The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A local educational competition that doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage; no references and none found. PROD declined due to a previous PROD in 2006. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:GROUP. Such a local event/organization is unlikely to have any WP:ORGDEPTH coverage. Ifnord (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been lying dormant for years, with the talk page (until my reply) remarking *five years ago* that this article's concept is "derivative" of sources ultimately from the NYT, which it was and still is even after I trimmed the fat and tried humbly to make it more npov instead of an essay (see history).
I quickly looked online and it seems the concept of "Jolie laide" is almost unknown in France and this may be an editorial neologism, ostensibly linked to Serge Gainsbourg. The whole article seems suspicious and it just has passed unnoticed for years, remaining essentially a stub with extra fluff. I don't see it as a hoax per se, but it is probably forced and ultimately unnotable. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely not an editorial neologism - whether, or how much, it is used in France, it has been used for years in English. A search of Google Books shows many examples going back decades [1], and even centuries [2]. There are examples in articles in newspapers, etc, too, eg The New York Times[3]. The Guardian 'Notes and Queries' section had several answers which provide more examples of its use in English [4]. My main question is whether it belongs in an encyclopaedia or in a dictionary, and I will have to check Wikipedia policies on how to determine that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see that an article about this phrase has already been deleted twice from Wikipedia, as being a dictionary definition, and it does indeed exist in Wiktionary. The entry there has no citations, nor a suggested origin, but I would not suggest merging the content of this article with the entry there, as the existence of the phrase in the 1880s clearly negates the idea that Serge Gainsbourg originated it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD deletion and observation about the more appropriate Wiktionary entry by RebeccaGreen above (though I notice there is no corresponding article in the French Wiktionary). AllyD (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per this and previous AfD discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus. This is clearly not going to end up as delete, and since that's the primary purpose of AfD, I don't see any point in relisting this. Whether this is kept as is, or moved to a different title, or merged somewhere, are all things that can get worked out on the article talk page. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG. I came across this article by chance. I believe the article does not belong in Wikipedia, because it is a collection of vague relations and coincidences, many of which are unsourced. No substantial relation between the Roman Empire and Buddhism is described. Whatever relation there is between Buddhism and the ancient European civilizations, has been sufficiently covered by the article Greco-Buddhism. This article does not add anything useful to that, though. I couldn't find any substantial coverage of the subject on Google Scholar either. There appears to be no relation at all between the Roman empire and Buddhism, or at least, not that scholars know of. Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 22:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be merged into Greco-Buddhism, then. As such it is relevant as the impact of Greco-Buddhism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. There really is a conspicuous absence of anything Roman in the article, and what is there seems broadly duplicative of (or at best supplementary to) content at Greco-Buddhism. Whether things like, e.g., the quotes in Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world#Western_knowledge_of_Buddhism are worth merging I can't tell. Note that Greco-Buddhism is getting a little large though, so if parts are considered for merging they might better be parceled out to the more specialized articles linked there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greco-Buddhism (which already covers the period). The Hellenistic period (by some definitions) covers the eastern part of the Roman empire up until 330 AD (when we switch over to Byzantines). Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is a good start-class article that has some nice images (I would never have expected to see a Buddhist statue recovered from Pompeii!) and describes specific contacts between Buddhists and the Roman world. It's definitely not suitable for deletion, although it could stand better organization. Not sure if it would benefit from merging into Greco-Buddhism, because that article covers a slightly different, though related topic, and the contents of this one seem likely to get lost if merged in. If, as has been suggested, Greco-Buddhism is reaching the point where it might benefit from more detailed areas being split off, then perhaps this would be a suitable target for some of that content to be merged into, instead of the other way around. Not sure if the title should be "and the Roman World"; I would have said in. But it's not a terrible title. So I oppose deletion, and support some kind of merger, but possibly with content being merged into this article instead of out of it. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose Merge. Roman contacts with the Buddhist world is a notable topic on its own. I have seen numerous sources discussing the impact of Buddhist missionaries on the early Christian thought. Greco-Buddhism is a completely separate topic, as that is concerned with the conversion of Greek conquerors and polities in the Northwestern India to Buddhism, and adoption of a Greek style art (such as coinage) in India. Buddhism and the Roman world is more about how much the Eastern and Western thoughts influenced each other, rather than about a birth of a new syncretistic culture. It is true that the scope of the article would need to be better defined. Merging the article to another is not going to help in that regard. Ceosad (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"numerous sources discussing the impact of Buddhist missionaries on the early Christian thought" — Where? I was under the impression that Buddhism could not be traced west of Persia in antiquity. Certainly we can assume some Buddhists as traders and envoys entered the Mediterranean world, but I am unaware of any missionaries. