Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 March	15 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Chemtrail Awareness Day[edit]

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

Day of awareness promoted only by a non-notable organization. Pichpich (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Fringe event promoted by a fringe organization in support of a fringe conspiracy theory. No coverage in reliable sources, undue weight to merge or redirect anywhere else. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. The Skeptical Inquirer citation is from several years ago, so I doubt that it's about Chemtrail Awareness Day. Maybe this will become notable in the future, but I really don't see anything on Google that would lead me to believe that it's been reported on by anyone. It doesn't have to be taken seriously as long as someone takes note of its existence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Correct, the Skeptical Inquirer reference is just a backgrounder on the chemtrail conspiracy theory, and not directly related to the event this article is about. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete No evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete No indication of the slightest notability. -- 120.17.35.243 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Can't find anything in the way of reliable sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Radhakrishnan Pillai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 21:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as seems more promo than anything, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete vanity page without any claim of notability. Cavarrone 06:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Reeks of advertising and possibly WP:COI violations.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 17:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 Mythological hybrid. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Werevamp[edit]

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

Tagged as having questionable notability since April 2010. Still non-notable. Contains original research. Searches reveal only passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - the examples are almost all original research; being examples of instances where these two things have converged in popular culture, without using the term in question. Hybridism is not a new concept in science fiction or Gothic literature, but not every combination of creature X and creature Y is the subject of a notable term. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Mythological hybrid. We've already got a perfectly good article on mythological hybrids. There isn't any sourced content, so a merge isn't really appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Nailed it. Comment amended. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment This does not seem like a likely search term, so why redirect the page instead of deleting it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Unlikely but possible (given some sources use the term) and redirects are cheap. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I thought this was made up by the article creator, but I was quite surprised to find that this is actually a thing. If you do a search for the term (especially on Google Books), it turns out that a lot of people use it. The problem is that there isn't really anything to say about this; the hits are all basically trivial mentions or dictionary definitions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect per discussion above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Sarder Majibar Rahman[edit]

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

Autobiography with no indication of notability per WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. I can't find a description online in English for what the "Ideal Trustees Board"'s role is at the university, academic, administrative, or honorary. Dai Pritchard (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete It's an autobiography of a non-notable person. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Why wasn't it CSD? – nafSadh did say 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

It wasn't CSD because the lone reference implies some sort of position of honour at the university. Left it a few days, looking off and on, a bit of amateur Google translation to Bengali for search terms, etc. Came up empty handed. Hoping Bengali-speaking editors will find something showing notability, but not holding my breath. Article's WP:SPA creator has busied himself removing templates, and adding refs that don't mention him. Dai Pritchard (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Some trivial mention in some ad "news". The univ link is necessarily a primary source. But yes, i prevents speedy. – nafSadh did say 08:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - As noted by nominator and others, autobiography of non-notable person . Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - As others have said, it's a non-notable academic person with no notable achievements. It appears to be a very poor attempt at a biography of sorts, perhaps to show off to his students. User has also engaged in an edit war by removing the deletion templates and continuing to pretend like they haven't been added and re-added, despite multiple warnings on his talk page. For this, I have also suggested he be given a temporary ban. Nath1991 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete: As claimed in the article, I neither found any "fame" nor "speech" given by him and discussed in any source (primary, secondary). Not a notable figure. Educationtemple (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 keeps are piss-poor but I myself had found alot of sources on Google so I suggest you use those, Thanks). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Bali Persegi FC[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable soccer team. The sources that cover this team significantly aren't reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - it took me literally 2 seconds to find a source, did the nominator try WP:BEFORE. Seemingly played in the top-level of football in Indonesis - notable. Giant Snowman 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

GiantSnowman But did they cover the team significantly? And are they reliable? --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Per GianSnowman. IJA (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman and per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Conference for Catholic Facility Management[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, created by an employee, completely unsourced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom, I found only this news (which looks like a PR, and is hosted in a biased website) in my searches. Lacks notability, and it was created only for promotional purposes. Cavarrone 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete -- Even if the conferences have been happening regularly (and that is not clear), a meeting regualrly attneded by 1256 people is hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comberg Productions[edit]

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

Completely non notable film production company. The fact that it starts off with "amateur" should have been a clue. Clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete this non-sourcable "amateur" company as failing WP:ORG 100%. If, and I repeat IF it ever gets coverage the topic can be revisited. As it is, this article appears to be an attempt to promote the odd film Every Lidl Helps The Musical... which, even with its claimed 2010 release, has never itself made it in to any databases or received any coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. In the very few Google results, none of them look like reliable sources. Also, what looks like the author has repeatedly blanked the article. I think it is fairly uncontroversial to say that this is both non-notable and undesired. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Speedy Delete per A7 Nakon 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The Sugar Pop Show[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Only source cited is a YouTube channel whose only video has just one view as of this writing. Also, infobox contains hoax information. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
UPDATE: I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason:

Disneyland (YouTube series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FunTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fun Friday (Franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles are rife with hoax information and spelling errors. These pages are all this user (King Sugar Pop) have contributed to the wiki. User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete - Appears to be promotion of a non-notable youtube channel (zero subscribers) with what appears to be a stolen video (previously published here). KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete WP:NOTHERE, and the only contrib on the YouTube channel is a copyvio. Nate • (chatter) 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Mrschimpf: All the contribs on all this user's channels are copyvios. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete per above - Clearly reuploaded video of someone elses work!, "Subscribe 0" says it all. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete since there's no credible claim of importance. And not that it matters in this case but there is most likely an additional COI issue. Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete: No credible claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG - no sources cover this topic. Only one video and 17 YouTube views is a tell-tale sign. Esquivalience ^t 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Nakon 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Kyle Landry (pianist)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - non-notable YouTuber stub article. --The one that forgot (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - Being popular on YouTube should not be enough to justify a Wikipedia article. He does not meet any of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" at Wikipedia:Notability (music). The Gawker piece does not satisfy Criterion 1, which is "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Syek88 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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) –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Imrat Khan[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. I'm a bit puzzled to see this nomination for a musician described by the New Grove as "the greatest living exponent of the surbahar, a bass version of the sitar developed by his great-grandfather Sahabdad Khan". The very fact that he is in Grove is usually taken as implicit of notability for Wikipedia purposes. The WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not easily applicaple to Indian classical musicians, but I'm sure criterion 1, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, would be easy enough to verify. Criterion 5 is easily met, with at least four realeases on Nimbus Records. Criterion 7 also applies as he is the senior member of the Etawa Gharana school of sitar playing. Criterion 12 too – he has been broadcast by the BBC in UK and I'm sure there have been countless broadcasts in India, Pakistan and US also. Deskford (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Nomination withdrawn Deskford has convinced me, Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Nakon 01:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Parliament Street (think tank)[edit]

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

Several references but which of them are actually in-depth discussions of the think tank itself? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

KeepThere are 9 references in total each of them acts as a source to claims in the article. There is also a link to the think tank's website and its entry on the EU transparency register. Your help on tightening up the title of the article has been noted and welcomed. If you really feel that the article needs improvement, please help me to do so rather than deleting all my work so far Europa2017 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete – According to WP:ORGDEPTH, quotations from the think tank's personnel as story sources are regarded as trivial coverage, and that accounts for most of the sources in the article and what I found on Google and Google News. It does seem to be good at making FOI requests and getting coverage that way. But aside from the clergy assaults these were fairly trivial topics, like the police losing smartphones or Tweets by public servants. The EU Transparency Report link was good. It needs more sources like that. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - I think the article meets the criteria in WP:ORG - particularly, its got good examples of coverage of its substantive research reports by multiple independent, third party sources. (Although I think inclusion in the EU transparency register is so important - it's a register of organisations, so doesn't really help either way determine whether it's notable either way.) ZAccelerator (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

This is an old account, but has made no recent edits save a few to this article/this AfD. Smells fishy to me.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the organisation. All the coverage seems to be of reports produced and freedom of information requests by the think tank, not any actual coverage of the think tank itself that an article about the organisation itself can be written from. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete No evidence of notablity.

Delete or WP:USERFY. Subject has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, however none appear to have the subject as the primary subject of what is being written, and none appear to give the subject significant coverage sufficient to show that the subject of this article presently meets WP:ORG. Therefore, perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. If the primary editor would like to userfy this article, and research to find more sources, I would not be opposed to that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Nakon 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Dave Gelperin[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. I was unable to find any sources for him. He is mentioned at Software_testing#History implying that he and a colleague (William_C._Hetzel) are important in the history of software testing, but I was unable to find anything significant on either of them and it seemed that their contributions had been exaggerated. Anyone as significant as claimed in Software testing->History would likely have a publication that was cited thousands of times in Google scholar, not hundreds at most. --Padenton (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- The fact that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC is unsurprising given he's an industrialist involved in working groups, conferences and consultancy, not a "publish or perish" academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep – I fixed the dead link to his bio and added three sources. It's kind of hard to find sources for that long ago, but it seems that the firm that he founded with Hetzel (who wrote an influential book on testing) was in fact influential in establishing testing as a separate discipline in the 1980s and 1990s. The – Margin1522 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Can you provide a source for their company being influential in establishing testing as a separate discipline? --Padenton (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Yes, it's in the article. The history of software testing – Margin1522 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/g/Gelperin:David finds the following papers:
- David Gelperin, Bill Hetzel: The Growth of Software Testing. Commun. ACM 31(6): 687-695 (1988)
- David Gelperin: A software test documentation standard. SIGDOC 1982: 61-63
- David Gelperin: On the Optimality of A*. Artif. Intell. 8(1): 69-76 (1977)
- David Gelperin: A Resolution-Based Proof Procedure Using Deletion-Directed Search. IEEE Trans. Computers 25(4): 323-327 (1976)
- David Gelperin: Deletion-Directed Search in Resolution-Dased Proof Procedures. IJCAI 1973: 47-50

In addition, http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Gelperin finds

- David Gelperin: Modeling_Alternative_Courses_in_Detailed_Use_Cases. January 2003.

These are consistent with the (decently-cited) claims made in the article that Gelperin was active in the software testing field. The Conf. on Software Testing and the STAR conference work are definite marks of notability. I'd agree with Margin1522 that this was a while back, but since notability is not temporary it shouldn't be a problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

None of those papers have a high number of citations. --Padenton (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush[edit]

Article Re-moved to: List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
- Article moved to: Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:55, 15 March; 12:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Note This article has now had at least four distinct names in a period of only four days. Possibly thirty names before this AfD is closed at this rate. This might be deemed an eensy bit excessive. Collect (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[]

(Note: Others requested that "members" not be used and now it has been removed, an amenable and collegial response to community concerns by the article editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[]

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

The article is fundamentally flawed. It claims that the individuals listed were "members" of an organization, but only one of them is listed on the organization's website as members of the group's board of directors or as staff members. These individuals signed one of two documents produced by the organization. Describing them as "members" of the organization is WP:OR.

This article exists to make a political point. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note This topic has been the subject of ~~canvassing~~ or whatever you want to call it at Jimbo's talk page by Collect. He did not notify the editors whose edits and behavior he was discussing and misrepresenting. This AfD is the direct result of that discussion.

Submit it at WP:AFD. I would support deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:45 pm, 13 March 2015, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this...[big quote removed] "So here I stand. I can do no other." Collect (talk) 9:36 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)
... I have created an AFD nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. GabrielF (talk) 10:40 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. Collect (talk) 10:46 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

The two "drama board" discussions referred to above are: The first BLPN thread opened by Collect on 7 Feb and the most recent BLPN thread opened by Collect on 13 March. Jbh (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Accusation makes no sense; consult WP:ATTACK Check the timeline. Conversation on the Talk page PRECEDED the opening of this AfD. In point of fact, the suggestion and opening of this AfD was generated on the Talk page. Canvassing would be pinging or selective notification of editors that an AfD is open or will open. Editor in question did neither, and expressed doubt an AfD would work. Utterly baseless accusation, and disruptive of debate here. As is renaming list. Cut it out.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Agree with the comments of User:Anonymous209.6 JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Struck canvass however the issue still stands. Jbh (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

?!?!? Issue??? What "issue"? Beyond the baseless and nonsensical ad hominem of "Canvassing", which has a meaning and is a WP policy, you are accusing Collect of ... let me be precise... of "whatevering". I am fairly confident that "whatevering" is not a WP guideline, nor a WP policy, nor even "sensical" to an speaker of English. Absent the now struck "canvassing", there is no "there" in "whatever".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Since you want me to be specific I accuse him of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning of the issues he has with this article when he opened two simultaneous discussions without notifying any of the involved parties. I did not and have not said he canvassed for the AfD. The canvassing was going on before and during the AfD. The AfD was a direct result of his non-neutral presentation at Jimbo's UT. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)The discussion on Jimbo's page was opened nine minuted before the discussion at BLPN. Neither presented the topic in a neutral way and none of the concerned parties were notified. I did not find the discussion on Jimbo's page until I posted notice of it. There is no good faith that needs to be assumed on this. That discussion was going on for 73 hrs before I happened on it. Collect was cut/paste quoting me as well as discussing other editors here in relation to this topic that entire time. Jbh (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Please do not change your comments AFTER they have been rebutted and/or commented on by other editors. Please consult WP pages on refactoring. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Sorry I thought underlining inserted comments was the proper way to do it. The edit summary said (mod cm w underlined textt) I did forget to add the additional signature and have corrected that. To make everything perfectly clear I added a note below Collect's reply to refer to the modified text. I should have done that before. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Um -- I posted on UT Jimbo. I did not start this AfD in any way, and your apparent accusation that I managed using tachyon technology(?) to cause its creation is ... interesting. Collect (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note I modified my text above with underlined text to make what I was saying more clear. Per Anonymous209.6's note above. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Anonymous209.6: A huge number of comments below are discussion of a proper name for the list. Calling edits to improve an article 'disruptive' is questionable at best. Jbh (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Multiple name changes in a short period of time is a priori proof the changes were poorly thought through. While name changes can be done without proper notification and consultation in cases that are UNcontroversial, there can hardly be a non-risible argument that this article is one of those cases. Could you point me to your RfC on any of these? --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Anonymous209.6 To what is it that you refer as "proper notification"? Are you claiming that none was provided? Or that we didn't follow the proper procedure?

Where is the policy that states that an RfC is necessary to move and article during an AfD? Or that "consultation" is required? Can you pplease provide a link to that policy?

Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page "If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves", which redirects to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. Sorry, but this is REALLY basic WP:ETIQUETTE.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The name changes, which were initiated in response to concerns raised in the course of this discussion and were discussed with Alanscottwalker, an editor that is more familiar with this process than JBH or myself, were carried out in good faith.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note This article has beem moved to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC per issues stated below about ambiguity of 'associated with'. The term 'members' is still questioned by some below. Jbh (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete SYNTH in making a claim that anyone who signs anything at all related to an organization is therefore a "member" of that organization. Uses such wonderful sources as Lewrockwell.com for conspiracy articles making such assertions. Violates WP:BLP by making implications that living persons engaged in a conspiracy. Violates WP:NPOV by failing to include a whit of balancing material about any person. Violates WP:RS by using sources which are clearly not usable for contentious claims about living persons. Uses the classic "guilt by association" fallacy through use of a table "connecting" individuals who are not otherwise "connected." And so on. I believe the proper term here is "POV pushing list making a POINT". To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. ~~A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today.~~ It is noted that personal anecdotes have no relationship to policy, and at least one editor interprets this as attacking him personally, even though it was given only to show my personal state of mind about such SYNTH usage Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (emended to make clear the personal issue I have was historical, and not a personal accusation in any way, shape or form, about any editor on Wikipedia using such WP:SYNTH as such) Collect (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

OK, a couple things:

It has not been established that there is any SYNTH/OR in this article. In fact the current discussion over at BLP/N seems to be leaning the other way, since you have refused or been unable to point out an actual/recognizable piece of SYNTH/OR in this article. You've also failed to make a convincing/intelligible case for this table being SYNTH or OR here, here, here and here.
There are many reliable, secondary sources cited in the article which both verify and verify the notability of the connections the table draws. Most or all of these sources are reliable, scholarly monographs, and each of them makes the same type of connection between individuals "connected" with PNAC in one way or another, and those same individuals' "connection" to the George W Bush administration. I'd urge everyone to check out the citations in the article (especially the quotes in the footnotes), where you'll find lists much like the one the table represents. See this source, this source, and this source for just a couple of examples. The table summarizes these sources, it does not synthesize them, and those same sources speak to the verifiability and notability of this article's content.
You'll have to explain where in the article there is any mention of conspiracy theories, any "guilt by association," or any POV pushing. I see none of those things (and neither do most of the people in the discussions I linked above), so I think you need to be a lot more specific.
I gather you have a problem with the Rockwell source - may I assume since they are mostly peer-reviewed, scholarly books, and since you haven't explained why you deem them unreliable, that the other 15+ citations are OK?

