that section of the main vowel article. The parts that are not are stuff that are not really appropriate for this article to begin with. For example, about a third of the article is about words without vowels in other languages, which is completely out of the scope of coverage for an article that is specifically called "English words without vowels. Other parts are just trivia that brings no notability to the concept, like bringing up a poem that uses no vowels. When you remove the content like that, you really aren't left with much that isn't better included (and is for the most part already is) in the appropriate section of the Vowel article. On top of that, the only sources being used in the article currently are just to support the trivial facts, which gives the whole thing an air of OR to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2012‎
    Comment: Vote changed from Redirect to Merge. See below for reasoning. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Faisal 1918 (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it would be good to link to the no-vowel-letter bit, for people who would add 'nymph' or 'sky' to the no-vowel section of the vowel article. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Links added - jc37 23:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per my comments in the previous discussion. - jc37 00:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your comments in the previous discussion really fail to address the fact that there have not been any reliable sources found that discuss the concept as a whole, or that when you remove the information that is out of the scope of the article, what is left is an unnecessary split from the Vowel article. The sourcing is really the main problem. While you can find books that may mention off hand that there do exist English words without vowels, none of them actually discuss the concept in any meaningful way, nor discuss any of the information that is presented in this article that could be used to support it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...in your opinion... - jc37 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not my "opinion" that reliable sources discussing the topic have thus far not been found. Nor is it my "opinion" that reliable sources are needed to establish notability for articles. That is the foundation of our general notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to words without vowels or merge to vowel (the title doesn't correspond with all the content). I've added a few references, indicating that this material can be sourced, and it's also clear that this is a topic of interest to people and commonly written about, though discussions tend to be in books on trivia and wordplay (or in dictionary FAQ pages) rather than serious linguistics texts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do believe that the article originally was titled words without vowels, but there was some concern brought up in last AFD that an article like that was too broad in scope of coverage, and it was renamed to its current namespace as a result of that discussion. It seems that when the article was renamed, however, the content was not edited to match which caused the current discrepency between the title and the content. The point that you bring up about the sources is exactly my issue with the article. The only sources available that talk about this at all are, like you said, merely trivia and wordplay, rather than any discussion about the concept as a whole. It proves that yes, there are english words that do not use vowels, but I don't think that fact was ever in any doubt. What they don't show, however, is why they are actually notable as a group. That's why I hold that your latter choice, of merging to vowel, is the better one, as the only sources being found would only allow this article to just be a collection of trivia, with no sources talking about why the concept of english words without vowels (or in any other language, really) is notable. I've changed my above vote from Redirect to Merge due to the addition of sources you added. While I still believe they are too trivial to support an independent article, they can be added to the appropriate section of the Vowel article.Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To support an independent article? That sounds odd to me. Information is information. Has it been sourced? Yes. And the topic has been shown worth keeping in the encyclopedia. We split info from pages all the time. - jc37 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only information being sourced so far is, as I said, trivia. Things like "What the longest word with no vowels?" or "There's a poem in English that uses no vowels!". None of them actually discuss at all the overall concept of English words without vowels, just singular examples of specific words. Its pretty common Wikipedia practice to avoid splitting articles unecessarily. In this case, the subject at hand is already covered quite well at Vowel. Neither that article as a whole, or the section dedicated to this particular sub-topic are so overly long that a seperate article is needed. Thus my statement that the sources provided are not sufficient to support a split, independent article, but could be useful in supporting the information already present at the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That information is already present in another page. So we should either delete the information in vowel or delete the nominated article. Pokajanje|Talk 00:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of it, but regardless, this is the precise purpose of Template:Main. - jc37 00:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only information lacking in the section in vowel is the section "words without vowel letters". That could be covered in a Wiktionary appendix entitled "English words without vowel letters". Pokajanje|Talk 18:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. This is a content fork, nearly a textbook example of one. Roodog2k (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Actually this page has existed since 2005. I look at the edit history of vowel, and the edit prior to the creation of this page here, is clearly not a fork. - jc37 16:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid Wikipedia:Summary style article on a linguistic topic. See, for example, El Aissati A, McQueen JM, Cutler A (July 2012). "Finding words in a language that allows words without vowels". PubMed. 124 (1): 79–84. PMID 22520620. I added references to the article and added a lead sentence.[38] Although the article seems to focus on written words, the article topic is not limited to written words that are in the English language and covers spoken words based on words without vowels that are not yet part of the English language. In addition, you can find references by searching out "vowelless words" instead of "words without vowels." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, most of those added sources only focus on trivia, and listings of individual words, rather than on the actual topic. Almost the entire usage section is just trivia, and most of the sources are not useful for this article because they are about things that are not real words. Advertisments or license plates using fake words without vowels is completely out of the scope of this article because they are not actually English words, nor ever will be. In addition, a lot of the sources are not even about the subject at hand, and just happen to mention it very tangentially. The one of license plates, for example, is just an article about banned vanity plates, some of which just happen to contain no vowels. That does not actually establish any notability on the topic at all. A lot of the others are the same way, such as the various articles about Scrabble, or the one that is about random word trivia, that features exactly one sentence that mentions a single word without a vowel. Even the sources in the lead do not really cover the topic, as they start out by talking about how English words requrie a vowel sound, and then go on to the main topic, which is about words in other languages, which is not what this article is about. The main point, as I stated several times above, has never been that there are no sources that tell us that these words exist. We all know they exist. What the article does not have are sources that actually talk about the overall concept about why, as a group, these words are notable, and why this should be split into a seperate article when the vowel article already very suscinctly discusses the linguistic concept without all the fluff and trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To believe that, editors would have to believe that, in the between the time English was first spoken and now, no linguist scholar has ever studied why English predominately did not developed as a language embracing vowelless words whereas other language allow vowelless words. They also would have to believe that scholars have never studied the role vowels play and the absent of vowels play in the English language. They also would have to believe that scholars have never studied the role the absent of vowels play in the English language as compared to languages that do not restrict out vowels words.
    You indicate that none of the vowelless words millions of people use to send text message are not actually English words, nor ever will be, even though students are turning in written assignments that omit vowels.[39] The only way one can claim this is there must be scholarly research on why such vowelless words will never become part of the English language. It also makes sense that scholars would approach this with an open mind and study the impact of the recent and growing effort of millions of people using vowelless words to send text message has on the English language. There is a strong likelihood that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. --Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I only said that the fake words in licesne plates and ads are not real words and never will be, the sources used to talk about those two things are worthless, and including that information is complete trivia. I specifically did not mention the text messages with them because I actually feel that may be worthwhile to merge. I also never said that this topic is not notable and should be deleted. I said that there have been no sources to show that the topic is independently notable of the study of the use of vowels as a whole, and therefore the non-trivial information included in this article should be merged to the main article on Vowels. Most of which is already there. Saying that its likely that there are many sources on this, or that it makes sense that there is linguistic work specifically on this subject really does nothing to prove it without actually finding them. Its not our job as Wikipedia editors to just assume sources exist, its our job to find them and use them as sources to support why articles are notable. If some are found that actually support why this concept specifically is independently notable from the study of vowel usage as a whole, that would be a different story. At this point, however, with the trivia removed, it is just an unecessary split. I'm sure that scholars have "studied the role vowels play and the absent of vowels play in the English language". Which is why we have an article on Vowels.Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To all those suggesting "merge" because you see this as a split or fork, you should know that this page was created in 2005, and this info was only added to vowel in 2012 by User:Kwamikagami here. - jc37 16:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, that's just semantics as far as my actual reasoning for arguing for a merge goes. The article may have been created well before the information was actually added to the Vowel section, however my argument is that it should have never have been a seperate article to begin with, as I am arguing that the subject matter was never independently notable from the study of vowels overall. I just use the phrase that it is an "uncessary split" as a more concise way of converying that idea, as I can't think of a simpler way to say "it should have never been a seperate article and always part of the vowel article to begin with" each time. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, you are offering your subjective opinion, which isn't based on anything but merely your personal preference? That sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. But then that's merely my read of your comments. I welcome clarification. - jc37 22:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm basing it off the statement that I have made repeatedly in the above discussion that there have been no reliable sources found that demonstrate that "English Words Without Vowels" is independently notable from the discussion of vowels in language as a whole. That the sources being found are trivia, and when you take that away, you are left with nothing substantial that indicates any sort of indpendent notability. I've said that numerous times in this AFD, so how you can interpret anything as "I don't like it" is beyond me. Especially since never once in this AFD have I ever argued for deletion, but instead to redirect and then to merge. No statement I have made in this AFD would indicate that my opinion is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT any more than the Keep votes that simply say "Its useful!" or "there has to be soruces somewhere" can be accused of being WP:ILIKEIT votes. Rorshacma (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I had no hand in writing this article but have had many occasions to use it. It suffers no flaws that would justify deletion. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It suffers from the flaw that it is a content fork, and one content or the other must be deleted. Pokajanje|Talk 19:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a POV fork, and the distinction between the two classes is pretty much a language universal. Doesn't seem problematic at all to me. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Francis Lyon