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhist missionaries are known to have been sent to Syria, Macedon and Egypt. The Mauryan Empire tried to expand Buddhism very actively beyond India. Buddhist influences on Christianity is a related article that mentions some of these sources. Ceosad (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's room for tightening in the existing article, but also sources for expansion. that have not been used. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I feel that there is a useful scope for all the articles referred to in this discussion. The present one may need improving. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure whether the topic of Buddhism and the Roman world is notable or not, but if it is, this article does not tell me about it, and doesn't seem to have much that isn't already in the other articles it links to for further information. Some sections seem to have nothing to do with the Roman world, and even the elements that are related seem only tangentially so - a Buddhist monk self-immolated in Athens sometime between 22 BC and 13 AD; a statuette found in Pompeii probably originated in India, but it's not clear which deity it represents, and nothing certain is known about how it got from India to Italy (direct trade? or traded through multiple interactions?). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 05:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Fat Head is a non-notable fringe conspiracy theory documentary that doubts scientific evidence for the lipid hypothesis. I am not seeing any evidence this documentary is notable, it advertises itself as a science documentary but no scientists have reviewed it. Tom Naughton [5] directed the film but he is not notable either (he has not directed anything else), the article reads like a promotion piece.
As it stands the article is in a bad way filled with unsourced statements and unscientific and misleading information, for example "According to the film, among other sources such as Mark Sisson, there has never been a single scientific study that has linked a high fat diet to increased rates of heart disease". Practically the entire synopsis section is filled with unsourced nonsensical claims. The only mainstream source that mentions the documentary and is on the article is from the Houston Chronicle. I do not believe one source is enough to establish notability. The other sources on the article are not reliable sources for information about scientific matters. Lowcarbdiets.about.com for example should not be cited. There are many sources on low-carb blogs or websites advertising this documentary, but no independent secondary sources. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The documentary might be nonsense, filled with anti-science, but that can't be the reason for the AfD. If as you say it is not notable, then that is another story. I only see the one citation from a RS. If the page is written like a promotion then that should not be grounds for deletion, but for a rewrite. I'm withholding my vote until I see if others come up with something more that would prove it's notability, will watch this AfD. Sgerbic (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I originally was planning a re-write but not possible because no reliable sources can be found. Had a dig around today for about 45 minutes looking. Nothing out there. I would certainly be interested in what others think. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film is about the lipid hypothesis and also covers a high-fat diet, there is a trailer of the movie on Yotube. If you run a Google search on "fat head lipid hypothesis", you will find articles written by Tom Naughton on the subject. For example, one of his articles on his website fathead-movie.com is titled "Another Big Fat (and old) Fail For The Lipid Hypothesis". As for the piece at healthcentral, it is not a reliable source written by a scientist. The author of that article was a low-carb promoter David Mendosa. I think it is best to cite medical experts on matters such as this. The problem is that the medical community have ignored this movie, there is no reliable coverage. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion has been advertised on various low-carb blogs, so there may be a meat-puppet problem here similar to the Malcolm Kendrick mess, where SPAS kept turning up. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by "meat-puppet"? Nickandre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real movie available on Amazon Prime. I've never known the content, subject matter or plot of a film to be relevant to its inclusion on Wikipedia. Cloudswrest (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this reason if no other (though there are plenty of good reasons given here). Whether or not someone agrees with a film, book, or person is no reason to disappear them. Rekleov (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a significant copy edit to delete anything that can't be properly sourced, but the Houston Chronicle article and the Health Central review are (barely) enough to pass notability, IMO. I wouldn't have an issue with an opposite result to this discussion, however, as I do feel that it's a very thin margin here. StrikerforceTalk 15:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Cloudswrest mentioned, this is a real movie available on Amazon Prime and for purchase in other places. Maybe you don't like the conclusions, but I've watched the movie and it seemed a fairly accurate description of the movie. Maybe the best solution would be to post a counter-claim section, much like was done on the Super-Size Me documentary page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3060:9640:4402:7570:1FCE:AAAD (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot write a "counter-claim section" if the critical sources necessary to do so do not exist; see our policy on "synthesis". And if those sources don't exist, then it's very likely the movie has flown below the radar of reliable sources, meaning that it is not notable and we shouldn't have an article on it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost please be civil. The term meat-puppet should be removed from the live version of this discussion.