Sorry, but this article/question has been discussed to death in multiple forums/talk pages, and you have not demonstrated that any of the claims you make above are true. Please point to specific evidence of these claims. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Question: Did the nominator read the quoted references in the article, which appear to be multiple books from publishers that are usually RS? How is it possible that OR, which is when one does not have such RS, apply? As for the name of the article, AfD is not for changing article names. Also, did the nominator read the discussion at WP:BLPN which appears by consensus to reject Collect's claims? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Generally when an editor feels the need to add fifteen citations to one sentence, it's a good sign that something controversial is going on. I am not disputing the fact that these individuals signed these two documents, that is well cited. WP:OR comes into play because the list jumps from "this person signed a letter that the organization put together" to "this person is a member of the organization". GabrielF (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

You have not read the sources then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I've looked at the sources. Mostly they describe these individuals as signatories.GabrielF (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

You mean as signatories to the principles of the organization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

So, if an organization publishes an open letter to a politician and gathers signatures from individuals and allied groups, that means that those signatories are "members" of the organization? Can we say that 4Chan is a member of the EFF because it signed its letter on surveillance? There are plenty of letters on, say, FCC policy that are signed by groups on both the left and the right. Organization's frequently use letters as a tool to advance a policy position. That doesn't mean that everyone who signs the letter is a member of the organization, only that they agree with what's in the letter.GabrielF (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

If multiple high quality RS describe them as such then we do. Is there something in policy that says we do not describe people as RS do? Jbh (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

It is evident you are hung up on "members" (which as noted below with the sourcing is, at the very least, not far from an ordinary paraphrase of the sources). We don't delete article that have quibbles about singular words. Moreover, not letter - statement of principles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

There is both a statement of principles and a 1998 letter to Clinton on Iraq. Some people listed signed one, some signed the other, some signed both. The inclusion criteria for the list are (implicitly) signing either the statement of principles or the letter to Clinton. We certainly do delete lists if the inclusion criteria for the list is based on OR or SYNTH.GabrielF (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Neither OR nor Synth exist when the RS make the list - the inclusion criteria was demonstrably not invented by Wikipedians here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Merge~~/Keep~~ - Struck Keep - The POV Fork issue has become overwhelming and pervasive. Such was not the intention of the article and the primary issues brought up with including it in the PNAC article were BLP and SYNTH which I still believe this material does not violate __ I changed my !vote to Merge/Keep based on the discussion below. Particularly on the need for context and to prevent the formation of a POV Fork. Also see my several comments below. Policy basis for !vote: List passes requirements for WP:LISTPEOPLE. Using the term 'members' to identify these people is compliant with WP:POVNAMING. Saying what multiple RS say in not a WP:BLP violation. Sources directly support the conections. Does not violate WP:SYNTH.The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. Collect claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one.
These very issues are being discussed at BLPN and were discussed in the past here, here, here and here Jbh (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- Your assertion that I only find lewrockwell to be a problem is incorrect and inapt, and seems more of an ad hom attack on me than a defense of the article. And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt. If you find my distaste for McCarthyism to be "emotional" - damn straight it is emotional for anyone who knew people whose lives were destroyed. "Touching anecdote" is not the case here - and I find such dismissiveness of McCarthyism as "touching anecdotes" to be quite offensive. Tell me when someone makes a "touching anecdote" by destroying someone you know that it is just a mere "touching anecdote." By that argument, Hiroshima is a mere "touching anecdote". If one is willing to destroy others, then such people would not give a damn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  - Since you only brought up the lewrockwell source and presented it as representative of the sourcing I would say my comment is spot on. If you would care to bring up specific issues with how other sources are used other sources fine. I did not dismiss McCarthyism and your attempt to re-frame my comment is yet another attempt to drive this discussion from policy to emotion. Yes, here on Wikipedia, personal accounts are all pretty much "touching anecdotes". As to my my "touching anecdotes" of friends "destroyed" I do not know you well enough to discuss those and I would never cheapen those memories to score points in an on line debate. We are done on that particular topic. Jbh (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
    - What an interesting form of debate --you first say that "touching anecdotes" mean nothing here - then you say that by honouring those memories I am "cheapening" them! People had their lives utterly destroyed by McCarthyism - but you seem to view that seeking to stop the "guilt by association" argument that I am "cheapening" their memories! Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? For myself, I do not regard the belief that "guilt by association" is intrinsically wrong "cheapens" anything at all - indeed, it is what gives value to life itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

This is way off topic now. If the problems in the article are as clear-cut as you claim, Collect, you should be able to point to specific information in the article that you have a problem with, and to specific wikipedia guidelines/policies which that material violates. Please do so, rather than trying to bring in unrelated personal anecdotes or trying to compare this discussion to McCarthyism (which, as a defender of the article, I am inclined to take as both uncivil and a personal attack). It's certainly a spurious analogy, as Alanscottwalker has already clearly explained to you below. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Collect Use your memories as you will. I did not and would not suggest otherwise. I merely point out that your life experiences and worldview are nothing more than a POV as far as editing Wikipedia is concerned. This is now the third time you have questioned my personal motives on this page. You really need to stop doing that, it is becoming an issue. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

It is indeed George Santayana's statement which comes to mind here - yes -- remembering the past is a mere "worldview" of no value to any editor on Wikipedia. We should allow people to push editing concepts which were abandoned in the 50s because -- no one cares. I am not questioning your "personal motives" at all, nor have I questioned your personal motives or the personal motives of others. I do question those who are proud of not remembering what we collectively learned in the past, of those who feel any majority has the ability to override Wikipedia non-negotiable policy, such as "we can now use any connection at all to link people as "members" of groups, even though that has been shown to be one of the world's worst concepts in the past. In fact, you are welcome to assert that ignoring the past is a wonderful concept philosophically - I know many who feel that way. I don't. Collect (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)@Collect: Enough with the innuendo. Who exactly are you accusing of "pushing editing concepts which were abandoned in the 50s" (ie, comparing to McCarthy?). Either be specific, or stop making statements that can be construed as completely unwarranted, malicious attacks on the people you've been arguing with. And get off your high horse, please, this debate is in no way comparable to McCarthyism. Trying to make that connection/comparison just makes it all the more clear that you've lost perspective, and are not thinking clearly about the topic at hand. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Being opposed to "guilt by association" is a pretty good "high horse." Collect (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Collect: Please point out exactly what "guilt" this table imparts, and where. And you didn't answer my question: who are you referring to? You need to either back up your accusations (and state specifically who you are accusing), or remove them. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I accused no one. That you take umbrage at my position is unfortunate, indeed. See [1] "Guilt by association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an appeal to misleading Authority, which argues in favor of an idea based upon associating a favored person or group with the idea, whereas guilt by association argues against an idea based upon associating it with a disfavored person or group." If I listed some Muslim members of a prayer group in Washington D.C., and then connected the prayer group with (say) an extreme group which had two "members" in that prayer group, even if their connection was absolutely de minimis, I would be using "guilt by association." Is the meaning of "guilt by association" clear? We saw its effects in the past - I am unwilling to have it be a principle accepted on Wikipedia - for anyone of any religion, political or religious belief, gender status etc. whatsoever. Cheers. I trust this elucidates my stance. Collect (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The table does not say, or indicate anywhere, that the people listed supported all of PNAC's ideas or actions. In fact, it clearly notes which PNAC statements and policy positions the individuals listed signed. Or is pointing out that someone signed a document (indicating their approval of what it said) now also "Guilt by Association?" Fyddlestix (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

There is no need guys to respond to this. I am sure you who created this article are not Macarthyite's And Collect having made your analogy to McCathyism that others find absurd or offensive, it is done. We are not here to prove to you that we don't like McCarthyism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Speedy~~ Keep/Merge Here are just a few of the high-quality sources and excerpts of relevant passages.[emphasis added]

From ‘’US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine’’, Alex Miles, Routledge, 2014
PNAC was a victory for the ‘young Turks’, and its manifesto called for ‘American global leadership’… Included in those who signed up to PNAC and its principles were key officials in the George W. Bush administration, such as Rumsfled, Libby, Wolfowitz, Cheney and John Bolton.
PNAC members vigorously promoted its agenda for extending US unipolarity by appearing before Congressional Committees, promulgating their message in the media and sending open letters to the Clinton White House.
From another peer-reviewed book (Cambridge University Press)Presidential Saber Rattling: Causes and Consequences, B. Dan Wood, 2012
The 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton was signed by Donald Rumsfled, Paul wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Amitage, Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Zoellick, Peter Rodman, and Zalmay Khalilzad. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were signers of he PNAC Statement of Principles issues on June 3, 1997 (Project for New American Century, 1997). Of course, all of these names should be familiar as important foreign policy officials of the Bush administration.
From peer-reviewed scholarly paper, “War Programming: The Propaganda Project and the Iraq War” published in The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005):
“The PNAC was very influential in changing U.S. foreign policy as well as promoting favorable news coverage about going to war with Iraq following the attacks of 9/11. The Iraq War was informed by these efforts and the resulting propaganda campaign to convince the American people that attacking Iraq was tantamount to attacking ‘terrorists’ and others who threatened the United States (Armstrong 2002). This organization was closely related to several other prominent think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), with its offices located on the fifth floor of the AEI’s Washington building. Many members of the PNAC joined the Bush administration and became credible claims makers, who constructed the frames for shaping subsequent news reports.
--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

How about George Packer in The New Yorker:

A commenter I assume to be Gary Schmitt, the former executive director and current senior fellow at the Project for the New American Century, writes to take me to task for my characterization of the organization, saying that PNAC contributed no staff or board members to the Bush Administration. Schmitt is right. I was thinking of the signatories to its statement of principles and its letters on regime change in Iraq—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and Richard Armitage—none of whom held formal positions in PNAC. I regret the error.[2]

Packer is, of course, not a fan of either PNAC or the Bush administration. His quote here suggests that one can list signatories of the PNAC documents, but that using the term "members" implies a formal relationship with the organization, which was not the case.GabrielF (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Looks like we can cite that as a quoted opinion but it is only one source vs many. Would you care to suggest another term to define this notable confluence of PNAC 'whatevers' Please supply your preferred term and posts in Bush II. This seems to be a naming dispute the list is compliant with WP:LISTPEOPLE and the relationships are notable per RS. Do you have issues other than the use of "members"? We started with "associated with" but it was kind of meh. Jbh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The fundamental issue here is that while many serious people make the point that many individuals who had some association with PNAC went on to senior positions in the Bush Administration, that same argument is used by conspiracy theorists to advance fringe beliefs. These include the 9/11 truth movement as well as people who believe that Jews control the government. Given this context, Wikipedia should be very careful to accurately describe PNAC and the relationship that it had with the people on this list. This was a very small organization with a small board of directors, a tiny staff and a limited budget (certainly compared with, say, CFR, CSIS, Brookings, WINEP, etc.). It lasted for about a decade. It had the ability to attract big-name signatures on some letters, but signing a statement of principles is different (legally and practically) from serving on an organization's board of directors.

I would argue that, given that the PNAC article already lists the signatories of the statement of principles, a separate list belabors the point. I have no problem with the text of the PNAC article stating that many prominent conservative foreign policy thinkers signed its statement of principles or its letter regarding Iraq. I have no problem saying that many of those signatories went on to prominent positions in the Bush administration. I do have a problem implying that there was a formal relationship between PNAC and these individuals when there was not. GabrielF (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@GabrielF: The 'formal relationship' point is a good one and to an extent I agree. That is why 'associated with' was used. There was a lot of feedback that 'associated with' was too loose a term and it was not the most prevalent term used in RS. I moved the article to a title using 'members'. While I agree the implication of 'format relationship' could be problimatic we are not the ones making that implication as has been shown repeatedly it is the RS that call them 'members'. Overall a MERGE might be a good result because there would be more context. The reason it is not a separate article is because Collect has brought the issue of the information five times in the last month regardless of the consensus reached in any prior discussion. See the fourth paragraph in this discussion for a list of prior discussions in the last 30 days.

As to the 'conspiracy theory' issue, what crackpost think is not a reason to limit content. The conspiracy angle can be addressed and dismissed by RS in the prose or the article or by context if MERGEd into the PNAC article.Jbh (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)It's easier just to focus on WEIGHT than a one-off, less than clear statement in terms of supporting what the target is, by introducing higher quality sources that represent the overwhelming mainstream view. Here is another academic source.

In an open letter to President Bill Clinton on January 26, 1998, several prominent members of PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, James Woolsey, Paul Wolofowitz, and William Bennett urged the president to remove “Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” (PNAC, 1998).First Impressions, Second Thoughts: Reflections on the Changing Role of Think Tanks in U.S. Foreign Policy, Abelson, Critical Issues of Our Time, v.8, Center for American Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2011

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

GabrielF You are presenting arguments against the reliably published statements found in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Does it need to be specifically pointed out as to which of those matters in terms of content creation policies on Wikipedia?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete First, like the WMF is not a membership organization, the PNAC was not a membership organization, and any source claiming that it had "members" is too sloppy to be used by a serious encyclopedia---but apparently with sufficient truthiness to satisfy WP:NotTruth. So, the title and the references are misleading about "membership". Second, the inclusion criteria with Bush are incredibly vague. "Associated with" could include endorsing, opposing, donating money to, making fun of, etc. The parent article on the PNAC has already been plagued by sourcing from conspiracy theorists, who seek to blame a 5-employee letterhead organization for overpowering the Pentagon and CIA and NSA and State Department and all the NGOS in Washington---and in the UK, etc.---for the Bush_2 War with Saddam Hussein. Dear ODear 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Insofar as the notability and other requirements for a "stand-alone list" article are met, the specific inclusion criteria and naming do not seem to be grounds for asserting deletion. There is already a discussion regarding the name/move.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

For comparison, consider the hypothetical List of WMF members associated with pornography---although I know of only one WMF Board Member who has been termed a "pornographer" by The Guardian[3] and presumably at least another reliable source. There are plenty of RSes about the WMF Commons and pornography. I suspect that WP would not allow such a list. Dear ODear 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Dear ODear ODear: So you have an issue with the title of the table and the wording used. Are you aware that there's a discussion about altering both the wording and the title underway on the article's talk page right now? You're making an argument that would be helpful over there, rather than an argument for deletion. You also say that the "inclusion criteria" is "incredibly vague" - but there are multiple reliable sources which make the same connections, and their inclusion criteria is quite clear (as the table indicates): the people listed either worked for PNAC, signed its Statement of Principlies or signed a key PNAC policy statement (such as the 1998 letter to Clinton). There are like 15 sources in the article that make the inclusion criteria for drawing such connections crystal clear, and which testify to the notability of those connections. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Breaking this out as a list, by divorcing it from its context, makes it essentially a POV fork of Project for the New American Century. The title isn't a likely search term, so there's no reason to leave a redirect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

As has been pointed out above, it meets the notability and other requirements as a stand-alone list.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Tom harrison: Isn't that an argument for merging it into Project for the New American Century rather than for deletion? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete It's repeating the same information in Project for the New American Century without context. the inclusion criteria is also to vague and likely a BLP violation. A defunct organization for 10 years and inclusion criteria being a document signed 20 years ago is not sufficient to support a list. It's not evolving and it's covered in the unchanging pnac article. The points in the document are so vague now and so old that virtually every U.S. politician holds those views. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Just an FYI DHeyward this table was in the PNAC article until recently, where there is considerably more context and a nuanced discussion of what these connections actually represent/mean. The article was only spun out because of Collect's obstinate refusal to recognize/accept the consensus in numerous discussions that there's no OR/SYNTH here. Personally, I would rather see it merged back into the PNAC article where it can be properly contextualized.