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

User:Dicklyon is the user himself and he's the main contributor. The subject rattles off patents he's got and designates himself a pioneer but there's no secondary sources validating his notability. Simple self promoting article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page, where my involvement has been assessed. If I had written the article, it would be much better. This IP editor who wrote it does not even resemble my style of writing. I have avoided adding to it; the edits I did were done logged in, and besides the initial stub, which I did as a newbie editor before I understood that to be a bad idea, they were just corrections. I can provide more secondary sources if someone wants to work on that issue. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment He sounds like one smart cookie, but the article's references are mostly patents and things he wrote, which clearly cannot establish notability on their own. How many instances can be found of significant coverage of the person in reliable and independent sources? In what ways is WP:BIO satisfied? Edison (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The heavy involvement by you is only something that could be contributing to the issue. The main issue is that the subject is lacking general notability as far as I can find. In depth secondary coverage in reliable sources are required. In other words, what sets this person apart from a bunch of other people who holds a dozen patents or so? Why is this person noteworthy of encyclopedia page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE, he would qualify with the invention of the optical mouse. He has been made a Fellow of the IEEE amongst other things. I'm sure teh article could use a good clean up and the referencing could probably be done better but notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is clearly a promotion piece for the subject. That he was an IEEE 2003, and he's one of the hundreds for 2003 and every year, a fairly large number of people are made fellow, so he's just a name in a list. [IEEE 2003 fellow list]. Anyone who gets a patent is an inventor because to be granted a patent, it must be something unique and not addressed by prior art. Why is this person distinguishably notably from a sea of people who holds patents and on a fellow list for their respective industry organization ? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canteloupe2, you are not adding anything new when you respond like that to everyone else's contribution. We have seen your opinion, and your reasons. Enough now? ☺? NoeticaTea? 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the subject of this article is also an active and extremely knowledgeable Wikipedia editor should have no bearing on the status of the present article. I cannot recall, in my interactions with Dicklyon, ever seeing him make reference to this article for any purpose whatsoever – though he could have been excused for doing so, to lend authority to his judgements at RM discussions and the like. An accomplished engineer, notable for several inventions that pioneer current technologies, and a noted theoretician of image processing and related areas who happens to have a flair for technical writing. No problem at all with retention of this article. NoeticaTea? 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mouse and other inventions should satisfy notability, no problem, but I would like to see more refs to improve the quality of the piece. Neotarf (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IEEE fellow is much more important than merely receiving a patent. I don't think we usually consider it definitive as sole evidence, except if a Life Fellow, but it certainly contributes to notability, along with the other material. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ONE Study