When it is I will weigh in if the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in detail. In my opinion it does. Rsterbal (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Available on Amazon Prime" isn't part of our notability standards. The term "meatpuppet" while often thought impolite, has a long-established usage. In my opinion, its usage here has not been derogatory of any specific individual, and there is no reason to strike it, but that's just my opinion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't have articles solely because something exists on Amazon. It may be a real movie, but not one reliable sources seem to have noticed. There aren't enough sources to discuss the science, because noone has written about it. Noone was interested in it just as a movie, either-I looked; I couldnt find a single review apart from the Houston chronicle in a mainstream paper or website. The only places that appear to have noticed it apart from health central are fringey websites supporting low carb diets and blogs, none of which are RS. There just is not enough to meet the requirements for Film or GNG. Curdle (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the article could use some additional citations. The more glaring issue here is MatthewManchester1994. The user clearly has an agenda so much so the user changed their account to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 in some attempt to hide. I do not know if they are being paid for this or what their issue is but they are on an anti low-carb tirade. "similar to the Malcolm Kendrick mess" - MatthewManchester1994. Do not let this user be involved with any further deletion attempts for any wiki page. Concernedasparagus 02:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Concernedasparagus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
They have left the building- see WP:vanish so you needn't be concerned any longer. Welcome to Wikipedia, BTW. Curdle (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been deleted before in 2009...see [7]
Should that go in the box at the top? Because I'm not sure how to do that... Curdle (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be an immediate delete. There is a previous deletion discussion that was a consensus delete vote. 82.132.231.200 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — 82.132.231.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep - As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial namechanger and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to 'barely' pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer. In the original deletion way back in 2009, the proposer wrote, correctly "This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now." I would suggest that it is no longer too early. [Addendum: this review is now beyind a paywall. It is from BoxOffice (magazine), a clearly reliable source.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you are getting this "serial namechanger" from. That would be a personal attack, and doesn't match anything I've seen. If there has been an SPI or some other evidence then you may have a point, but not from his behaviour before leaving. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like it" is a poor argument, but not one that anyone has actually based a deletion case upon here. Sources are good, borderline ad hominems are bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Bilby, User "Skeptic from Britain" became "MatthewManchester1994" and then "vanished". While still in his first(?) incarnation, he repeatedly blanked his talk page ("deleting old conversations") although the last conversation had been in progress as little as one hour before. In addition, he actually thanked me for citing two highly regarded scientists who share the low-carb point of view, Tim Noakes and Richard D. Feinman, and promptly began editing (vandalising?) their pages. Anarchie76 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with blanking your own userpage. There is definitely nothing wrong with changing a username after suffering large scale off-wiki harassment - doing so does not make an editor a "serial namechangr". Nor do I see any vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Skeptic from Britain who proposed this deletion is associated with Quackwatch and is a heavily biased supporter of plant-based diets, he was on a crusade to attack any high-fat or meat-eating diet as "quackery". He was clearly a paid editor. Low-carb man (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Low-carb man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please refrain from unfounded personal attacks. Being "associated with" an external website is not necessarily a problem; people can have strong opinions without being paid. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic from Britain has been unmasked as an anti-animal produce vegan diet activist and has no association with QuackWatch. Jimmy Wales’s post alludes to this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the new sources are sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I don't believe promoting a fringe theory makes something non-notable. SemiHypercube 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt that this film has been hugely influential in advancing the low-carb/paleo/keto movement, which, despite protestations to the contrary, has a great deal of solid science behind it. While Tom Naughton is not a dietician or nutritionist, his blog makes a great deal of sense in scientific terms. When discussing science, he consistently references actual studies. Anarchie76 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Jimmy Wales and other keep arguments above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons mentioned above. Decisions to delete articles should not be influenced by strong personal bias or personal disagreements or online feuds. ~ Mellis (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as The Houston Chronicle, DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, Health Central etc. The article can be edited for neutrality so that it is less of a diatribe Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable. However needs a serious trim as dubious "science" is being WP:COATRACKed in via anecdote in the synopsis section. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. A Google search turned up only one reliable source, which was a single mention from an army document: [8]. Ultimately not notable. Rosalina2427(talk to me) 02:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged as "unsourced" for almost 9 years, and been a stub for 13 years. Time for it to go away, unless somebody can find a source. Good luck with that: the article originated as a redirect to dot matrix printer; then somebody else decided this was a "fallacious" synonym and wrote their own definition. Neither definition has any real world usage that I can find. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that nobody cares about this article to argue for or against. Another reason to delete it. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Interesting. It appears I was wrong about the term never being used. But in this case, it appears to mean the same thing as "dot matrix printer". Which is an argument for reverting the article to its original redirect role instead of deleting. Thoughts? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an article about a category of printers. It's a dictionary definition of a term. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dot matrix printer. I was unable to find sources in my search, and kudos to Guy Macon for tracking one down. The topic still seems far below WP:GNG notability thresholds, but with this now a verifiable historical term, I can support restoration to a redirect as a synonym for dot matrix printer. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG, It seems nobody cares about it Alex-h (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the technology is distinct from the dot-matrix printer, I think this difference is highlighted well-enough on the Printer page by classifying it under "Typewriter derived printers". So even if this page is deleted, I don't think the idea that it captures will be lost. I don't think it will matter whether a well-sourced reference for the term is found or not. A separate article is overkill. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With a dot-matrix printer, there is a generic (single) printing mechanism for any and all characters the printer can print; the printer head can form all possible characters that the printer's firmware supports. With type-writer derived printers, the individual characters are pre-defined mechanically (there will, for example, be distinct striking mechanisms / wheel positions for 'a' and 'A'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin The Paranoid (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Based on the information that Guy Macon provided, below, I suspect that the definition that I had assumed the article meant may not correspond to the actual term / title used by the article. i.e. Character Matrix printing may not mean what the article claims it is, even though the classification of printing technologies that the article describes is a real thing, and is distinct from dot-matrix printing technology. Doesn't change my vote, and I don't think it is changing the consensus that is building here, to delete the article. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference that I could find (see above) contains no evidence that a character matrix printer is in any way different from a dot matrix printer. Further research led me to the following on our Variable-message sign page:
"Dot-matrix variable message signs are divided into three subgroups: character matrix, row matrix, and full matrix. In a character matrix VMS, each character is given its own matrix with equal horizontal spacing between them, typically with two or three rows of characters. In a full matrix VMS, the entire sign is a single large dot matrix display, allowing the display of different fonts and graphics. A row matrix VMS is a hybrid of the two types, divided into two or three rows like a character matrix display, except each row is a single long dot matrix display instead of being split per character horizontally."
Here is a picture of a character matrix road sign:
I have seen the same thing on watch displays. Some of them have a large array of pixels and can display different size fonts, graphics, etc. Others have a matrix of pixels for the character, but no pixels between the characters. Here is an example:
The "SUN" on the display is an array of pixels. Depending on the mode, it displays UTC, ALM STW TMR, SUN/MON/... (7 days of the week) SYD/TYO/ROM/LAX/... (dozens of city codes) but it never turns on a pixel between the characters -- because it has no pixels there.