As for inclusion criteria, check the quotes in the sources - multiple reliable sources make their inclusion criteria for the same/similar lists very clear, and the table uses the exact same criteria. Those same sources also testify to the notability of the connections (and the table). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment, further to mine above that Wikipedians did not create the inclusion criteria:

Jan. 26, 1998 - Hawks Send Open Letter to Clinton
A group of neo-conservatives, who have formed The Project for a New American Century, argue for a much stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through "military strength and moral clarity."
In an open letter to Clinton, the group warns that the policy of containing Iraq is "dangerously inadequate." . . .
The letter's signatories include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other current members of George W. Bush's administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton. [4]

PBS Frontline The War Behind Closed Doors: Chronology of Evolution of the Bush Doctrine --Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep and/or Merge into Project for the New American Century. I feel that there can be no question as to the table's notability, verifiability and consistency with wikipedia's policies/guidelines:

The sources are all right there (15 of them), and most/all of those contain a list that is very similar to the one in the table.
These lists note that many people have been "connected" (in one way or another) to both PNAC and the George W Bush administration, they list some of the individuals so connected (listing the same names that are in the article), and they note the type/basis of connection (which is also noted in the third column of the article).
The article simply summarizes the 15+ reliable sources that are referenced in the article.

That Said: I feel that the table needs to be properly explained/contextualized, and that this can not happen when it is a stand-alone list article. I believe it should be merged back into the main article on PNAC, where the table can be balanced/countered with a broader discussion of what various academic scholars have said these connections mean and represent.

Look at the last sentence of the second paragraph here to get an idea what I mean. The table itself is fine, well documented, notable, and (contrary to what some argue above) it has not been shown to violate any wikipedia guidelines or policies. But it does need to be paired with a broader discussion to avoid the impression of making an argument (in wikipedia's voice) that the totality of the literature on PNAC does not support. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I think that the article provides ample context, and since the idea was to provide a sublist (not "stand-alone", I was mistaken though it meets the notablity criteria) linked to the article, it should be easy enough to refer to the article for context.

It also seems that the range of opinions is not that diverse, so detailed or broad discussion would be limited by DUE/WEIGHT. Statements to the effect that the influence has been exaggerated are of limited utility, because has been expounded upon. I've seen a couple of other descriptions that they were more mainstream than is thought, but that doesn't hold up with respect to Iraq, which is the topic upon which the vast majority of scrutiny is focused.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Potential compromise[edit]

I suggest the following as a compromise. Create an article titled List of signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles. For each entry in that list, have one column for the person's position at the time of the writing, and a second column for their subsequent career. Use text in the lede to explain that the document attracted many prominent signatories amongst conservative foreign policy thinkers and that many of these went on to positions of influence in the Bush administration. This has the following advantages:

The article is framed in a broader way than just "look how many of these guys went into the administration". It establishes the facts without appearing to exist only to make a point.
It provides relevant context. It shows the total number of signatories, not just the number who went into the administration. The current list includes people who had minor roles in the Bush Administration, but were principally outside of government during those years (e.g. Francis Fukuyama who was on a bioethics panel). By listing all of their subsequent activities we can show readers exactly what people did during these years, and whether their work in government was a small part of their life or a big part.
By clearly stating the signer's association to the group in the title ("signatory"), it avoids giving the impression that people had a formal relationship with the group when they did not.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. This one, in my opinion, runs into some of the very problems alleged in the article under discussion. I am afraid that OR and SYNTH could be an issue due to tying too many things together. For instance we would be drawing attention to career trajectories that the sources do not. Also the RS do not comment on "whether their work in government was a small part of their life or a big part". That would also be OR and SYNTH.

The list as it stands consists of people who either signed the Statement of Principles or The 1998 Letter to President Clinton on Iraq so the title is problematic. Just using 'Signatories' does not work because there are about a dozen other letters put out by PNAC that RS do not tie to getting a position in the administration. There are also 50+ people who signed those other letters. I suspect that because of how hard it is to concisely specify the group of people who signed the two significant documents RS have settled on 'members'. After addressing the issues I mentioned we end up with the article as it exists plus a much better lead. Which I heartily agree with. How would you address these issues?

Ultimately this article is intended to be linked from the PNAC article where the issue of influence on Bush II Administration and foreign policy is discussed. That is once the complaints about OR and SYNTH which brought us here are addressed. This is intended to be a sub-article of The Project for the New American Century not a POV fork of it as has been suggested in the section above. Again, thank you for helping to find a middle ground. Jbh (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

To be clear, my proposal would simply state the facts of a person's career. For Francis Fukuyama, it would list his appointments over the relevant time period. I do not see an OR issue. We have many lists that state basic biographical information about people (dates of birth and death, education, occupation, etc). In fact, I see it as far less OR to describe Fukuyama's primary academic job, than to list only his association with a bioethics panel.

I do not see a problem with either two separate articles or two separate tables: one for the statement of principles and one for the Iraq letter. The only issue that I see is that the title becomes unwieldy. I would expect that a lede paragraph would explain the particular historical significance of these two documents.

I think that the advantages of my proposal outweigh the concerns.GabrielF (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note that the "List of Signatories" is already in the PNAC article - thus that is an irrelevant remedy. The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. And the "other letters" are, AFAICT, improper bases to assert "membership" of any sort to any person. Collect (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Damn you think I am trying "to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. That is a pretty strong accusation. Back it up or strike it. Jbh (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I said nothing of the sort about you. I would ask you to look at the massive set BLP violations formerly in the PNAC article. Including the implicit accusations of seeking biological warfare and genocide. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Collect: I am the one that created this article from the pre-existing list. You state "The purpose of this article..." that is a direct accusation. I am willing to accept that you 'misspoke' however, you need to strike that as it reads as a direct attack on my personal motives. I simply will not have such an accusation stand, whether intended or not. Thank you for your understanding.

I was part of the consensus to remove the "seeking biological..." material as well as other material that was objectionable. There is no such material in this article. Just because I strongly disagree with you on some things does not mean I disagree with you on everything. Jbh (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I referred to the PNAC article - I had not thought that you created it - nor would I expect you to defend the genocide and biological warfare implications which had been in that article. I, in fact, listed the full "prior state" on a noticeboard to show just how poor an article the PNAC was in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Well enough. The state of the PNAC article was indeed terrible a month ago. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

improvement on the original list, and it address my two stated concerns. On the other hand, it seems to have the same problem as List of pornographers who have been officers or employees of the WMF.Dear ODear 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I have no idea what you're trying to argue by linking that Dear ODear. Please consult the sources in the article, which clearly establish that lists of people "connected" (however you want to word that) to PNAC and "connected" to the GWB admin appear in multiple reliable sources. This is not a random/nonsensical category that has been invented without basis. Many, many RS compile the same or similar lists. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge with Project for the New American Century. I'm not sure why we need this article, as it seems like an article based on a Venn diagram. The PNAC article discusses the group's connections with the Bush administration, so this can be part of that discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The full salient list of signatories is already in the PNAC article - by "merge" are you suggesting that each person be named at least twice? Collect (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I doubt that will happen unless the person doing the merge has WP:COMPETENCE issues. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete The article has an implicit point of view: that there is a connection between involvement in the PNAC and later membership in the Bush administration. A more reasonable approach would be to list all the people involved in the PNAC, mention their involvement in the Bush administration, then provide sources on whether this information is notable. But all of that would belong in the PNAC article. TFD (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge ~~or Keep~~ No substantiated policy reason is given to throw away all this work entirely, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. The OR and SYNTH objections are without merit even to the term "members" given the sourcing and the words the sources use (thus, no BLP issue). The FORK issue, while having perhaps more purchase, is not sustained in the body of the list article where there is no Wikipedia POV shown, just a recitation of facts: these people did this and this. In short, these relatively few people notably articulated the governing principles of the group and/or as sourced signed on to a notable piece of lobbying of government by the group, and later were notably in government - in a way the sources draw a direct notable line between. All that is well sourced, and yes both overlapping sets can be discussed and identified by name in the merge candidate ~~or as a sub-list-article, which appears to have been the intent.~~ (Naming issues should be addressed elsewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) [The creating-editor of the article supports a merge and so 'keep' is struck, in the interest of supporting creating editors.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)][]
- Yes, a sub-list-article was the intent when this article was created. Jbh (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete There is no freestanding list of Signatories to Statement of Principles, as both the list and the article are sufficiently short that they are contained within the main article. The utility of a freestanding list within a list, when a breakout of the entire list cannot be justified escapes me.

WP:NPOV and WP:FORK - that several WP:RS exist that allege that PNAC had an outsized influence on Bush administration policy, and they list those signatories that subsequently were appointed is not in dispute. This is mentioned in the article, and the existence of these WP:RS make that justifiable, but WP:NPOV dictates that this be balanced in the article, which it is. The creation of this new list is, in essence, a "do-over" of the WP:NPOV and WP:DUE debate. Further, WP:RS that list the Bush administration appointees that were signatories are also making the argument that there was outsized influence, and those that disagree generally do not think the argument to be valid, and do NOT list the appointees. The list is a proxy for a point of view, and as a standalone list is a WP:FORK.

Lists are a navigational aid. They are not meant to DIRECT readers to a viewpoint or thesis. The list with wikilinked names contained within the PNAC article, (where it is most useful) is more than sufficient for any legitimate purpose to direct readers to further look up individuals that were signatories. Readers can already effortlessly check if signatories served in any administration or think tank.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Yes, it is essentially a do over of the previous 4 debates, where there was consensus to have the table and information in the article. (see multiple diffs above for these discussions) The reason for the 'do over' is that a single editor would not accept the consensus of the prior debates and kept removing the table and starting new discussions at BLPN and on the talk page of the PNAC article. As has been repeated ad nauseam, the list passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. It serves an encyclopedic purpose beyond the simple list of directors and Statement of Principles signatories currently in the article. That encyclopedic purpose is verified as notable by multiple reliable sources. I do agree that this list would be better in the article to avoid a POV Fork. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Neither correct nor accurate - as JBH knows, I was not the only one to remove the BLP violations, so accusing me of being the only editor against a vast array of "everyone else" is more than a tad incorrect. And the problem was mainly with an editor who expressly has voiced his position that he would add innumerable other names to this current "list." If we have a list of "members" of an organization who are not members of that organization then we are instantly violating Wikipedia policies. Which I had thought was simple logic. And note that consensus can not override policies - the concept that any simple majority can ignore policy is detrimental to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)Yes, others were removing some BLP. Yes the initial list was bad. Yes there was a poorly sourced list of 'signed one letter or contributed a paper'. All of that was, to my knowledge, removed during the first discussion. The issue is not consensus overriding policy it is consensus overriding your view of policy. That is the whole point of consensus and you are a senior and talented enough editor to know that. Jbh (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Two letters have been the main focus of the sources: Statement of Principles, and PNAC Iraq letter to the Clinton White House. And I have seen two other's mentioned in this context: Rebuilding America's Defenses, and the letter to Clinton on Kosovo.

I don't believe that there was ever an attempt to put people on the list that hadn't signed one of those and served in the Bush administration, and all of those that did so should be included on the list, assuming there is a source to support that.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per nominator - original research and misrepresentation of the sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note This article has beem moved to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC per issues stated below about ambiguity of 'associated with'. The term 'members' is still questioned by some below. Jbh (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment The hasty rename in the middle of deletion discussion seems desperate and confusing. Nevertheless, it was done. As a consequence, Dick Cheney is not a political appointee as he was an elected official and no longer qualifies to be in a list of political appointees. I've removed his name. There may be others that no longer meet that criteria. --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@DHeyward: ~~Please use quotes rather than simply duplicating my comments. PROD says an article can be improved and the reason for the move was noted as a response to feedback here~~. ~~Your comment is rude.~~ Jbh (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure what you are seeing as rude. It wasn't intended so I apologize for any offense. Article moves are discouraged but allowed. The guideline for moving an article during deletion discussion is to put the notice at the top and bottom. I don't know why quote marks are important but I don't mind them. The only relevant pieces are the name of the new article and the date stamp so the reviewing admin can gauge the comments relative to the move date. --DHeyward (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

My error and I apologize. I have struck my comment and restored the 'Note"

Delete I'm not seeing why this merits a separate list, a paragraph or two on the main Project for the New American Century showing how many signatories became members of the George Bush administration could be done, but not a separate article. Davewild (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

DHeyward The move may have been a little hasty, but it's easy to move again to one of the other two options that were under discussion. I've re-moved the article to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush, per earlier Talk discussion. Someone else can restore Cheney to the list.

Davewild All you have to do is look at the sources to see that the List passes the notability critieria of a stand-alone list, even if it is to serve as a sublist linked to the main article.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. This article is highly misleading. The title indicates that it's about certain PNAC members, but the fine print says "members or signatories of the Statement of Principles...." People sign petitions all the time without being members of the sponsoring organization. Incidentally, again referring to the title, it seems rather dehumanizing to use the word "that" instead of "who".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Anythingyouwant: As has been mentioned above already - there's an ongoing discussion underway about renaming the article. Do you see any reason for deleting the article other than the name? Cause the name can (and probably will) be altered, or (as I advocate) folded back into the PNAC article (with a different, more accurate title) if the article survives this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Affirmative. Why is this list about only a subset of signatories? It makes no sense to me. You could have a list of only those signatories who have more than three children, and I'd !vote to delete that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Fyd: The editors of this article can change the name, right now, it's obvious there are objections to it, your choice see, WP:SOFIXIT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)@Anythingyouwant: Fair enough. I would point out, however, that there aren't a lot of reliable sources making lists of signatories who have three children, whereas there are a significant number of reliable sources making lists of people who were associated in one way or another with both PNAC and the GWB admin. It's not like this is an arbitrary category or was pulled out of thin air - there are multiple RS that make the same connections. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

There are reliable sources that point out Bugs Bunny smirked,[5] but I don't think we need a Wikipedia list of animated smirkers. I just think this list is very unnecessary, aside from the bad title. The info can go in the PNAC article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Well, are you suggesting that such a list of characters would be notable in the first place based on a single news media article? Are you questioning the notability of the PNAC list?

The reason that its a subset is two-fold and straightforward: first, only some of the signatories were hired by Bush (and only one other was his running mate); and second, those are the PNAC people that the RS are discussing in relation to their respective roles in the Bush administration.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Other animated smirkers include the Grinch and Daffy Duck. One can cobble together all kinds of odd lists, for all kinds of odd reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

And the point is that "animated smirkers" should be an article? And that such an article would be analogous to the PNAC list? Sorry, but that is an odd list, and not at all a congruent analogy.

This list is about a group of notable public figures including academics, public intellectuals and former government officials that promulgated a specific set of policy recommendations, subsequently became public officials (again, in many cases) in the GW Bush administration, where they worked to facilitate the implementation of those policies. That is why there is a shelf full of peer-reviewed sources detailing the significance of the connection of these individuals to both PNAC and the GW Bush administration.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the 'list of shades of colors of apple sauce', be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." A list can be based on reliable sources yet still be unsuitable on a stand-alone basis. The fact that a minority (or majority) of statement signers went on to serve in the White House can be expressed by a single sentence in the main article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per above reasons and agree with Davewild in regards to a brief mention elsewhere.--MONGO 16:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Lists are lists and they are an excellent tool. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

example[edit]

Signing a letter no more makes a person a "member" of an organization than it can make a horse's tail into a leg.

[6] "The other ‘‘listed’’ groups cited in the report were International Workers Order (Goldberg was alleged to be one of the group’s ‘‘representatives’’ in Chicago), the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (he reportedly ‘‘led the discussion on the anti-alien bills’’ at a 1940 conference), American Youth Congress (his name appeared on a mailing list), United Spanish Aid Committee (his name appeared on a list found in the group’s files), the National Emergency Conference (he allegedly signed ‘‘the call’’ for this 1939 conference held ‘‘in protest of legislation’’ believed to threaten ‘‘the civil rights and liberties not only of aliens but of native and naturalized Americans’’), International Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (he reportedly made reservations at the Continental Hotel for 20 persons ‘‘expected to attend’’ the group’s 1946 convention), Russian War Relief (an unknown source charged he was ‘‘a signer of the Chicago Committee of Russian War Relief’’), and National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (an informant said his name was on ‘‘a list of sponsors’’ of a ‘‘national conference of all civil rights groups to be held in Washington in June, 1940’’ to establish the organization).