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

This strikes me as an unencyclopedic description of a medical research project that does not appear to have attracted notice from reliable secondary sources and thus unfortunately falls short of the WP:GNG requirements. The cited sources are research linked to organ transplants, not independent coverage of the study that forms the topic of the article. Batard0 (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable clinical study. I could not find any coverage about it at Google Scholar or Google News Archive. In addition, the article is hopelessly unencyclopedic, written like a journal article abstract. (I was suspicious that it might have been cut-and-pasted from somewhere, but that doesn't appear to be the case.) This article lacks a summary lead, and despite ten minutes of research and some medical knowledge on my part, I was unable to write one - because I couldn't clearly understand what the study is about, or even why it is called "the ONE study". --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a research project funded with public money by the European Commission thus it should be very interesting for the not-scientific community to know how European Commission invests the money from the taxes. For this reason we think that the page on Wikipedia should be of general interest. The reason why there is not coverage at Google Scholar or Google News Archive is: The ONE Study is an original project that will last for 60 months. The ONE Study is at the end of its second year, thus the publications are being produced. The available references are already listed on the Wikipedia page. The project is also cited on Science (SCIENCE VOL 332 27 MAY 2011 page 1021). Please check the project website, where the links to the publications related to the project are available. The name “ONE Study” is explained clearly in the section on Novelty. On the link below there is the official list of the EC funded project in the same area “New Therapies and Immunization Strategies” of The One Study. http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/biotechnology/new-therapies/projects-fp7_en.html The name of the project has been chosen by the consortium participants as it is the first study in this field. Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Just as for any research proposal, not yet notable. Actually, the article is so intensely and entirely promotional in talking about the hoped for importance of the work that is intended to be done, that I'd consider it a G11. And the author admits the promotional purpose. I suspect even when results appear, the individual discoveries may be notable, any therapeutic drugs of value produced will be notable, but the overall funding umbrella will still not be: this is essentially a way of making a large grant request, and nothing further. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is meant to provide information on The ONE Study, which is already funded by the European Union Commission; this is not a research proposal or promotion, but a description of a novel ongoing funded EU project. Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrystal Rose

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

Fails WP:Notability (person). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've improved the article somewhat, paring the biography section down to bare essentials since none of it is properly sourced. The only things I can ultimately find are some brief one-off mentions of her being an Oprah clone in some books [40] [41], but nothing really in-depth enough to show notability. I'm persuadable if anyone can show sources that would be reliable, but there just aren't any out there that I could find. Something to note is that someone added that she made a pornographic film (among other recent vandalism), which I haven't found any sourcing or justification for, so this should be slightly monitored for vandalism if kept. The sole source on this article mentions her so briefly that it wouldn't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and rather promotional. I consider this almost a A7 for having no genuine claim to importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DGG, it's almost an A7 case (No notability asserted), but for the mention of the subject's appearance on Dragon's Den (which seems to be a claim of notability, such as it is). Totally insufficient, of course, but there it is. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Moss

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

Contested PROD. This is a hoax. I can find no independent confirmation of its claims, though the two SPA authors DennyMoss (talk · contribs) and JoieManda (talk · contribs) (the name of the real President of Island Def Jam), plus IP 86.8.11.242 (talk · contribs), have been industriously adding them into many articles. For details see article talk page and their contributions.

JoieManda says on my talk page that it is not a hoax, and that Denny Moss does not appear on Island Records' website "because he is a producer for island records, not an artist." That does not explain why the supposed President is taking the trouble to write him up in Wikipedia, and trying to add him to List of current Island Records artists.

Even if the claims were true, being a writer or producer on a couple of tracks and "working on his first album" would not be enough for WP:MUSICBIO; but there is absolutely no reliable source for any of it. JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key Realty School LLC

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

This reads like an advertisement, but more importantly fails WP:GNG and fails under WP:CORPDEPTH. There has been some incidental coverage of the school in a television news report and one other place, but this does not meet the threshold of significant coverage. A search did not yield alternative additional secondary sources. Batard0 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In cleaning up links to this article, I found an appropriate redirect target and redirected this topic there. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigga Than Life

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

Lacks sources for an album with no release date (WP:CRYSTAL) and no track listing/order (Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law), poorly sourced singles information is about it. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rhodes