So my conclusion as an engineer who regularly designs this sort of thing is that a "character matrix display" is a real thing, but a "character matrix printer" is most likely not a thing that ever existed except as a marketing department's fancy way of saying "dot matrix printer". Unlike the examples above where having blank space between characters saves money, there is no advantage to having parts of the paper where the print head cannot print. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think an interesting article could be written on the subject of things which generate text by assembling a sequence of pre-existing and finite character shapes, as opposed to forming arbitrary shapes by a dot matrix of some sort. In addition to the examples given in this article, I would include old-fashioned label makers, steel character stamps, linotype machines, and early phototypesetters. But, this isn't that article, and there's no indication that the term "Character matrix printer" is a real term. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only significant role is Ruby in the long-running According to Jim. WP:NACTOR expects significant roles in multiple TV series or films, but the actress has seen hardly any additional roles since the ABC series, other than a few appearances as herself (a pageant judge) on Toddlers & Tiaras. Her music career, including with a girl group called Pink-E-Swear, has shown little or no activity of note, and would clearly fail WP:NARTIST. And even with WP:BASIC, there are not enough independent, secondary reliable sources with significant coverage of her. (Those I have found thru Google search only have mere mentions of her, most mentioning nothing more than her celebrating a birthday.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the proposition that the current article is nowhere near meeting WP:BASIC, and that the subject does not separately pass WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor, minor celebrity with only local fame; references are all to minor local publications and have very little substance. Person doesn't pass GNG, and the article is a puff piece even in its current state. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search turned up barely any information, and nothing on Google News. Rosalina2427(talk to me) 02:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is essential a CV written almost entirely by two single purpose accounts (Additionally, subject has asked Twitter followers to "help" after it was previously deleted via WP:PROD). Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE; no third-party sources about the writer; rather, just links to articles she has written. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Rebecca Renner who wrote several often cited science articles in the 80s, but, from this Rebecca Renner's website, this isn't her. For this Ms. Renner, there are no secondary sources that talk about her at all. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youngish writer who has published articles but about whom I cannot find coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Fails GNG guidelines as to notability for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just another football match. I don't think being mentioned in a couple of autobiographies confers notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am going to go with delete, I read through the article and checked out the sources although GNG seems fine I fail to see the need for this article over 1983–84 European Cup and 1984 European Cup Final. I feel a bit of content could be merged over to the Final article, could expand on the semi there. I also feel the article seems to be written in bias to Liverpool and fails NPOV. Overall, WP:ARTN, Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.Govvy (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced it meets GNG tbh. GiantSnowman 09:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Spiderone 18:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the especially violent nature of these games, there's nothing particularly special about them, and coverage is little beyond routine. – PeeJay 21:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can be userfied or draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody wants to work on it. Sandstein 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of fluffery but no notability. A bunch of non-notable awards, works in some museums - however, the two museums which could have really make a difference, Odessa and Volgograd, are not referenced. No reliable independent sources describing her work. Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added the article links to sources on museums: Odessa is the reference Chapter in the book "Forgotten the Great soldiers of the Second World war" and Volgograd: «Volgograd Museum will receive a gift of portraits of famous countrymen». I also found on the official website of the Moscow city Duma entry about that picture of Aida Hanemayer is in the Pushkin Museum. I will write these links to sources in the text of the article. I hope that experienced members of the Wikipedia community will help improve this article according to Wikipedia's rules. With respect.Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to all. I added independent sources: this is the Culture Portal of the Volgograd Region (state-run media), the Moscow City Duma Portal and the book about Aida Hanemayer. These are completely reliable sources.