I trust you can see just why being listed on a "letter" does not make a person a "member" of any group. AFAICT, we do not list those "memberships" for Arthur Goldberg on Wikipedia. I think this is about as clear an example of why we must follow WP:BLP as absolute policy which no consensus can contradict ever. Unless, of course, you feel Goldberg should be listed as a "member" of Communist Front organizations? I,however, strongly demur). (And yes - Goldberg is now dead - but the issue is whether we should follow in McCarthy's footsteps as to what "membership" is). I am sure there may be "evil Jews with dual loyalties who would use biological weapons to commit genocide and who would order the US to stand down when under attack on 9/11 in order to make the US an Imperial Power" in this world - but under no circumstances and in no manner should we contribute any such implications or inferences about living persons here or in any article. Collect (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

It does make them a member of the group that signs the organization's document. Wikipedia:Article titles is how we change the titles of of articles, not deletion; or we merge the well sourced information into the other article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

However one editor insists that even being listed as a person who may not agree at all with a report makes such persons "members" of an organization. I grant that signing anything which starts off with saying the first goal should be to capture or kill Bin Laden (the notorious letter to Bush) is absolutely a member of PNAC (not), and we should add Obama's name to all the lists :). I find "it does make them a member of the group" to be worthy of Kafka, indeed. And Goldberg by that rule was a member of the Communist Party. :( By the way, your definition of "member" does not comport with any dictionary I can find - might you provide me with a reliable source for your interesting usage? Or are you saying "if anyone can place you in any sort of connection with any other person, you are a 'member' of that Venn Diagram 'group' which is all we need to state that you are a 'member' of an organization in Wikipedia's voice." Collect (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

No. Your example is inapposite. None of those things are like the documents here, or the circumstances here (we have a statement of principles of the group, by prominent people, and prominent peice of lobbying by the group, by prominent people). There is nothing kafka about them being members of the group that sign the organization documents -- that is what these people, in fact, did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict) Let me quote WP:POVNAMING In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. emphisis mine. Also I see nothing in BLP that says following what RS say is a violation. All it says in multiple reliable sources are needed for contentious claims so even if we follow BLP as an "absolute policy" we have done so. So what part if BLP is being violated. Cite please. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The part about actually being conservative with claims - else we should, by the standards being abused for the list, have hadArthur Goldberg listed under Communism while living. Cheers. 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If Goldberg had 15+ high quality reliable sources saying he was a Communist then Wikipedia would call him a Communist. As there are not we do not. Being conservative with claims does not mean do not make the claim unless everyone in the world agrees on it. It means do not claims that can not be verified by multiple good sources and do not repeat claims that poorly sourced or sensationalistic. Beyond that comparing this discussion to McCarthyism is simply hyperbole. Those caught up in the HCUA were citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights to change government policy through the political process and were persecuted for it. The PNAC 'members' are public figures who worked to change US policy by publicly lending the weight of their name to documents published and presented in such a way as to draw attention and publicity to the issues because of their signature.

Is there a more direct parallel you would like to draw between these cases or is the word 'members' all there is? A good analogy really needs more than one point of congruence to serve an accurate illustrative purpose. I submit this is a bad analogy that makes an appeal to emotion rather than reason or more important here policy. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your stance. I demur. Any source which relies on "guilt by association" in the first place can never claim a higher status than the original improper claim - no matter who copies it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

No 'guilt by association', here, so there is no reason to continue this. Although, you appear to argue rather inquisitorially with these article creators about their association with this article, and their true-blue denunciation of McCarthysim (one takes it they seem to you, not as pure as your stances) .Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

end of "example" subsection[edit]

Delete. Ubikwit's quotes above are particularly bad. The first quote confuses "signed up to PNAC" and "signed a document". The English phrase "signed up to" means "joined" and does not imply that everyone who signed any document whatsoever has signed up. The second quote says that a lot of people have signed and are administration members; it does not say that they have signed and are PNAC members. The third quote mentions that members exist, but does not assert a connection between signing and being members. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

OK, well, I picked three of the many quotes that have been posted/cited.

There is a strong possibility that there are other sources/quotes to address any specific concerns you have, so please state them, in specific terms, if possible. Are you objecting to the term "members", for example? Ot maybe the connection drawn between signatories and the administration? Are you disagreeing with those in general, or just saying that I have chosen quotes that aren't representative?

The metaphor used by the peer-reviewed source is something that has been vetted by the academic community. It should be noted that the first sentence refers to the "Statement of Principles", a specific PNAC document--the first document establishing the think tank. Only Bolton didn't sign that in 1997, but he signed the more famous letter to Clinton on Iraq in 1998.

The second quote demonstrates a more thorough correspondence between more prominent members of the Bush adminstration and PNAC, and differentiates between signatories of two separate documents.

The third quote examines a specific aspect of activities in which PNAC members were engaged in relation to their role in the Bush administration.

Ken Arromdee in case you missed this quote, it adds another dimension.

"The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state - displaying 115 such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White House, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress.(Parmar)"

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:44, 15 March; 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge/redirect to the PNAC article; see List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" for a similar case that was quietly redirected. The article already mentions that links with the Bush administration, and the signatories are listed on the page. Perhaps a footnote could identify the people listed who served in the Bush admin? Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

support Guettarda's move/redirect proposal, but without the Bush footnotes. Its nothing but a tar and feather by association conspiracy theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Just too problematic in terms of basic SYNTH, NPOV, and BLP principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment Would you please specify what those SYNTH, NPOV and BLP issues are. It is not possible to address issues if they are not made clear. As far as I can tell SYNTH and BLP have been addressed but maybe there is something else. I believe NPOV requires reflecting what the sources say. Is there a place where that was not done properly which concerns you? Or is there a point of view which has been under represented? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I explained the POV issue above: "The article has an implicit point of view: that there is a connection between involvement in the PNAC and later membership in the Bush administration." That is why when one googles "Jewish criminals", the first page of hits includes Jew Watch, Radio Islam and the websites of Ernst Zündel and David Duke.[7] The authors of those sites believe that Jews are inherently criminal and list Jewish criminals in order to prove the point. Of course there may be a connection between the PNAC and the Bush administration and we are free to report what various authors say about it. However we should not take it as a given and present one view as if it were accepted fact. TFD (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't get the relevance of the your "Jewish criminals" thing, but even if the rest of what you say is the the case (although the connection the sources draw is advocacy of similar positions with PNAC outside government and then those same issues inside government) then the perceived POV problem is addressed by merge, not delete especially where the editors working on it just did it to have a daughter article list for the main PNAC article. Why throw it all away? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The relevance of the "Jewish criminals" thing is that having an article about members of A who are also members of B implies that A and B are related. It is a technique frequently used by biased writers. It is called the association fallacy. You happen to believe that members of the PNAC took over foreign policy of the U.S. under the Bush Administration. The article is an attempt to prove the connection, while ignoring any contrary arguments. But Wikipedia articles are not supposed to prove anything. TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Well, no I don't have any belief in that regard, so the rest of your comment does not follow. (Nor do I have a belief in that regard after reading this list artcile - perhaps it's too implicit for me but there is no all foreign policy takeover claim in the body of the artcle.) But you did not answer my question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Except for the fact that it is a plethora of peer-reviewed scholarly publications that make the "association", wherefore as far as Wikipedia is concerned that association is not a "fallacy". Trying to claim that it is would be tantamount to attempting to dismiss such sources based on editor opinion, not policy.

Have you read the sources cited on the article, where many quotes are presented in the footnotes.

Once the "association fallacy" basis for making the claim of a POV fork is addressed, there appears to be only one point remaining to be examined. That is, if the status as a sub-list tied to the PNAC article for context--with only minimal context provided in the list article itself, is deemed to represent a POV fork (because there isn't enough context in terms of pro/con), then we are back to the question as to whether a list of 21 PNAC members/participants (or whatever you want to call them) whose employment in the Bush administration has been a topic receiving substantial coverage in scholarly literature (and appears to be garnering increased scrutiny with 4-5 books being released in 2014), we are back at square one in terms of whether the list is too big for the article (it has been suggested that the article could be substantially expanded to balance that), and if the answer to that is "maybe", then the evaluation as to notability as a stand-alone list comes to the fore. As a stand-alone list the context regarding scholarly consensus of the significance of the employment of more than 20 PNAC participants in the Bush administration can be presented in full and perhaps to a greater extent than would be permissible in the main article, eliminating the concern pertaining to "POV fork".

While I agree that a merge takes care of the POV fork claim as well, I think that we then arrive at a scenario in which UNDUE or the like may be raised in the main article. My assessment of the sources and policy is that the list satisfies the notability criteria for stand-alone status. The criteria for inclusion would be left for fine tuning.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Saying that a "plethora of peer-reviewed scholarly publications that make the "association"" {I assume you mean that figuratively) is not sufficient. It violates neutrality to come down on one side of an issue, we must follow weight and present differing views. Alanscottwalker, I not only answered your question, but explained by answer. If you have trouble understanding it, I suggest you read it again. Otherwise I fear that however well it is explained, it will make no difference for you. TFD (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Saying "... we must follow weight and present differing views." without specifying what views you think are not represented and addressing the WEIGHT of the view presented is pretty much a null argument. In Wikipedia we say what the sources say. When the list was part of the PNAC article there was nuance and that can be placed in this article or better the list can be placed in the PNAC article. I have not seen any scholarly articles saying the fact of these people, who were 'from' PNAC and got posts in the GWB administration is not important. This is a legitimate concern but not made clear enough by your comment to know if/how to correct it. If you would care to point some out they can be addressed per WEIGHT it would help improve the article. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

TFD, Sorry I missed it, I guess I would say then you did not answer it directly, but regardless, thanks. In history, it is usual and ordinary to note: 'people did this and then they did this.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete or REDIRECT, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Are you claiming that the scope of the list is to broad or too narrow?

The more relevant policy seems to be the following entry on that page, WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states

・The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
・The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete because "associated" in the genesis of this article is a euphemism for a supporter. One swallow does not a summer make. I strongly question the intent of the drafters of this obvious fork and if that's a personal attack, take me to ANI. No one in their right mind would say Janet Reno was associated (supportive) of the Branch Davidians, though she clearly was associated due to her involvement with Waco. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hatchet site, nor should it serve as a personal video game where you score against other editors. For those that treat it as such, I hope your user page will see a richly deserved indef block which reads "GAME OVER".Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

First of all, the term "associated" has been removed from the article title ("genesis"?), so your point would seem to have been mute before it was made; however, I'll provide a few quotes from peer-reviewed RS using the term in this context. They aren't using the term as a euphemism for "supporters": the sources say what is printed there on the page for anyone to see.

The incongruent analogy is somewhat unintelligible. Maybe you could clarify what you meant by that analogy?

Which editors are the personal attacks directed against?

scholarly source
The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.
scholarly source
Conservative writers associated with PNAC continue to issue warnings about a rising China, although they went largely unheeded during the George W. Bush administration, in part because the US military was fully engaged elsewhere."
scholarly source
It is evident that the neoconservatives associated with PNAC planned to remove Saddam Hussein from power long before George W. Bush was elected president.

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - a meaningless synthesis designed to push a point of view. Project for the New American Century#People associated with the PNAC has a list of associated people, both those who were in the Bush regime and those who were not. While this list, were it sufficiently large, could be broken out into a separate article, there is no benefit (aside from to those who wish to push a POV) to listing regime officials separately from other people. --B (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - This list serves no purpose other than to disparage the members in a guilt-by-association manner, and membership is already covered adequately at the Project for the New American Century article. If we were talking a list of hundreds here, maybe, but not this handful. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Please note the quote I posted above that starts with "The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state. The list contains 21 individuals at present, which is a substantial number and includes prominent members of the Bush administration. I don't even know who the "33 leaders" to whom Pramar refers are, but that might mean that there are yet names to be added to the list. New sources are being posted on a daily basis, including those describing the significance of the association in terms of influence on foreign policy and public opinion, for example, and those discussing specific individuals with respect to the significance of the coincidence of their association with PNAC and role in the Bush administration.

It should be noted that the lead, as it stands, makes no assertions regarding the significance of the connection. Most of the RS coverage is clear in asserting the importance of the association, while a couple say that the significance of the association has been exaggerated, but non denies its importance, let alone asserts that the claims of importance are based on "guilt by association". --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Colloquy removed from head of AfD page[edit]

(Re to Note: Others, including Collect, requested that "members" not be used and now it has been removed, an amenable and collegial response to community concerns by the article editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[]

My note, which made no personal reference to any editor, indicated that the article name has undergone daily changes. The personal attack above is unwarranted, and only serves to make a mockery of this AfD which quite looks headed to a "strong delete" close on both a !vote basis and on a policy basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

It's not a personal attack to note you made a request but reference to you removed now per your objection. AfD's go for at least seven days and in that time editing is done to articles in response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I would, moreover, note that AfDs are absolutely not restricted to "seven days" but that "seven days" is the usual minimum time allowed, and that I have seen many go on for much longer. In the case at hand, where the likely outcome is strong delete, it may well be closed at that point. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hayrettin_Karaoğuz ran for just over a month (7 Feb to 8 Mar) - which is not a record by any means. I have not, alas, found any article in the past which had four names in four days. And since you say there was no need to mention my name, I suggest that there was no need at all to mention my name, begging the question as to why my name was used in that manner. Collect (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Sure. It does not have to go for that period, it can go longer and editing done. Your name was used because you started a section on your objection to "member" in this afd (you thought it policy breaching or some other breach), and the editors acceded to remove that title objection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I stated a number of objections - and you deal with precisely one of them. Did you read the list of problems about this "list" where I specifically invoked a number of policies involved not just the use of "member" which was a specific and clear violation of WP:BLP ab initio? Collect (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

But you only started a whole sub-section of this afd on "member". No reason to discuss anything else there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

delete/merge fork, along with pov/synth and blp. The "signatories" are already listed on the parent. Its well sourced that signatories weer involved in the administration. The best way to handle that is some prose on the parent page, respecting of course appropriate WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - At a minimum violates WP:SYNTH. Maybe a list of signatories to the original principles is notable - maybe - but it is not clear that this document is so important that a separate list of signatories of it is notable and it is apparently addressed in the main article, and in any case, a list of signatories to any one of several particular documents is not. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as synthesis, and because Wikipedia isn't a platform for half-baked political POV-pushing. Next time, try to at least be a little more subtle ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete The signatories and Bush administration connections are mentioned in the main article. This stand alone article stands as a magnet for POV pushing and SYNTH vios.LM2000 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:POVFORK, perhaps this list can be embedded elsewhere, but as others have stated, this is a POV fork with the POV pushing that has been alleged at PNAC article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete The refs don't support the material in this lst. I see real Synth problems. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete, as with others, per WP:SYNTH. Seems redundant to Project for the New American Century (a separate list is not necessary), and I agree with others that this list appears intended to push a POV. Reso lute 15:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic (inherently polemic). Also dubious in terms of representing any meaningful and provable standard of "membership." Carrite (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as per TFD, Tarc, and Carrite. This is an extreme example of inappropriate forking. Horologium (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - Per TFD, Tarc and Carrite. Redundant and definitely a coatrack as well as SYNTH. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as an arbitrary categorisation based on often contentious information about living people for the purposes of advancing a political point. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. At this point, I don't see the value in this information. I was a merge to start (or merge back, I suppose), but it's become clear that this is really more of a POV fork that doesn't belong in any form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Expand. The list of who signed a couple of documents doesn't seem very useful in and of itself; the article(s) should obviously be about the documents themselves, i.e. Letter to President Clinton on Iraq and PNAC Statement of Principles. Covered properly, these ought to be notable enough to have separate articles, and too lengthy to be merged into the main PNAC article, and a list of notable signatories, or all signatories if it's as few as the present version seems to suggest, would certainly be appropriate. But it's really weird to have an article about who signed something but not what was signed. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Some merit to the suggestion, but don't see any relevance to THIS list or THIS AfD. PNAC Statement of Principles is the foundational document, and thus should (and is) included in the PNAC article, as is the list of signatories. The idea that Letter to President Clinton on Iraq deserves its own article, where I agree, some of the issues of matters ignored by the Clinton admin or overemphasized by the Bush admin might be more appropriately handled in a balanced way, is worth discussing. Still, there is no argument in your statement that there should be a list of a subset of those (Clinton letter) signatories, just an argument for a list of ALL signatories, and a separate article. At least that is what I take from your suggestion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete In my private life off Wikipedia, I reject the ideology these people espouse. But here on Wikipedia, I champion the neutral point of view, and can recognize a political POV push when I see it. I am reminded of an ideologically opposite example at Talk: Group of 88 where conservatives are determined to pigeonhole liberal Duke University professors who signed a newspaper advertisement as lifelong members of an infamous "group". It is wrong, whether from left motivations or right motivations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Went there -- tried to bring it into NPOV and BLP compliance - but since other "groups" then used a similar name, it is hard to delete per se. Removed "list" as being problematic - the Curtis ref seems pertinent due to lawsuit. Sorry I did not run across this before though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I agree the Group of 88 article is in an awful state. The problem there, perhaps as here, is the de-emphasis of the actual statement, in order that the talking heads who want to make it say whatever they have in mind don't have any competition. I firmly believe that the primary source is a sovereign cure for BLP bias, and so I've just made this edit to make it apparent how moderately worded the actual text really was. It's hard to make out the faculty as a lynch mob for this case when they say repeatedly that no matter what the outcome of the investigation is, the problem didn't start on the day of the alleged rape and won't end with that, but is a "social disaster" and they are "listening" to students. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