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

Unremarkable aspiring actor, notability asserted on the basis of successful management of social media. No substantial notability based on professional accomplishment. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL - "production assistant and aspiring actor who began his professional career in 2012". Enough said. Seriously, though - WP:USERG, WP:BLP1E and WP:IMDB pretty much cover it. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable to the point of absurdity. Qworty (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before we dismiss social media too quickly we ought to remember the website you're looking at right now is a social media website with a MMORPG bolted on. Alexander has proven that if you use a large enough social media lever you can shift the rotation of the earth. The people who patrol these pages looking for things to delete hate Mr. Rhodes precisely because he has done what they can not. He used social media to become notable. And when someone slightly more successful in the wikipedia MMORPG comes along and closes this he will also be motivated by jealousy. Lots of rules can, and will, be quoted but the heart of the matter is not missed by any keen observer. So just have your delete and be done with it. Alexander already won. 74.64.4.218 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are welcome to contribute. But your argument would carry more weight if it were something other than WP:BIGNUMBER. Please have a read of WP:GNG and then come back and provide some verifiable proof that the subject meets those criteria. Having memes created about you or getting tweets from Tom Cruise does not make you notable by Wikipedia standards. Not even close. Stalwart111 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at all. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As an actor, he has no notability at all. The recent spike in popularity due to being, essentially, an internet meme does nothing to show any sort of lasting notability beyond this single event. The majority of the sources being used are not reliable, being either social networking sites or are about subjects that do not even mention this individual. The few that are actual articles on the individual are nothing but brief fluff pieces that, again, show no lasting notability outside of being an "odd news story of the week" type incident. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC) А===North American literature===[reply]

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

not an article, basically a dictionary definition, and the 2 templates are also useless. i created Category:North American literature to parallel the other categories in Category:Literature by continent, which i believe is all the use this phrase needs here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Styn

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

WP:Notability WP:SPIP WP:SELF

WP:NOTABILITY - Webby: Anyone can be nominated, in any 1 of 1000 categories, for $175 [44] [45]

WP:SPIP - Editor: MOSESPINK possibly the subject of the article. Editor: Plaintive plaintiff also possibly the subject of the article. Article is a purely promo piece.