Олег Черкасский (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see that this is a newly created article. It does not appear ready for mainspace. The references to the subject's own website should be removed. The Biography section needs to be broken into Early life and education, Career, Exhibitions, Publications, etc. Some of the Sources could perhaps be used as References instead of the unreliable references included. For the galleries and museums which hold her works, it would be useful to have links to their collection databases, rather than a reference which just states that her works are in certain galleries and museums. I think that the same editor created the Russian Wikipedia version of this article - it would be useful to read WP:BLP, the guidelines on writing biographies of living people on the English Wikipedia, as the policies may be different. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear Rebecca Green. I am very glad that you paid attention to my article. I will make corrections in the article according to your recommendations, but it takes time. With respect,Олег Черкасский (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
unsourced & may not be notable ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 13:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Right now, the article does not provide even basic geographic context. However, I was able to find two academic sources about habitat destruction in this area, [9][10]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - one of the most important dry forest habitat in Jamaican, site of the country's largest protected area (Portland Bight Protected Area), last stronghold of the endangered Jamaican iguana and Jamaican hutia. For example [11][12] and this scholarly article which calls it a "biodiversity hotspot within a hotspot". A few seconds on Google yields more than enough hits to demonstrate the notability here. This is a rather extreme failure to apply WP:BEFORE. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in local news articles, easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyertalk 07:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now sourced the article. It's not great, but it's better than what it was. SportingFlyertalk 07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a special place and is OK with GNG and has reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing shows it passes notability guidelines for places JC7V (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another longevity claimant about whom there is nothing remarkable. He lived, ate a certain diet, claimed to be a highly implausible age, and died. Once stripped of the irrelevant cruft about unrelated old people and his medical history, all of the useful information is best maintained in a list and table on the Longevity claims article. There's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOPAGE. The article is packed with longevity fancruft like his old nickname, age at first doctors visit, and his secret to longevity. He claimed to live 10 years longer then the oldest verified man ever and was an obvious fraudster. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, coverage, and content for a standalone article, and this doesn't measure up in any respect. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic passes WP:GNG as it stands, with no less than 4 pieces of substantive coverage in reliable sources. The nominator makes no claim to have done any of the required WP:BEFORE research to see if there is more coverage.
The invocation by @Newshunter12 of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED is also misplaced. This topic is notable because of a single attribute, whereas WP:BIO1E is about a single event ... and an topic which meets GNG is not claiming inherited notability. So those arguments should be discounted.
Similarly, the assertion by Newshunter12 that Martinez was an obvious fraudster is not supported by any sources cited here or in the article, and as such is blatant WP:OR. It may be indeed be true that he was a fraudster, but even if the sources support that assertion, it does not remove his notability; it merely changes the ways in which the article is written and categorised. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", so the article correctly notes the lack thereof in this case.
That leaves us solely with WP:NOPAGE. Nothing in that guideline recommends deleting an article which satisfies GNG. There is no predent in any other topic area for the systematic merger of articles on notable people to a list.
I am concerned that this is another in a series of XFD nominations prepared at WT:LONGEVITY#AfDs_of_individual_biographies and pursued as a tag-team by members of that project on the basis of what I can most kindly describe as severe misunderstandings of most of the policies and guidelines which they cite. The members of that project appear to have agreed among themselves that articles on people notable for longevity are inherently and axiomatically "cruft", and that GNG is insufficient. They have no policy basis for doing so, and appear to have decided that their own overt hostility to the topic should override the editorial judgement of respected major news sources. That is blatant POV-pushing, and it is just as incompatible with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV as the inverse view pushed by of the fans of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) that the mere fact of longevity create a bypass around WP:GNG.