We already have the clarifications from the group - personally I feel adding in the entire advert gives a lot too much weight to what some might see as unfortunate language - NPOV is better served as a result by simply including the reasonably accurate clarifications proffered by the people involved. Others may differ, but I fear that the ad itself will balance the article in the opposite way one would expect. Collect (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Is this not a topic for another venue like Talk: Group of 88? Jbh (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Threaded discussions on !votes[edit]

While many can be interesting, at this point, the "rebuttals" to !votes are a tad unlikely to cause any changes in such !votes, and may be obscuring the purpose of any AfD discussion - to determine if deletion is supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the case at hand, it appears the "rebuttals" are not serving any added useful purposes here, as one may find the same basic language several times on the single talk page at this point. Unfortunately, "iteration" does not appear to be one of the core Wikipedia values, policies or guidelines. Might we cease the use of "rebuttal arguments to !votes" at this point, please? Collect (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

In most cases, I assume, the article editors, me included, want to know what the objection is so it can be addressed. I note that in particular a better name for the article and way of referring to the people on the list was found in response to specific objections to 'members' and 'associated with'. The POV Fork issue was brought up and is being addressed either with tighter integration with the PNAC article or with a MERGE result. WEIGHT/UNDUE (something you will note I brought up when I first addressed this topic in response to the BLPN you opened) is also being looked into. The repetitive responses to SYNTH and BLP should be stopped unless a new issue comes up.

While you may see this as a nose count a considered close looks at cogent policy arguments and if objections have been addressed. Whether an editor comes back to change their !vote or not is immaterial to this. Jbh (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Heck if a good argument comes up for addressing the information contained in this article directly in the PNAC article, with or without the table I am all for it and will change my !vote to delete. I would love a simple outcome that results in the improvement of the encyclopedia but the toxic environment at PNAC and later over this sub-article-list makes me despair. This article would not exist if the environment at PNAC were not so bad. I am, however, grateful that we have so many editors commenting. Jbh (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I appreciate your perspective. I must say that many of the "rebuttals" come across as WP:BLUDGEON and not in the way you note. I, too, wish rebuttals were moved to a section below the !votes, rather than in-line. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Almost none of the !votes in favor of deleting make any sort of policy-based argument, and policy is what admins are supposed to consider in assessing the weight of !votes. Is taking the time to point out similar mistakes made by multiple voters "blugeoning"?

Editors can vote their politics, but their politics isn't policy here.

When multiple peer-reviewed RS make the list reflected in this article, it meets all policy requirements. The POV fork issue is a legitimate concern, but deleting the article is not the solution to that.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Pointing it out once, in a comment to the closer may be appropriate. Pointing it out 40 times is indeed WP:BLUDGEON. You assert an argument is incorrect/invalid. You may be correct. You may also be incorrect. The same person, repeating the same argument over and over again adds nothing to the discussion. On the other hand, multiple different people, who all make the same argument, may indicate that the argument may carry some water. That is of course up to the closer(s) and DRV to determine. But you giving the same rebuttal to everyone doesn't add much, and makes it a chore to close. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@JoeSperrazza: Yes, I do see where you are coming from. For a while there I guess everything started to look like a nail. I do apologize for that. I have adjusted my !vote to its final state and intend to comment only when addressed or if some truly novel issue comes up. I have had my say, and then some More than some if truth be told. Thanks to you and all who have participated/will participate. I think a lot of good work has been done to address the concerns that can be. Whatever the result I have learned quite a bit about the concerns editors have about independent lists. Jbh (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Ubikwit, I certainly did make a policy based argument for deletion - it fails neutrality, even if you do not understand my position. Apparently other editors do and have made the same point. TFD (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@The Four Deuces: I specifically addressed your concerns, following those voiced by Tom harrison, and even modified my !vote.

It is disingenuous of you to imply otherwise by asserting that I "don't understand your position".

There have been a succession of !votes that are related but have a different nuance, and I have addressed each nuance as I saw appropriate, adding quotes, etc., along the way.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Resolute: Could you please articulate the "POV" that you see being "pushed" by this article?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note/Request to Closer[edit]

Regardless of outcome would you please address whether the information presented in the list per se is a violation of BLP, SYNTH or is 'guilt by association'. These questions are the intractable locus of dispute which started at the PNAC page. This will allow the editors of the PNAC article to put a pin in the discussion and move on. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jbh (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

That's asking a lot. That is outside the scope of an Afd in most cases. One wonders why anyone that understands the undue weight clause of NPOV would want to defend a wretched and worthless article like this one.--MONGO 06:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Agree with MONGO. The criteria for deletion is strength of argument to help to determine consensus. Additional determinations would likely only create fodder for a deletion review for any outcome. This isn't a speedy delete so the determinations you ask for are not necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

While it is my hope that an opinion on these issues will be given by the closing admin, as a neutral third party, please note that it is a request. I do not doubt that if the closing admin feels this request inappropriate they simply will not honor it notwithstanding anything any of us have to say about it.

@MONGO: to answer your question I thought the size of the table in relation to the PNAC article gave it UNDUE weight in the article. After discussion here the concerns about it becoming a POV Fork and inherent NPOV framing issues made me reconsider and therefore !vote to MERGE. I do not support delete because I see no BLP, SYNTH or 'guilt by association' and most importantly the material is notable, encyclopedic and essential to understanding how people see/saw PNAC, its real/perceived effects on US policy making and PNAC's overall history. No matter ones political stance PNAC has a large place in the political history of a very important time in US history. Many peer-reviewed and academic sources discuss PNAC, this group of people and their collective participation in the GWB administration and it is impossible to document the political-history of that time without talking about those connections. The debate over the effects is ongoing and notable. So that is how someone who understands NPOV/WEIGHT/BLP and SYNTH can defend this material - because I have spent more than a little time considering the policies, and the subject matter is important to the history of my country. Jbh (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't care if this subject is mentioned in brief in the PNAC article but it does not need a standalone coatrack like this one.--MONGO 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

On the outcome you are agreed - as Jbh is supporting merge - the listing, however, is directly taken from the reliable sources, as is the inclusion criteria for the list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Start an RFC for tha. AFD cannot do it. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

JzG OK thanks, noted. I have not run into a dispute here that could not be worked out with good faith discussion before. After the fourth time this issue came up in a month I guess I was more frustrated than I was thinking. I am frankly amazed at the shitstorm this article created but I guess that is what happens when a partisan editor uses Jimbo's talk page as his own personal pulpit without letting the other editors know. Oh well. Live and learn.

I think I am going to run if terror from the issue if it gets to that point again. Someone else can kick off an RFC. This started from answering a pretty straight forward question at BLPN and then spiraled into this circus. I can see why there are few moderates editing in this partisan pit of acrimony. Although I do snicker when I get called a radical or liberal. Jbh (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

This page has gotten a tad full - I suggest using Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush for additional colloquy. Collect (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

While this is ongoing, and an AN/I thread is ongoing, this has been filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect. "May we live in interesting times" - but the primary bone of contention appears to be whether the material in this list violates WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, or any of the other reasons presented above which, at this point, I daresay agrees with my basic stance. As it is thus intimately connected to this precise AfD, it seems proper to tell folks here about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

This AfD shouldn't and by policy can't settle what is suitable to include in articles, but I find some of the rationales expressed against inclusion to be invalid. To begin with "COATRACK" is an all-purpose deletion buzzword that really is out of place when describing the list of signers of one or more of an organization's most notable documents. It's not like someone just randomly hung the list somewhere; it's physically part of the document of interest, which is a defining aspect of the organization. BLP certainly can't be invoked - when someone is a signer of a major, well-publicized historical document, and there's no dispute about that, I don't even see where you'd start. I get the feeling - correct me if I'm wrong - that somebody thinks that the people who signed ought to feel embarrassed that they signed, so we should protect them from that embarrassment by hiding that... which would be absurd, since after all they were going on the record about something they cared about, and it was a notable achievement. And SYNTH, well... it's not synth if all the signers are covered equally, to the extent we are able to do so; if we somehow subcategorize them according to idiosyncratic criteria, maybe. Basically, I see no reason why this text needs to be scrapped; it just needs to be organized into its proper place. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Wnt I agree with that insightful and incisive statement word for word.

I would strike my Keep !vote if I were certain that: 1) a stand-alone list isn't the best option for this substantial amount of (cross-referenced) data; and 2) that editors !voting "delete" wouldn't claim the text UNDUE after it was merged into the main article, etc., achieving its deletion in a step-wise manner.

I'm not sure about that, so I will maintain my Keep !vote in case the stand-alone option is deemed most appropriate.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

RE: Wnt's statement, while measured and having merit, is clearly NOT describing the Article in question, but a theoretical article where "all the signers are covered equally", which in this case would be a list of ALL singers of either document. Wnt is absolutely correct that there would be few problems with such a list, unfortunately, the issues stem from the clear fact that this article is NOT that article. I also agree that if (and basically only if - I, in my first comment noted that there had not been such interest to date) a complete list were to be suggested, it really should be within an article ON the letter, in this case the letter to Clinton.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Yes, I agree that would be a much better article. More nuance, less potential POV, all in all a great idea. Jbh (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Read Talk:Group of 88 and note that I oppose "listing" signers of adverts and open letters sans a very solid rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I think the approach at Group of 88, where there is an External Link if you want to look up the signers is the correct one, with one caveat; the 88 signers aren't WP:NOTABLE, so the utility of a list to provide wikilink navigational aids does not exist.

Group of 88 analogy while Wnt makes good arguments for some way for WP to direct readers to ALL signers, as is done on the Go88 article, there is no support, nor should there be, for a list, for instance, of Group of 88 Signers who have been active in Democrat Party politics. It is the latter sort of list we are debating.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Anonymous209.6, where my honest confusion comes in is there is a huge body of peer-reviewed papers and quality news reports which say the relationship between these PNAC 'signers' and there positions is significant. To my knowledge an analogous amount of peer-reviewed RS on the political participation of the Group of 88 does not exist.

The issue that led to this situation is that one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article and others thought it was important to document because of the huge number of times this association is mentioned. I agree NPOV might be more of an issue with the stand alone list than I thought and I think making sub-articles about the major policy documents and who signed them could be a good way to go. What I am opposed to is the whitewashing and NPOV violation that not noting the who these people are and where they served would be. My understanding is that Wikipedia reflects what RS say and RS say this is a significant relationship. I can understand and even, to an extent agree with, arguments like UNDUE and NPOV and there is a solution to be had through discussion and compromise on those issues. What I do not understand is what, exactly, the SYNTH and BLP violations in the material are. I had hoped it would be clearly articulated by some of the people who used it as the basis for their Delete vote but I am as unenlightened now as I was at the start of this. Maybe someone will take pity on me and explain to me on my talk page how those policies are being violated by the table. This has been a learning experience, just not in the way I had hoped. Jbh (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The lists of signers of the Statement of Principles were and are in the PNAC article. No one suggested their removal. The issue was whether Wikipedia articles should include lists of "signers" of any letter associated in any way with the group, and whether there should be a table explicitly associating specific signers with the "Bush administration" as a table. George W. Bush and his administration are currently mentioned 16 times in the body of the PNAC article - one would think that quite enough for readers to see that name a few times ... it is difficult to miss the 16 uses of "Bush" in the body of the article, and its use an additional 14 times in the references list of the PNAC article. Did you think that 30 times is insufficient by any chance when you accuse others of wanting all mention of Bush removed? I find thirty times as a rule to be generally sufficient, but YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Please show me where I did this: "when you accuse others of wanting all mention of Bush removed?". This statement you made is called a 'mis-characterization'. Please stop mis-characterizing my comments. Jbh (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Jbh; I believe the quote of yours Collect is referring to is "one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article", which you directly state not more than a few lines above where Collect accuses you of claiming "one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article", and which Collect, of course rebuts as being false.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I assumed the context would be clear since we have been talking about this particular issue. I was talking about this particular association, the one the that is the subject of this whole AfD. In that context a raw count of the number of times "Bush" is mentioned in the PNAC article to rebut a supposed claim of "wanting to remove all mention of Bush" seems non-responsive to me because the issue is the association which was not mentioned once in Collect's reply. The statement "The list of Signers of the Statement of Principles... no one suggested their removal" above again is non-responsive because whether the Statement signers are mentioned or not is was not the issue. That list, in the PNAC article, does not talk about the association I was speaking of nor does it address the 1998 Iraq Letter. Further the response provides nothing new about the question I was asking, the specific BLP and SYNTH issues that this list brings up instead it addresses a side issue to successfully derail the question.

I re-state the heart of my post above "Where my honest confusion comes in is there is a huge body of peer-reviewed papers and quality news reports which say the relationship between these PNAC 'signers' and there positions is significant... My understanding is that Wikipedia reflects what RS say and RS say this is a significant relationship. I can understand and even, to an extent agree with, arguments like UNDUE and NPOV and there is a solution to be had through discussion and compromise on those issues. What I do not understand is what, exactly, the SYNTH and BLP violations in the material are. I had hoped it would be clearly articulated by some of the people who used it as the basis for their Delete vote but I am as unenlightened now as I was at the start of this. Maybe someone will take pity on me and explain to me on my talk page how those policies are being violated by the table." Jbh (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment - Article titles should not be changed while a piece is at AfD. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

This behavior problem, and why it is disruptive, abuse of process, and contrary to WP policies has been mentioned several times already.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Rename to Neo-conservative officials of the George W. Bush administration. That is what the article is trying to get across, right? I don't see the need to dance around that or to tie association with any particular organization in there... that is not a service to the reader. Let us get to the heart of what we are trying to document here.

Renaming is perfectly acceptable. In this case it directly addresses some of the reasons given for deletion (as I have remarked elsewhere, article name should never be given as a reason for deletion, alas it often is) - clearly those reasons should be discounted by the closer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

There should be no problem with defining "neo-conservative"... I think we have an article on that already, just link to it. There should be no problem with finding sufficient notable and reasonably even-handed sources (New York Times, &c.) on record as calling this person or that person "neo-conservative" (and if there isn't, remove them from the list). "Neo-conservative" is in no wise pejorative and is close to how these people would describe themselve (they would say "conservative" rather than "new conservative" but enh, little difference).

No reasonable person disputes that persons named were, indeed, government officials in the Bush administration, or that they held "neo-conservative" views (as commonly understood) to a fair degree, and that this represented a group in the administration sufficient for historians to take notice of. The only dispute is over whether these views are right, wrong, or somewhere between, and that we can leave for the reader to decide, I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

There are sources that list a couple of people along with the PNAC members, such as members of AEI, so that could be done to be more comprehensive. ZFootnote #20 on the article includes William J. Luti [8] and David Wurmser (AEI), for example, who weren't PNAC members.