WP:SELF - Ref's are interviews with the subject of the article, passing mentions, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The San Diego City Beat article is a good ref. The interviews add up, and the early webby awards were notable (definitely not past mid-2000s though). I've added some more refs to the article. Yes, he's borderline, and his jobs involve self-promotion, but I think he clearly makes it over the bar, and the article is in a decent state (more prose, less lists, would be a good start for cleanup). —Quiddity (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is misinformed (and misunderstands their sources) on their opinions about the webbies -- and who wrote the article. I started the article, and I don't write promo pieces about non-notable subjects. The cockybastard website that earned Styn his first Webhy is pretty notable and sourced as such as an early Internet phenomenon. That was a big deal, as the webbies were one of the most important institutions on the web in 1997-2001, known informally as the academy awards of the Internet and covered extensively in the mainstream and tech press (see the Webby article or try googling it). It wasn't until the mid 2000s that they became a pocket product of a web PR firm or whoever took it over and instituted the self-nomination / pay-to-play scheme. That itself doesn't disqualify anything, so are most major piano and wine competitions. That is just one in a series of other projects that made Styn notable over time (lasting notability) - as a blogger, adult entertainment producer / star, web producer, and yes, self-promoter. He and his works are the subject of multiple, independent, significant third party reliable sourcing in a wide range of different sources, from a book on brands to the adult entertainment trade publication, and web trade publications. You have to be creative finding sources for the guy because he's gone by so many different names over time, and all need to be sourced as him. It does appear that he or someone connected with him has been editing this article in promotional COI fashion, but that's a cleanup / editor education matter, not a notability question. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know his history and I ran across this article by accident. With that said, to someone who is unfamiliar with him, when I checked refs and they were/are all interviews (WP:SELF), and one sentence mentions, I have to question notability. There are other people with blogs, webbys, cocky attitudes, and a desire for fame/ego that don't warrant a WP page. A large percentage (majority?) of the refs are interviews and others should not be considered refs. For example: (Wilson, Michael (September 18, 2012). "Real Photo, Fake Family". NY Times.), the aforementioned is an article about scammers using photos of real people and John Styn's brother happened to be the guy in the photo. Per WP:GNG '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."' PeterWesco (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little dose of WP:BEFORE never hurt anyone. Frankly, when I started researching this I had no idea how many different things he's done, and got in the press. In the porn world alone (the industry, not so much the fans) he was a phenomenon. Prodding old articles with multiple editors' contributions is a little fast, you could always attach a cleanup or notability tag, or just discuss the matter on the talk page. I've started a number of bio articles about minor celebrities, sometimes I notice that they or their fans have found the article and start taking it in their own direction. I just didn't want to confront him about COI, that can be a lot of work. And obviously, his agenda here is different than ours. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the difference in agenda, COI editing, and (to a lesser extent) WP:BEFORE. I have no WP:AXE to grind on this article. WP:RESUME and WP:SPAM, in general, are issues that affect the quality of WP. I respect your input and appreciate your feedback. PeterWesco (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The popularity of his TED-X talk, as well as his appearance at multiple conferences as a guest speaker also attests to his influence. His early fight against Fruit Of the Loom as a freedom of speech issue was picked up by Wired magazine and other online publications. To destroy this really would cut us off from a valuable source of what drove the early web. John Styn really is one of the early movers of online performance art. He combined porn, free speech, vanity, and selflessness, and has most of the bona fides to prove it. 11:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4930:116:0:24E5:BCA0:2C8C:2221 (talk)
  • Keep. - an inspiring individual who helps spread care, inspiration and life joy. Essential qualities in this world that are too often forgotten. I can not see why anybody would want to delete this entry. This man brings light and warmth into this world. KEEP his article please. Birgit from Germany, resident in England, soon visiting SF. x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.70.182 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012‎
  • Keep. - John Styn may self-promote, but that does not reduce his importance as a celebrity and influential person on the Internet. He has a significant following within the Burning Man community, therefore is of interest to tens of thousands of people in that sphere alone. He produces a weekly video blog that goes out without fail, he's spoken at TED-x, he's published a book. He has genuine achievements to his name, both past and present. If everyone who self-promoted were deleted from Wikiepedia, it would be a slim volume indeed. No-one gets very far without some degree of self-promotion, and that in itself does not constitute one of the criteria for deletion, according to my reading of those criteria. I'm unclear why this article has been nominated for deletion. It's not offensive, it does not violate copyright or infringe on anyone's rights, and this person is worthy of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoAnnTurner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I'm biased. He's "kinda famous at burning man", and maybe kinda youtube famous as well, but probably non-burners won't know who he is. I'd consider the article worth keeping but I'm a burner myself so maybe I'm not objective. If you need to count youtube views, then keep in mind that he's been making many videos for many years, so make sure you count them all. I'd recommend keeping the article because John Styn does an amazing job at bridging the gap between crazy fru fru peace & love hippieisms that are central to burner culture and more ordinary world views. In short, Sytn is amongst the most effective public philosophers in a fringe but exceedingly influential subculture and has made that subculture much more accessible to the general public. I'd expect an awful lot of silicon valley movers are watching his videos, for example. Recall that Wikipedia:Notability (web) says "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Jeff Burdges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.4.176 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter influx

edit

Welcome to Halcyon twitter followers! I must say, I did chuckle at his followup tweet.

Regardless of how this discussion turns out, I hope you all stick around and become regular editors. Check out the Wikipedia:Introduction for a quick guide, and see the Wikipedia:Five pillars to grok our core philosophies and policies.