I have supported the deletion or merger of articles on non-notable supercentenarians, and I will continue to do so .. but this is different. This is part of a systematic campaign to eliminate articles on demonstrably notable supercentenarians, which extends even to WP:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian). WP:LONGEVITY's cleanup campaign has taken a wrong turn into organised disruption.. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is no organized campaign of disruption. Secondly, this man does not inherit per WP:NOTINHERITEDFidel Castro's notability just because he worked for him. Thirdly, reaching a great age and getting some coverage for that is a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. Fourthly, my assertion that the man was an obvious fraudster is based on a clear understanding of basic facts about human longevity - just because the media wouldn't call the man what he was, a pathological liar, and instead did their, oh well, everything's 50/50 rubbish doesn't mean editors need to be idiots and ignore the reality about this man. He was an un-notable lying fraud who scammed some media coverage and other attention. What about that merits a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? Newshunter12 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12: Firstly, I'm sorry to have had to say it, but WP:LONGEVITY's campaign is disruptive. I cannot know whether that is by intent or misunderstanding, so I AGF that it is happening because of lack of understanding. That AGF will be easier to sustain if WP:LONGEVITY members desist from the tag-teaming, and start implementing policy by, for example, challenging the lack of WP:BEFORE in these nominations and retracting the misapplication of other policies such as WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOPAGE.
Meanwhile, the tag-teaming in manifestly deficient nominations stands a good chance of succeeding in the deletion of articles of notable people. That is disruptive, and if it continues now that it has been called out it will become tendentious per WP:IDHT.
Secondly, the Fidel Castro thing is a complete straw man. Obviously, NOTINHERITED would apply if such a claim was made, but nobody in this discussion has claimed notability on that basis.
Thirdly, reaching a great age is not an "event"; it a process stretched out over many years. Nobody suddenly becomes very very old one morning; it is a process which happens over decades.
Fourthly, this is an NPOV encyclopedia. So assertions that someone was a fraud and a liar are absolutely no barrier to coverage, even if reliable sources accepted accepted the fraud as proven beyond any doubt. If you disagree, feel free to do a mass AFD of the >11,000 articles in Category:Fraudsters and its subcats, plus the 118 articles on perjurers. (You could add in a few highlynotablefraudstersandperjurersfromcountriesallaroundtheworld, plus afewimpostors).
Martínez may indeed have scammed some media coverage, as you claim without citing any reliable source. But AFAIK there is nothing in any policy which allows us (let alone requires us) to discount reliable sources because we have ethical concerns about how those sources came to write about the topics. On the contrary, our standard is verifiability, i.e. we follow the sources. You believe that the balance of existing coverage of this man is all wrong, so the remedy open to you is go write a better article or book in support of your claim, and then suggest to other editors that they rewrite the article giving due weight to your published works.
Meanwhile, your claims are pure WP:OR: your own unsourced, personal opinion. It doesn't matter how many others in WP:LONGEVITY share your view of Martínez, because no en.wp editor is a reliable source. This campaign to delete articles because y'all reckon you know better than the reliable sources and the RSs therefore do not count towards notability is a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's time for y'all to go read WP:THETRUTH ... and to remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary publication, i.e. we follow the balance of existing reliable secondary sources regardless of whether we personally believe those sources to be wrong.
@BrownHairedGirl Feel free to report me to whatever governing body you like for punishment. I stand by my editing, and if happening to have overlapping interests with other editors and in a few cases believing reality ≠ WP:OR gets me banned, so be it. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12, policy at WP:V is v clear, and always has been. In writing Wikipedia, reality is determined by reliable sources. The rest is flaky sources or WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl Well, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said she would rather bungle the response to the Libyan uprising through action then inaction, so if that is good enough to decide the fate of nations then it is good enough to decide how I edit Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then please report me. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12: That response sounds very much like WP:THETRUTH. And I'm not going to get into unpicking the analogy because that would bring us into political POV territory, but I'll remind you of the politician's fallacy.
So it looks like I may indeed have to take this further. Pity :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could maybe see this in a table or list item on Longevity claims, but 4 news articles, in my estimation, is not sustained coverage. The guy worked the fields for Fidel Castro, made this claim, and died. This is different from the Charlotte Hughes situation in a lot of ways. I, certainly, don't want this to get out of control, and the only other similar article I have any intention of nominating for deletion is Samuel Sadela; besides just nominating articles I've tried to clear some pages miscategorized in Longevity claims and Longevity myths, so it isn't just about deleting stuff. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the four inline cites appended to the article and the detailed examination by BrownHairedGirl, above, of this deletion proposal. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Delete some news wires picked up a story about a non notable fraudster. Not worth an article. Living 4 years longer than the accepted oldest person is pretty clearly not true. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: I have checked the 4 sources cited in the current version of the article, but as far as I can see not one of them derives from a news agency. Maybe I have missed something, so please can you explain whether you are claiming that news wires were involved in any of those stories? And if so, why?