A couple of the documents produced by PNAC are notable enough for their own articles, as JBH points out above and as I have also mentioned on the PNAC talk page with respect to the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I have no problem titling the something like Neo-conservative officials of the George W. Bush administration although I am sure there will be objections to 1 - Definition of Neo-conservative, 2 - Calling particular people Neo-conservative, 3 - Whether people who did not start as liberals are 'true' Neo-conservatives. Since all of those complaints have come up in this area.

Also, I had no idea renaming was not OK during the AfD. The name was an issue and I assumed that dealing with that issue was part of "improving the article" since I do not believe 'Article Name' is a delete criteria. This idea was particularly re-enforced by having an un-involved editor come to my talk page and say we should be re-naming it. Guess I was wrong. Live and learn. Jbh (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Renaming an article during an AfD discussion is certainly allowed in general - but doing it with a list, where the title effectively defines the inclusion criteria, is more or less bound to be controversial. (and BTW, for the record, former Trostkyists, as some NeoCons were alleged to 'start as', weren't 'liberal' by any definition that belongs in an encyclopaedia, no matter how confused the American right is over the meaning of the term.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

OK. I understand what you are saying. In fact that is why the article was renamed. There was a discussion about how the terms used in the name were affecting the inclusion criteria etc. The renames were an attempt to address that in response to feedback here. I do see how it could cause confusion but I do not see how the concerns could be addressed without doing so.

Yes, I agree about the political terminology. My main point is that someone will complain about any definition we use. One editor spent quite a lot of text trying to redefine PNAC as neo-liberal. I think a lot of editors might see the liberal-conservative and left-right continua to be fully congruent without regard to the rest of the world, history or nuance.

Thanks for the input. It helps. Jbh (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Query[edit]

In 50 words or less, how is the association of the signatories of (presumably right wing) documents with a (widely considered right wing) administration considered to be a slur? Is it a slur on the PNAC, because the Bush Administration is assumed to be evil, or vice versa? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

It's the repetitive nature of highlighting tentative association's multiple times. Where does it end? Should we put asterisks next to names that support rendition or water boarding? We can create lists of people that received money from John Huang or any other list. The fact is that the PNAC article sufficiently and completely already encompasses this information and nearly every person has a bio and this list becomes negative by nature of association. --DHeyward (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I dunno where it ends... I guess it ends when it's no probably no longer helpful to some reasonably sized subset of reasonable readers... We have a lot of people here doing a lot of different kinds of research, so I'm not sure that a list like this might not be useful to at least some small percentage of them. And yeah, it might be a service to some readers to put an asterisk next to names of important officials who supported rendition or waterboarding and were in a position to influence policy, provided we have notable fair-minded sources giving quotes showing this. How could this not be a service to at least some interested readers and researchers?

I don't get the idea that repeating something too much makes it automatically pejorative. If we put that some person is a Nobel Prize winner in his bio, but also include him in List of Nobel Prize Winners and List of Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry and List of Nobel Prize Winners from Germany and yadda yadda, is this now become deprecatory by repetition?

After all, maybe the people on this list are heroes, who knows? I don't know and neither do you, but I do know that the people on this list stand by their beliefs and are proud of them and these beliefs are very popular in America. So I'm not seeing the problem. Herostratus (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

List of Nobel Prize Winners in chemistry who ever signed any petition supportive of capitalism? I just think the current list's inclusion criteria are connected too tenuously, whatever the motive for connecting them may be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

RS make the connections, and they are by no means tenuous. In fact, one reason that there are repetitions is because of the manifold notable connections addressed in each respective context.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Well, all I can say is that the manual of style frowns upon tenuously-connected list criteria even if they are supported by reliable sources. I quoted the manual above. There could be a reliable treatise about the various colors of Apple sauce, or about one-eyed horse thieves from Montana, but that does not mean the corresponding lists are really appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially if the info can be much more briefly summarized in a pertinent Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

We're talkin' apples(auce) and oranges here, to put it mildly. The analogies are not congruous, and making them is somewhat dismissive of the peer-reviewed sources upon which the article is primarily based.
--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@Herostratus: I once suggested List of Jewish Nobel laureates opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as an article. It was intended to be satire. Evidently, I underestimated Wikipedia, and people will concoct arbitrary inclusion criteria for lists whenever they can get away with it. The individuals concerned are clearly notable. So is the PNAC. So unfortunately was the Bush administration. I have no admiration for either of the latter, and I suspect if I knew more about the former my opinion would be much the same. But that isn't a legitimate reason to engage in this finger-pointing exercise. As an example of POV-pushing it is rather ineffective anyway, as it is about as subtle as a pat on the back from an express train, and will do precisely nothing to change anyone's opinion about anything. Sadly, WP:FAILEDPOVPUSHING appears not to have been written yet, and I don't think I'd better write it, as people might take it as instructions on how to do it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Straw man argument[edit]

Again, setting up a straw man (several editors have done this before and it has been answered before) that unless the categories are "perjorative", they are OK. This isn't the point at all, and a reading of the AfD and/or article pages should have answered that. The most recent analogous example, "Group of 88 Signers who have been active in Democrat Party politics" is similarly unacceptable, though no delimiters are perjorative. The AfD list is unacceptable as it seeks to create a list, not to aid navigation or produce clearer reading of WP, but produce a source to other articles, of a POV that cannot be balanced as would have been required in a proper article. In this case the point of view (and no-one is making the argument that no WP:RS are also making this argument, to deal with the other straw man) that a small cabal hijacked the Bush administration on Iraq.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

That analogy is not even in the minor league ballpark.

Let's stick to the sources, please.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I really don't see what can be gained by discussing this further here. Since the result of this AFD is pretty clear, isn't this all moot unless/until someone tries to re-incorporate the content back into the PNAC article? I for one have no plans to do that, at least not as a table like this one. I do hope that some of the sources we found/used for the table can be used/added to the main article though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Untitled Spider Man Reboot (2017 film)[edit]

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

A draft of this article sits at Draft:Spider Man (2017 film), I think it should sit there until we have enough reliable sources to write an actual article, as it sits now it's too soon to write a proper article. While I don't doubt that there will be an article in the (possibly near) future, now isn't the time as it will not be released for another +2 years. At this stage I think the mentions in various articles (as it is now) is sufficient. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. This is a very prospective issue given that all that is mentioned is a rumoured cast. This does meet the "commenced principal photography" qualifier for future movies in WP:NFF and is thereforeWP:TOOSOON. Walkabout14 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Walkabout14 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete Too soon as no reliable source as stated that principal photography has begun. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Some info might be moved to Spider-Man in film#Future but, until there is a confirmed release date, there isn't a reason to have an article or redirect with 2017 in the title. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. I agree that it could be mentioned in the above article, but it's obviously too soon if we're reporting rumors. Keeping a draft article around should be sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete this mainspace article per WP:NFF (and an inappropriate title anyways) and Delete Draft:Spider Man (2017 film). That is just a duplicate of Draft:Untitled Spider-Man film, which was created first and is the place where this info is going to be curated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete both this and Draft:Spider-Man (2017 film) per Favre1fan93. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- This is all very confusing, however the draft that you link, redirects to Draft:Untitled Spider-Man film, which is actually the best of all the drafts/articles that we have on hand. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NFF. Any confirmed details can be stored at Spider-Man in film#Future for the time being. There are currently two drafts at Draft:Untitled Spider-Man film and Draft:Spider Man (2017 film) and we only need one. The first one is superior so I agree with deleting the second. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Nakon 01:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

List of literary societies[edit]

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

WP:N Jx242 (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. At least some of the entries have their own articles and are therefore presumably notable. There's nothing wrong with a list of notable societies. Whether the redlinked ones should be there is not an issue for Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment: This does seem a parochial list, containing American university societies, but not for example the Académie Goncourt, Royal Society of Literature, etc. As someone had suggested on the Talk page, it could be better named as something like "List of American college literary societies" and considered as such? AllyD (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep – A valid article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Literary societies. Consider renaming the article to List of American college literary societies per content in the article relative to Category:College literary societies in the United States. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment: This list seems to be redundant, given that college literary societies already exists and that page contains such a list--which is more complete, accurate and with more information. Potentially, maybe the list on college literary societies should be transferred to this page--or that list of literary societies should be moved to list of college literary societies, unless someone completes this page with a more comprehensive list of literary societies outside of college and the US? Ultimately it's just misleading and redundant. Jx242 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete The College_literary_societies#List_of_literary_societies_in_the_United_States list has greater information and references, and sits in an article describing the context of these College societies. Perhaps at some point that list should be split from its main article but as it stands the article presently at AfD is superfluous and lacking in references. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

EastEnders Live Week[edit]

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

This article is not encyclopedic. It is simply a run-down, programme by programme of the various episodes. Many of the links go to the BBC publicity about the series. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't think it needs deleting, it just needs some major work done. I have tried this, but several IP addresses continue to constantly treat the article in an "non-encyclopedic" way, like you mentioned. I have grown to give up on trying as these anonymous users clearly have no idea how things work on Wikipedia. --— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes notability guidelines and is an encyclopedic article of a TV event including critical reception, cast promotion and production. Nominator seems to not understand what a primary source is and quoting relevant policy "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense." Now on this occasion as it is unlikely to have a secondary source as a Primary source for the plot is appropriate. May I suggest to the two above stop, winging and improve instead of complaining that there is not a source (find one yourself) and randomly deleting stuff saying that it's not encyclopedic while forming veiled attacks on IP users, using them as an excuse not to edit. 88.105.157.139 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Sorry you feel that way, IP, but the page has got to the point where it's past a simple change of wording and it's fixed again – the entirety of it looks like it has been written by a 5-year old. Offensive or not... I'm just being truthful. Compare it with this, and you'll understand.— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete, solely because it's a mess. I will rework on the page by myself in my sandbox if needs be. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[]

That's not a reason to delete. Stop throwing your toys out the pram and learn to write properly e.g. learn what sources are. Learn how to use ; and that it's not an excuse not to write proper sentences and finally the truth is you did not like the fact that someone else wrote the page. You've hardly edited it you are coming across as a troll and a sour faced person who if can't get her own way makes excuse after excuse to take the ball home. And since I can't write according to you are you going to delete this, most of which I wrote? Thought not stop trying to own pages. 88.105.152.249 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Sigh. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Pertinent WP link. I refer everybody to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Primary_information and would like some comment below. It seems to indicate that this article should be deleted. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[]

And? I fail to see the point. All it says is what primary information is and that a primary source is permissible and should describe events rather than try and be analytically insightful or use some notion of explanation. Again another incorrect conclusion met by George (sorry!) 80.42.83.253 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[]

No need to get personal. Anyway, perhaps I missed the part about a primary source being permissible. (It is indeed a very long screed over there.) Would you be so kind as to quote directly? My take on Wikipedia policy in general is that we don't use primary sources unless they also back up a secondary source. I am willing to bow to consensus on this, of course. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Selective Merge - Merge some of the text & delete the rest - It wasn't all that amazing and we don't really need an article on it IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Just because it "wasn't amazing" is not a reason to merge or delete an article.80.42.81.58 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

....The point it it's better off in one main article, If this is kept It'll only be renominated until it either gets either Merged/Redirected/Deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Which article can it be merged with? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

To be fair Davey, people will end up getting blocked if they persist in that, just because the week in your opinion was not amazing. It passes general notability and fits in with the guidelines end of and is the main article about the week. Be sides all other live episodes of corrie and Emerdale and EE have their own page. And like Rachel says where to merge to if one considers. 80.42.81.58 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

If you can make the article look as good as Queen Vic Fire Week then perhaps we can drop this argument. Since you're so dedicated to the page, here's some suggestions on what to do to make it at least hit the B mark – add more to the development section, get rid of all the sources clogging up the summary section which make it difficult to read, and maybe fix some of the grammar too. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

So you're saying that because it's in your opinion S*** I'm going to keep nominating it. That's a pathetic attitude and people carrying it ought to look at whether they should edit here. And I' do not need to make any conditions per say to stop you nominating once it passes GNC etc but your comments for improvement are appricated.18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.95.158 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Uninitiated Keep There are independent reviews [9][10][11] for a claim of notability. Though I would strongly suggest cutting down on § Background, which is currently largely cited to primary sources and mostly about things outside of the named week of episodes. Instead just mention lightly and give wikilinks like "The EastEnders Live Week follows closely to the plot of (wikilink to related storyline/list of episodes/etc.)". Queen Vic Fire Week#Plot did this better IMO as it only sticks to the four episodes of that week and nothing else. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I have removed the background section and revamped the page a little to make it mirror Queen Vic Fire Week. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 Extremities, Dirt and Various Repressed Emotions. (Thanks Northamerica1000 for kindly adding the redirect .... ) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The Beautiful Dead[edit]

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

This doesn't quite appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to album is probably the best idea here, but I'm not against deletion entirely due to the fact it is not an official single. Mattg82 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect since it lacks coverage and has not charted, making it not notable enough to warrant its own article. SilentDan (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Extremities, Dirt and Various Repressed Emotions, per the above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. (WP:NPASR). No consensus for a particular action has emerged herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

We Have Joy[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment – No assertion of importance, and no sources beyond discogs. I think we need more help here. Are we aiming for a complete documentation of this band's work? If we can improve on discogs, maybe. But might this be handled better in a list-type article? – Margin1522 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Sally-Jean Shackleton[edit]

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

I listed this for speedy a7, but nobody deleted it., so I thick the fairest thing to do is to bring it here. I see it a no indication of significance, but surely it is at least lack of notability. I'd be glad to be proved wrong. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete - Admins appear to have given up on CSD-related tasks lately..... In my eyes this is a clear A7, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - totally WP:OR: "Conversations with" ... the subject is listed as a source. She might become notable but is not there yet. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Steven_and_Kellie_Page. Nakon 01:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Steven Page murder/suicide incident[edit]

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

Fails GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Over a thousand people have ~~jumped off that bridge. Pax 10:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~[]

Update: Redirect to Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Steven_and_Kellie_Page. Pax 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete This tragedy clearly falls under WP:1E. There has been little significant coverage since the event itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - those stating delete and the nominator misses the point. This isnt a simple suicide. It is first a murder, followed by him murdering his own daughter by throwing her over the bridge, and then himself. Has recieved plenty of media attention. This does not fail WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Noting how many people have jumped off the bridge is a laughably meaningless argument. If they all got a bunch of press coverage, then let them all have articles. As it happens, this one probably got more attention because it involved two murders as well as a suicide. Everyking (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Comment: It still fails WP:1E. Murder-suicides are drearily common. The addition of a landmark where a thousand other non-notable people have ended their lives changes nothing. Pax 06:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete, while the subject received significant coverage from a multitude of reliable sources immediately within the time which the murder suicide occurred, thus passing WP:GNG, this article is about an event. Therefore, WP:EVENT is the appropriate notification criteria which to judge the subject's notability. So far I have not found in-depth coverage of the event in the years after the event; therefore the event fails WP:PERSISTENCE. Therefore, unless someone can provide significant coverage of this event after 1995, at this time I have to support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge, subject of this AfD falls within the scope of the new article. Verified content can be summarized in that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Keep~~ There was at least one story in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming that this specific incident provoked a renewed conversation about the advisability of installing suicide barriers on the bridge. I added it to the article, which is well-sourced. I fail to perceive the advantage ot Wikipedia in removing well-sourced articles on topics (murder-suicide; suicides from famous bridges) of ongoing public concern. My policy rationale for KEEP is that even without that Chronicle article, in my opinion this article clearly passes WP:GNG; a Proquest search reveals that it receives attention nationwide. Once an EVENT passes WP:GNG, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment, the Page case is, in fact, mentioned in John Bateson's 2012 book {University of California Press), The Final Leap: Suicide on the Golden Gate Bridge. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

and note that I just added an article from the Chicago Tribune, that opens a discussion of the advisability of installing suicide prevention barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge with this case Fatal Seduction Of Golden Gate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

and It was at least briefly revisited when another bridge murder suicide came into the news 10 months later Police Seek Baby After Golden Gate Bridge Suicide.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I know that I am risking overkill here, but it turns out that there was substantial follow-up, if you google it descriptively [Coast Guard Abandons Search For Bridge Baby http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-11-27/news/9311271029_1_bridge-baby-girl-coast-guard], [Lethal Beauty: No easy death: Suicide by bridge is gruesome, and death is almost certain. The fourth in a seven-part series on the Golden Gate Bridge barrier debate http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/LETHAL-BEAUTY-No-easy-death-Suicide-by-bridge-2562269.php].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Still don't see how the incident is significant or doesn't fail WP:GNG. Suicides from the GG Bridge as an article subject, yes, but the incident itself? No. The incident might deserve a mention at the GG Bridge article in the section on suicides (here [12]], but an article on its own -- there's no merit or true notability. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Followed your link to the section on the GG Bridge suicides and the first link I clicked on there The Golden Gate Bridge's fatal flaw 2012 is a newspaper op-ed mentioning the Page suicide very briefly. You and I clearly see this very differently, but, in my mind, the fact that a comprehensive article (on suicides form the GG Bridge) exists does not obviate the notability of individual incidents. Rather, as I see it, the inverse, the individual incident articles offer useful support to the comprehensive article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Well, not only was it still being mentioned in Orlando, Florida and other papers months after it happened (speaking to breadth and depth of coverage as in 00WP:GNG]], but it was brought up not only in San Francisco, but in the Chicago Tribune (where it was the anecdote toat began an article on Golden Gate suicides, and was discussed in articles on that topic not only the year it happened, but again in 2005. I found all of these these on the first page of a google search on: murder + suicide + child + "Golden Gate Bridge" + 1993 (though the key words may not have been entered in that order). I imagine that if I ran more varied searches, I would find further mentions. But what say we give it a few days to let some other editors weigh in. Have a good weekend.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep sources sufficient to meet GNG. Artw (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment, I have searched John Bateson (19 March 2012). The Final Leap: Suicide on the Golden Gate Bridge. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-95140-2., and there is a list entry for the subject, but nothing that I would call in-depth overage. Also there is this from the New Yorker, but again only a one sentence mention, nothing that passes WP:INDEPTH. These articles that was provided by E.M.Gregory is an opinion piece in the LA Times, makes zero mention of the subject of this article, this only gives passing mention (nothing meeting INDEPTH), and this article provided above is about the initial event and the search for remains, therefore I don't see it being removed sufficiently from the initial event to evoke WP:PERSISTENCE.