(Do note, that AfD (articles for deletion/discussion) is not a "number of supporters" process, but is entirely based on reference to our policies and guidelines. One of the cores is finding WP:Reliable sources. HTH) —Quiddity (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - This is the article I learned how to edit wiki on, and I did quite a bit of research. He is notable for a long history of accomplishments, and quite a few other things that just never turned up in the media (If I could find more references to some of his other work, it would be in there.)Pizzamancer (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Kerr

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

Fairly obvious WP:BLP1E - not notable as a cheerleader, model, or American Idol contestant, nor for her recent mini-scandal. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we've got a couple of paid editing services on the article. This publicity company [46] and this one [47] and this one [48], which look suspiciously like the same company per WP:SOCK, have edited extensively on this and related articles. I suggest a thorough investigation and hard block. Qworty (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nielsen

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

Non-notable amateur researcher and developer of crackpot theories. Does not meet notability guidelines as an academic or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zimmerman (2008) mentions Nielsen as one of three scientists / Kensington Runestone believers whose work rekindled debate during the 1990s. I'm not sure if that makes him notable or just fringe.
Zimmerman, Larry J. (2008). "Unsual or "extreme" beliefs about the past". In Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson (ed.). Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. Rowman Altamira. pp. 55–85. ISBN 978-0-7591-1054-0.
Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnotable fringer. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep - niche, maybe, but not really fringe. In fact, he has written some of the available sources debunking some of the more "fringe" stuff (from what I can tell) like this and this. This gives him some coverage but whether it could be considered a "reliable source" is the question. He and his work, though, are covered in each of these books:
I think on balance the subject probably does pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of citations are usually required for scholars. There just isn't much here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not really sure about "hundreds", but those aren't really citations anyway - they are analysis of his work. More than just, "so and so said such and such (cite)". But hey, you are free to disagree and mine was only a "weak" keep anyway... Stalwart111 (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was wondering who Trexel was. His publishers call him "Mr. Trexel" and say "William L. Traxel has researched the literary, archeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence of pre-Columbian visits and settlements in North America for over 20 years. He graduated from Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University, and has a doctorate degree from the University of Michigan. Mr. Traxel is a direct descendant of Squire Boone, the grandfather of the legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone." But if you look at the acknowledgment page of his book on Amazon he signs himself as 'Dr' and thanks the library at Poplar Bluff, Mo. He's actually an Ophthalmologist unless there's another person with the same name in Poplar Bluff.[49]. So I think we can safely discard that as meaningful.
  • William F. McNeil is a baseball historian (amateur but apparently respected in this field).
  • The book co-authored with Scott Wolter is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the above. I can't see evidence he even meets our GNG criteria. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was working on the basis that the co-authored book was a primary source - it is more regularly cited than him (until his subsequent paper disputing his own conclusions, anyway) but it is certainly not a secondary source, that's for sure. I'm not sure that McNeil is the same McNeil - there are two groups of very different books from different eras. Meh, will have another look but again, it's going to be a line ball call I think. Stalwart111 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His publishers say he is. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So they do - happy to stand corrected! Strange change of focus... but not the strangest thing I've seen in relation to this subject. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk)
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. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract detail

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

A literary term that does not seem to be an actual widespread literary term. This particular article reads like an essay, which alone would not be a unfixable problem. However, I can find no sources that actually indicate that this term is a common literary term. Searching both gbooks and gscholar gives me nothing on this concept under this name. Even the "A Glossary of Literay Terms" that is used as a reference makes no mention of this phrase, and has no entry for it. Most of this article is instead just paraphrased from their entry on "concrete and abstract". It would appear that this article is merely OR that the page creator derived from that entry, rather than any sort of established concept. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I meant it was OR more in the sense that they took the information from the Concrete and Abstract entry, and created their own literary term from it. The information may be based on a reliable source, but taking that information and then deriving their own literary term, that is not mentioned anywhere, seemed like it would be considered OR, as WP:SYNTH. I personally don't like the idea of keeping what appears to be a made up term around, even it is just as a redirect. The "A Glossary of Literary Terms" entry should definitely be added to the abstract object article as a source, though. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artworx

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

Can't find any sources on Google, Google News or Highbeam for this company or any of their products: fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Has been tagged as unsourced since October 2009. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_3&oldid=1142633702"