So the question is not GNG but EVENT, and failing IN-DEPTH PERSISTENCE, while tragic, and while could be mentioned in suicide prevention at the Golden Gate Bridge, doesn't warrant a stand alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Hi, User:RightCowLeftCoast, Is that book full-text searchable? I thought it was not. There is at least a mention. And since Bateson mentions this event in his op-ed, he may may have discussed it in his book. To be clear, although you state that the Bateson op-ed, [13] does mention the Page murder-suicide, (zero mention of the subject of this article,) it does, Bateson wrote: "The worst was the child. It was perhaps the ugliest moment on the bridge. In 1993, a man killed his wife at their home, took their daughter to the bridge and tossed her over the side. Then he jumped in after her. ". Over 20 years after this event, the horror of it was remembered. This event gets quite a lot of mentions like that, without the names. But a 2012 article in Vice (magazine) makes a larger claim:

"Jan. 28, 1993; The first known murder-suicide, a man going through a divorce threw his three-year-old daughter over the rail before jumping in after her. Earlier in the day the man had murdered his wife."

My claim, however, is that the amount of national coverage in 1993 passes WP:GNG, and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

More

"More than fifty years later, the father of three-year-old Kellie page ended her life in a murder suicide form the bridge in 1993..." (Paying the Toll: Local Power, Regional Politics, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Louise Nelson Dyble, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, page 275) My searches have been far from exhaustive, but do show that there really are a lot of such mentions. Here WHEN INDIVIDUALS LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR ACTS, SO DOES CIVILIZATION, Deseret News. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The murder/suicide was an WP:EVENT. While it passes WP:GNG, as an event it must meet the criteria set forth in event. There are events that receive significant coverage like a soldiers death, but often aren't given in-depth persistent coverage long after the event took place. Thus why such things as WP:NOTMEMORIAL exists. Thus while those who died during the Iraq War received sufficient coverage from multiple reliable sources (at a national scale) often to pass WP:GNG don't have an article as they don't have persistent coverage (or event get WP:BIO1E redirects).

It is tragic, but as an event not notable. As part of the Golden Gate Bridge, suicides section it can surely be given weight, but as a stand alone article, it doesn't meet the criteria of established guidelines for events. Unless this is not an event?

For the Deseret News source above, it gives the event a single sentence, not sufficient to meet INDEPTH. As for the San Francisco Chronicle piece, it doesn't give Steven Page by name, thus it can be assumed but not verified to be about this event, thus fails verifiability.

Another option is that Murder suicides is notable, and if this is the first murder suicide ever recorded, than it can be included in that article. However, this source, from Vice, appears to make it the first known murder-suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge, and not the first murder suicide ever. That's still not such a significant notable first to warrant a stand alone article IMHO. Furthermore, that same article, the first murder-suicide could be said to be the 23 July 1945 of August DeMont and what he did to his five-year-old daughter, Marilyn.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The content is verifiable, but IMHO insufficient for a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

John Bateson's 2012 book The Final Leap, mentioned above as having only the name in a list, today (google books is random) came up today as having at least one much longer section on this event. There may, of course, be other such passages in this book or in other non-fully-text-searchable books. Embedded in a section about the emergency works who pick up the bodes, the section focuses on the horror of child death at the bridge, and particularly the horror of this case were the child survived, was taken to hospital where surgeons tried to save her life, and failed. It is very sad. It focuses on the horror felt by a senior coroner's investigator who recoiled from "leaving the child on a cold slab", and borrowed a bridge to lay the small body on. Interviews with emergency workers who came into contact with Kellie Page and the details of her death were, according to Babteson "widely" publicized. Bateson segues into a discussion of how "even so" a majority of the Bay Area public opposed suicide barriers. This event is referred back to repeatedly in books (Paying the Toll: Local Power, Regional Politics, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Louise Nelson Dyble, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, page 275) and in serious articles when construction suicide barriers was under discussion.

My argument here is that the Golden Gate Bridge is a big deal. Suicides from the Bridge have been a big deal. Since this article passes WP:GNG and since notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY it it both appropriate and useful to KEEP this article as well as to have articles on murder suicide, on jumping from the bridge, and on the bridge itself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

However, the murder/suicide is an EVENT, and thus must meet notability requirements of WP:EVENT. Therefore, it supersedes GNG.

Furthermore, link the source, since it is available online. Guess what, it is a single sentence

Nearly fifty years later, the father of a three-year-old Kellie Page ended her life in a murder-suicide from the bridge, in January 1993,

Moreover, it is contained as a footnote, not WP:INDEPTH coverage of the event.

So far, I have been assuming good faith. However searching the text, it does not say what E.M.Gregory stated above. Therefore, the honesty of the users statement is called into question. Please be honest, otherwise, I have to stop assuming good faith, as the policy does allow for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The New Yorker "In 1993, a man named Steve Page threw his three-year-old daughter, Kellie, over the side of the bridge and followed her down; even after this widely publicized atrocity, an Examiner poll that year found that fifty-four per cent of the respondents opposed building a suicide barrier." The New Yorker 2003 E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I already covered that above, it is a single sentence and is not WP:INDEPTH coverage about this event; it gives in-depth coverage of suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge in general, and gives this one sentence mention.

The primary subject of that article is Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge. Now, although it is already a section, E.M.Gregory has shown that there is sufficient reliable sources to note that the subject of Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge is a notable subject (not necessarily this event), and information about the subject of this AfD can be folded into a new article specific to Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge article created. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge, great solution. Thx to User_talk:Winkelvi for creating the new page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

You're quite welcome, E.M.Gregory. And thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for the inspiration. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect - I agree with both suggestion of redirecting to Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment: Closer please observe that many votes have shifted to redirection (including myself). I propose Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Steven_and_Kellie_Page as the most precisely-targeted redirect. Pax 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. There is only one real argument for deleting here which is a failure to meet WP:GNG and since sources have been added there is consensus that she satisfies this guideline. Michig (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Yilin Zhong[edit]

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

Not sure if she passes WP:BIO, article has a promotional tone, and is difficult to understand. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

delete. Also unconvinced she is notable. Needs more than lots of Amazon page ranks which can be temporary and generally are unverifiable. Could just be the lack of English language coverage though, there seems a lot more in Chinese which I’m ill equipped to evaluate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Sigh, I tried to convince the author to use AfC, but I guess they ignored that advice and moved it back to mainspace... The article was speedy deleted at Yilin Zhong previously, but I feel the AfD should run its course now. The article, while promotional, really doesn't rise to the G11 level. No comment on notability at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

- As I talked to ThaddeusB I am totally confused here. I am not a wiki person and really cannot understand what you guys are talking about. As I said, if any parts of this article is wrong, please just delete them or revise it. I have no idea how to meet your requirements so please just change it as you like. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptynow (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I couldn't find significant coverage in Chinese sources. ([14][15]) These two sources ([16][17]) in the article were written by her, not about her.--Antigng (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

- Hi Antigng, thanks for your search effort. the first search was with the traditional Chinese words and this language was not used in mainland China so there is nothing by that search. But it looks like that if someone published 10 books but cannot find an interview online, then he is not existed on wiki. e.g. the CCTV (China's Central TV Station) interview for her first book was broadcasting in 1996 when China has no internet yet, so we cannot find it by google at all. So were those books published before 2000 when Amazon launched in China and then there was no source online as well. I don't know what to say now. Emptynow (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails the GNG, pure and simple--- whether sources might exist doesn't matter, it's whether it's provable that they do. I recommend to Emptynow that if he doesn't know what Wikipedia requires for creating an article, reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR is a good way to start. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

-Ok, you guys pushed me spending five hours today to find those very limited online sources from 2000 in Chinese website. Done. and exhausted. I think this is the end of my contribution to this article no matter what happens next. Thank you guys. Good night. Emptynow (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - the recently added Chinese language sources appear to be sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - seems to have significant refs .. unless can be proved to be self-promotional should keep. May be more notable in the Chinese community but still notable. --Len (talk) 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Change to keep. Some of these sources meet our standard. Antigng (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Enough consensus; the last vote was for deletion but it gave a reason to keep the article instead. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Erika Cosby[edit]

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

No real notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Sufficient substantial sourcing to satisfy GNG. All "E. Cosby" articles are not the same. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep as per User:Carrite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - NOTINHERITED doesn't even apply .... there's enough sources and information to warrant an own article. Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Children of famous people can be notable in their own right. This is one example, and the coverage in reliable sources demonstrates it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete despite of who her father is. She's the recipient of major art grants and has had solo exhibits in major art centers. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Er, did something slip here User:Bearian? "She's the recipient of major art grants and has had solo exhibits in major art centers." did you intend to vote KEEP?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 consensus seems clear enough after the relisting. Only the nom argued for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Mary Billings French[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - inherited notability perhaps. But still notable. Per WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

"Inherited notability perhaps"? I think you don't have a clear understanding of WP:INHERITED and how that is not acceptable per GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Keep - She doesn't fail WP:GNG at all. It's important to WP:GOOGLETEST but because of the time period you need to search under the term "Mrs. John French" to identify sources (for instance, "Greenwich Woman Named President of Y. W. C. A." May 26, 1938 and "National Y.W.C.A. Leader To Serve Another Year" May 04, 1939 and "MRS. JOHN FRENCH, Y.W.C.A. LEADER; Former President of National Board Dies at 82--Broke a Hip Three Days Ago" June 15, 1951) Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Again NOTINHERITED doesn't even apply .... there's enough sources and information to warrant an own article. Someone just speedy Keep this. –Davey2010^Talk 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep agree with Davey2010. Also for upper class/rich women of that generation being president of charity organisations such as the YMCA was a notable achievement, given the limited access they had to politics and other spheres of society. There is a danger that dismissing such biographies Wikipedia editors are displaying a systemic bias. Is being president of the YMCA less of an achievement and less notable than being a member of the NFL, playing for a first class county cricket team? Wikipedia is not paper based so including this woman does not exclude someone else. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep per PBS et al. YWCA was a big thing back in the 1930s, and being its national president meant something. Furthermore, her primary residence is now a national park. FWIW, I've visited her house. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Nexus (magazine)[edit]

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

A conspiracist crank magazine. The article is unsupported by reliable independent sources substantiating notability. A couple of comments noting the name of the editor, some seriously unrelibale sites, a primary source reference to a page promoting Miracle Mineral Solution and that's about it. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

That page from the Conspiracy Encyclopedia doesn't come up - anyone got the source? If that's an actual article on Nexus, it qualifies - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Google books has the page: [18] Artw (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Except it doesn't actually show you the page. But yes, looking at surrounding pages it looks like this will be specialist encyclopedia coverage, so keep (just) - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep International publication with healthy newstand presence, appears to meet GNG though more sources would of course always help, possibly some of the wilder stuff on the page could do with some tidy up. Artw (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment -- Is there any reliable source for its alleged enormous circulation? If not, I would have thought that it should be deleted

The fact it is an Aussie-based publication, which one has been able to buy in several general newsagents here in Edinburgh for a number of years, should give you a clue as to its notability.

"A conspiracist crank magazine." - That it may be, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. It is well known, available in hard copy internationally, and fairly widely read. Not liking the contents is not a basis for deletion. I don't like Nuts magazine, FHM or many so called Women's Magazines, but that doesn't mean they should go. -MacRùsgail (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - this is utterly stupid. It has a significant readership internationally. I am well aware it is a niche publication, and I am disturbed by the far right undercurrent in it... and I think it is a poor man's version of Fortean Times... but all that said, it is worthy of an article.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is coverage in reliable independent sources. Feel free to add some. It has none right now. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I suspect ABC News (Australia) would be a little surprised to hear that they are not a reliable source. Artw (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Quite, how is ABC not a "reliable source"? This magazine - however dodgy and awful it might be - is internationally distributed through fairly mainstream channels. (Ironically the very networks that they criticise!)-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep The coverage from the ABC, combined with a couple of the other sources is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep as per pretty much everyone above - having said that, it needs an overhaul. I will try and get on that later. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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) Esquivalience ^t 02:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Katie Buckhaven[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, no WP:RS. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

"Keep" - talented young English artist with at least three record releases. Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. Although hardly what I would consider a slam-dunk case of notability, I found enough sources to make me think that there's probably even more out there if I kept searching: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Most of them seem to be local papers, but there's an interview from BBC Radio and a review in The Guardian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep and Improve - yes, there are definitely more adequate sources for this article, they just need to be found and NinjaRobotPirate has shown some of these. Very salvageable, therefore I oppose this nom. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Erinn Cosby[edit]

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

No notability on her own; falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Passes GNG as a photographer, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

~~Keep~~ It's not really fair that a photographer can build a career and get gallery shows and news coverage because of who Daddy is. But it is a fact that she meets WP:GNG, (also a fact that life isn't fair).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Again, your reasoning flies in the face of WP:INHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Questions: Where are the photobooks, the exhibitions? Where's the critical commentary? -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) PS I've just now noticed mention above of "gallery shows". But which gallery shows are these? (I don't see them mentioned in her website.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Good questions, Hoary> If she is a notable photographer, it stands to reason that these things would be easy to find. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom or redirect to Bill Cosby. Everything I see in the press refers to her as Bill Cosby's daughter, not as a photographer in her own right. All we really have in that regard is the praise of Frank Farley, a psychologist she works with from time to time. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep per Carrite. ResMar 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. The article says: She has had shows at Philadelphia's Art Sanctuary, the Smithsonian Museum, the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, and other venues. It gives two sources for this. But one of these is overtly a derivative of the other, and neither says anything that I notice about any show of hers at the Smithsonian, the Lincoln Center, or anywhere other than Philly's Art Sanctuary. Her website doesn't seem to do so, either. I don't see publications, and I see hardly any notice taken of her achievements other than in the single philly.com web page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

KeepShe is important to understanding the history of Bill Cosby and what I call "Cosby Demon Mythology" Her positive statement regarding her father is extremely important for example, [1]*Keep</ref> as many dozens of websites carry derogatory accounts of their relationship, for example: ^[2]Jayraskin (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)jayraskin[]

The first of those two references doesn't even mention this woman; it's instead about her sister. The second appears to be a derivative of this gossip piece; it's negligible. And even if these sources were instead "extremely important" for "understanding the history of Bill Cosby", that would be a good reason to mention her in the article about him; I don't see why it would necessitate an article about her. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete revisiting to change my vote after a bit of searching. On closer examination, it does not appear that she has been chosen for exhibition by important galleries or venues but, rather, that she has had some public exhibitions as "Cosby's kid". Also surprised that this AFD has not drawn editors who turn up previously overlooked sources, which usually happens in arts-related AFDs, Since her name is pretty unique, I suspect that sources of her notability as a photographer are simply not out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:INHERITED and WP:GNG--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per Hoary, evidence is just not there. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC).[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Evin Cosby[edit]

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

No true notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - Seems to fail GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep While it is true that notability is Not WP:INHERITED, it is also true that if Daddy is really, really famous, then, when you open a small store, it gets covered in the press, and when you raise money for charity [25], it gets covered in the press, and when you make a statement supporting Daddy, it's a headline in the Daily Mail here:[26]. You become a sort of celebrity-by-inheritance and there are even whole websites (Black Celebrity Kids) covering people like you [http://www.blackcelebkids.com/2008/08/11/the-big-kids-filebill-cosbys-daughter-opens-new-store/. When there is enough such coverage, you qualify for an article of your own under WP:GNG, even though you have done nothing that would merit a page if Daddy had not been rich and famous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Your reasoning is exactly why the policy WP:INHERITED exists. Coverage doesn't equate notability and not everything covered by media is encyclopedic or merits a Wikipedia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I get it. We disagree. [WP:INHERITED]] reads, in the relevant part Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." I' arguing that even though coverage is driven by who her Daddy was, at a certain point, coverage of, say, an otherwise insignificant small clothing store [27] does indeed make her pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Also because of articles like this [28]. Honestly, until today I had no idea how many magazines can be sold by writing articles about Bill Cosby's kids.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

As I already stated, "Coverage doesn't equate notability and not everything covered by media is encyclopedic or merits a Wikipedia article." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom or redirect to Bill Cosby. She's called Bill Cosby's daughter pretty much universally in the press, an obvious tipoff of INHERITED issues. She doesn't qualify as a entrepreneur and didn't get dangled off a balcony as a child. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as nom. -- ~~WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)~~ Your lvote is assumed as the nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete This is a classic case of WP:INHERITED and failure of WP:GNG.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 Serenity (film). Nakon 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[]

R. Tam sessions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find evidence to support a claim of notability of subject of article. Firefly, yes, but this cannot inherit from that. Article has no sources of its own to support a notability claim, and I found no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. KDS4444^Talk 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Also, the last deletion discussion of this article reads like an excerpt from WP:AADD. Please make your own argument for or against deletion on better criteria than were offered then, yes? Thank you! KDS4444^Talk 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge to Serenity unless better sourcing is found talking about these mini-episodes in particular. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Selective merge and redirect to Serenity, since the real-world purpose of the videos was marketing for that film. Any plot highlights that became relevant to the film can be aptly covered there and/or in the list of Firefly characters article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. There do seem to be sources out there, but the fact that the sessions could be known by a variety of names doesn't make it easy to search for them. Google Books throws up dozens of potential sources (just search "R. Tam sessions"), and, given that there is a lot of published work on Firefly (and given that there isn't actually much Firefly to go around) there is likely more. I also came across a Sydney Morning Herald piece entirely on the clips: Wilder, Gabriel (1 October 2005). "Suffering for art". Icon, Sydney Morning Herald. p. 9.. This is something that could come up in a number of literatures: anything on Firefly, Joss Whedon, viral marketing, internet videos/memes, sci-fi culture and so on could cover it. (I make this final point not as an "it's interesting" argument, but to point out the likelihood that more sources are out there.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge to Serenity (film). Once you remove all the plot detail of each of the sessions, which is not enyclopedic, the remaining material does not warrant its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Serenity (film). Just a viral marketing campaign for the film, with no sources. The brief mention in the article on the film is adequate. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. After over a month, there are still no reliable sources in the article. I will be willing to userfy this upon request should someone wish to expand the article further. Nakon 19:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Football Today[edit]

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

Non-notable.. fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - WP:BCAST is the criteria for broadcast media, not for TV shows. The criteria for TV Shows is WP:TVSHOW which this show easily meets being aired on national cable TV channels, in multiple countries including Sportsnet World in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[]
- You did read the part where it says "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience", didn't you? Those sources should be found first. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]
  - More definitive perhaps, but not only criteria. No lack of sources about it airing in Canada on Sportsnet World, and on Setanta Canada over the years. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW notability.--Sammanhumagain (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]
Comment - How? There is a complete lack of reliable sources... JMHamo (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- Other than 10-years of TV listings ... Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete This isn't the usual 'sports pundits around a table burning a half hour talking about football' format, but pretty much meets the definition of an infomercial about the Premier League which broadcasters can take at their leisure; NBCSN doesn't pick it up for the US, and I'm sure it's taken by other broadcasters merely to fill timeslots rather than as highlight programming for their schedule. I don't deny WP:TVSHOW, but there's many of these shows I wouldn't create an article on around the television schedule which are superficial looks at their leagues or players; judging from G-hits, many would have the same view. Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Normally I wouldn't care less about these things, but since I've significantly contributed to the article, I worked hard to find some sources, and have found some too. [1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]
Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 20:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- Comment - These are WP:ROUTINE citations and are not about the TV show itself. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
  - The tweets include the name of the show and you'll read about Football Today just at the third line of Dykes' official website. But if you want another, There you go, if you want to search of Football Today just press if CTRL+G if your surfing with Firefox and if you're using an iOS device just use search in page feature (type the word in the address bar) unfortunately I haven't been able to find such feature in Note 4. [6]
    Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[]
    - Comment Tweets are not a Reliable Source and we shouldn't expect readers to have to preform a page search in order to establish notability. Completely wrong. JMHamo (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]
      - The accounts of Mark and John are verified accounts, so they're reliable sources. You're just being ignorant. I've uploaded two pictures on imgur, as I wasn't allowed to upload it on Wikipedia. Here they are. Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]
        Seriously, have a read of WP:SOURCES, screen grabs are not reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)·[]

When on Earth did I say that Screenshots are reliable source? Those grabs are from the sources I cited, I did so because you're being ignorant, seriously I told you to have a look at the sources, and you didn't, Dykes works for Premier League Productions and his Twitter account is verified, why do you think was it verified? Because he sold Bananas at Wall Street? Those tweets specify that Football Today exists, and look at the schedule of SportsNet, it clearly says Football Today, and look at Dykes' website's About section, it clearly says that he works for Premier League TV, and Mark Pougtach's account is verified too, why do you think is it? And search, "Football Today Premier League", you'll be prompted. AND STOP BEING IGNORANT. Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Have a read of WP:CIVIL too. We need more than passing mentions of this. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject JMHamo (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC).[]

Delete. Notability hasn't been established. The article is entirely unsourced and the sources identified in this discussion are not sufficient to establish notability or to have an adequately sourced article. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 article has been substantially improved since nomination and the consensus is that it now meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Pseudoginsenoside F11[edit]

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

~~Blatant Original Research~~A new theory that does not reflect the scientific community consensus . Subject of the article reflect a minority view point. Idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Note that peer review is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Speedy Delete under A1 ~~TheMesquito^buzz 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~[]

Comment: There exist at least 11 research articles on the substance. I understand, however, that the article was written with commercial interest, and this has been cleaned up a bit. I see the article as something that needs work, not deletion. As far as I can tell, articles on chemical substances, especially if they have some known properties of interest, must not be subject to deletion. --IO Device (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

All I can see from the article now, after your editing on it is nothing but a conclusion drawn from a mere research work. We may consider a stand-alone article in the future, only when the subject of the article is widely discussed, then will someone with no WP:COI, who knows what a sensible article content should be and knows how to link to the title will write about it here.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

@IO Device:, I can see that you had changed your Keep vote to Comment. In the future, simply strike it with <del>Keep</del>. For example ~~Keep~~ Comment, then your contribution. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. It would probably be worthwhile to have an article on pseudoginsenosides given that an appropriate article on ginsenosides exists. I assume the two are non-overlapping sets of chemicals found in ginseng. Information on specific pseudoginsenosides such as F11 can then begin to exist there. For the moment, since the article is question is not being improved upon, I guess it may as well be deleted. Please note that action is needed to monitor, warn and possibly ban the user who created it, failing which the user will very likely to continue to spam Wikipedia, and quite possibly create further such articles. --IO Device (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

keep and expand Notable, and there are enough references for an article. The present version is not promotional, so I declined a speedy G11, as speedy doesn't apply if the promotionalism is fixable. "promotional intent" by itself is not a reason for deletion if it is rewritten. (Sometimes I wish it were, because then we could remove the probably half million article on barely notable people organizations etc that have probably been written with promotional intent. But it is hard to tell "intent". This could conceivably have used the producers link and information for convenience, not promotionalism). As for the afd reason, I don't see how it's OR in any sense, given there are references to RSs. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The references that exist in the literature probably don't conform to MEDRS, as they're not review articles. In principle I don't agree with MEDRS, but that's beside the point. This particular pseudoginsenoside is just one of many interesting pseudoginsenosides, and we don't even have a general article or section on pseudoginsenosides. Regardless, if I start adding a bunch of info to this article, chances are the info will eventually be removed by someone because there is no secondary source available. --IO Device (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[]

MEDRES does not apply if there are articles about the chemistry. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Consider the nearest article, namely ginsenoside. Looking at the article, it is evident that it not so much about the chemistry; it's practically all about the biological effects of various ginsenosides. Even in the best case, this is the realistic future, supported by primary sources, that awaits pseudoginsenoside F11 if it continues to exist. That's if the article is not ignored altogether. --IO Device (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep, cleaned up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Opabinia regalis performed a complete rewrite of the article. The article is much improved, with a description of chemical structure, occurrence in nature, folk medicine context, and some antagonistic effects on drugs in mice. The prose is neutral, well referenced, and sticks to the facts with no OR or promotional material. Peer-reviewed publications by multiple independent groups is sufficient for notability of this chemical compound and the rewrite has demonstrated a reasonable stub can be written from them. Per WP:HEY, I recommend keep. Nice work, Opabinia regalis! --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep per the reasoning by Mark viking. --IO Device (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Daša Radosavljević[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent sources given. The Banner talk 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment. According to Miss Serbia, runners-up at that context are the country's representatives at Miss Universe and Miss Earth competitions. Of course, there is a news coverage about the event, such as [29], and I can dig only a little more about Radosavljević (e.g. some coverage here [30], plus sites like missology.com). The thing is, how do we generally treat beauty pageants such as this one? Probably all entries from Category:Serbian beauty pageant winners (outside of Category:Miss Serbia winners‎) should have the same treatment. No such user (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[]
- They will be treated the same: all have to show notability supported by reliable sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as no evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep. I've added a reference to the text in respectable Politika ([31]) which prominently covers Radosavljević. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep This article subject has significant coverage in the Politica reference here [32], and also coverage at [33]. WordSeventeen (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete. Now that I think about it, it's a classic case of WP:1E. The lady became a beauty pageant, was in most news for one day, and will be forgotten soon. Nothing of lasting significance is asserted in the article, and is probably not there. No such user (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy[edit]

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

Article was deleted after PROD in 2013 and recreated today. I have done a huge amount of cleanup, the original version (with all 19 "references" and "further reading") is here. All references are just library catalog entries or even have nothing to do with the journal (such as "general references" to books that were published decades before this journal was established). Not a single independent reference that actually says something about this journal itself. Not indexed in any selective databases, not even Scopus. The journal still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment Not sure if our measurements are adequate for Asia-based open access publications – our indizes are still culturally biassed. The journal is however listed in PubMed, seems to be peer-reviewed and is published by a Wolters Kluwer subsidiary. A number of articles have been cited quite widely by Indian and Chinese autors in both journal articles and major publisher books. Some more input would be welcome. --PanchoS (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Our guidelines are perfectly appropriate to journals based anywhere. Several Medknow journals are Scopus or Science Citation Index-listed. Medknow, by the way, may have offices in India, it is an imprint of Wolters-Kluwer, a huge international publisher. The editor is based in Saudi Arabia. The PubMed listing is irrelevant: OA journals ghet very easily into PubMed Central and that comes with PubMed indexing. The selective database is MEDLINE (and even more selective is Index Medicus. A smattering of citations to articles is to be expected, but if it were more than a handful, the journal would be in Scopus or SCI by now. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning[edit]

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

Non-notable project. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

You're kidding. We should certainly merge the article with MarBEF Data System, but your non-notability assumption is ridiculous. This project is where the World Register of Marine Species was basically developped. --PanchoS (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

speedy keep - The accidental fork MarBEF Data System to be merged has plenty of ref. -M.Altenmann >t 03:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Plenty indeed. And, as usual with these EU-project articles, not a single one is independent. There is 1 (one) independent ref in the article on the World Register of Marine Species, perhaps there's more on that. So at best, what I see is that Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning and MarBEF Data System could be redirected to the article on the register, which already mentions EU funding. Apart from the register, I don't see any notability for the project. Such porojects are inherently ephemeral. All such articles always try to look more impressive by listing the institutions that collaborated/coordinated the project. Anybody familiar with these things knows the reality: If I tomorrow get a European grant to do some research, it is not me as a person singing the agreement, but my institution that signs, even if at our institution it is only poor old me who is involved in the project. It is the same with NIH and NSF grants in the US (which are often larger and more effective than these EU grants), even though I have yet to see a single article on one of those NSF/NIH grants (and justifiedly so). While the results of these grants (such as the register) are sometimes notable, the participating institutions are almost always notable, and some of the researchers involved may be notable, most of the projects themselves have not notability except that which they inherit from those results/individuals/institutions. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep, and merge all of the info at MarBEF Data System to here, with MarBEF redirecting here as well. Earflaps (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment "Keep" based on what?? All the non-independent sourcing? --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

The third-party sources are scattered about on google. A project like this is unlikely to get a lot of buzz in the mainstream press (unless there's a controversy), but the academic world seems to find it worthy of notice. Earflaps (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Gravity Hurts (song)[edit]

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

Again, fails WP:MUSIC, no notability is established with sources or with chart positions. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep per use of the title song by Lego (WP:NALBUMS#5). RichardOSmith (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete -- Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC: there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided and I have found none in my search. Even if the claim about Lego had coverage in RS sourcing, it would not pass based on WP:NALBUMS#5 alone. That criteria states that if use in a film is a recording's only claim, it would be inappropriate for a standalone article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete as it lacks coverage and the two sources used are both questionable. SilentDan (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 Laura Flanders. There is a consensus against keeping the article. Legitimate reasoning was given for a merge, so I'll close it as such. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

GRITtv[edit]

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

Non-notable media property. No apparent sources about the topic. Contested prod. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge to Laura Flanders. She's notable, and she's the one that gets cited when someone cites this program. Not enough sources about GRITtv for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]

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 on whether he was reasonably prominent member of past groups.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Danny Fury[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate notability. Onel5969 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete: References are all to directories, home pages, and other unreliable sources. Excessive number of external links smacks of self-promotion. ubiquity (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep He meets our notability guideline for musicians which states that "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" qualifies for an article. Fury has been a member of at least four notable bands during his career. I have wikilinked to those bands in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't see "reasonably prominent" . can you elaborate? He is only mentioned as a "past member" in The Lords of the New Church and The Dogs D'Amour with none of the text about members cycling in and out even mentioning when he was a member. Sham 69 shows him as a member for 1 year after the breakup and output of any notable materials. He was with Vain (band) for only 1 album.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Comment: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Reply That is the case for musicians who have been members of one notable band. When a musician has been a member of multiple notable bands, as in this case, there is no logical redirect target and an article such as this one is appropriate per the notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Administrator note related Draft by same author Speedy Deleted via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Danny Fury. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[]