This is important, because those if those sources are not from news wires, then the topic clearly meets the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" event before we evaluate the wire stories which were included the in long list of sources helpfully listed above by @Cunard.
I see nothing in any policy to support the notion that a false claim undermines notability. It just means that the article should be written differently, with the veracity of his claim covered in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. If, for example, the sources all agreed that Martinez was clearly lying about his aged, then we should open the article with a clear statement that Martinez is notable for a false claim of longevity. If the sources are less definitive, then the article should note that the claim is disputed or unverified, or whatever the sources say.
It would be helpful if you could clarify whether any reliable sources assert that Martinez was a fraudster, or whether that assertion is your own original research. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with User:BrownHairedGirl. The campaign against pages regarding old people has gone too far. No you most definitely cannot just get around WP:GNG by saying "famous for being old so delete" if the subject of the page is the subject of sustained WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. This is symptomatic of a larger problem with is WP:CREEP mostly directed at deleting references and articles because, ultimately, there are groups of editors who do not like those articles/the sources that they are based on. FOARP (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly WP:OR to say an unverified undocumented claim to living years beyond the longest lived man known is unlikely to be true. The story got picked up by some international media but that does not make this fraudster notable. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is based on coverage. No part of that policy makes a GNG-notable person become non-notable just because they have been proven to be a fraudster. (And in this case the claim of fraud appears to be unsourced). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl that makes no logical sense. You have no sources to say I am not 20 feet tall or 200 years old or the King of the United States but if I claimed these things Wikipedia would rightly reject the claim as fabricated. The rest of your point is attacking a strawman. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: you are entirely missing the point. Wikiedia's policy is WP:Verifiability, not truth. We follow the reliable sources. WP:V says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".
If I were to make some outlandish claim about you or anyone eslse, then it would be assessed by the sources, not by anything which you or I said about it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on what User:BrownHairedGirl just said, if you claimed to be 20 feet tall or 200 years old or the King of the United States, and reliable sources gave significant coverage to you based on that, that would pass WP:GNG. If you were later exposed as a fraud and that was also reported in a reliable source, this would not make you non-notable, if anything it would make you more notable. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in policy saying that articles uncritically spew bullshit because normally reliable sources do. Editorial judgment matters, and that is what I'm arguing here. The claim in question is bullshit no matter how many purportedly reliable sources say it, and it's well within editorial discretion to excise provable bullshit (this doesn't mean that the editors adding to this article endorse said claim, to be sure, I do not think anyone is acting in bad faith or pushing some POV here). No RfC needed. (Lest my view sound strange, the whole WP:VNT RfC years who was basically about rewording the lead sentence to avoid exactly the interpretation I'm arguing against, one of the key arguments was that verifiable bullshit is still bullshit, and policy should discourage bullshit in a serious reference work). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Benito Martínez Abrogán (June 19, 1880? – October 11, 2006) was a Haitian Cuban who claimed to be the world's oldest living person. He claimed to have been born on June 19, 1880, near Cavaellon, Haiti; however, he had no documents to verify this and was thus never an officially eligible candidate for this record. The Cuban government :sent officials to Haiti to investigate, but found nothing to either prove or disprove the claim. Cuban government medical experts attested that he was at least 119 years old at the time of his death, but the reasons for this determination were never presented.
That looks like a near-perfect example of how to apply WP:V and WP:RS. It notes his claims, but does endorse it. Instead it notes the absence of evidence to uphold his claim, and the fact that Cuban officials offered no rationale for their endorsement. Beyond that, it leaves readers to make up their own minds. That seems to me to be entirely in accordance with both WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
This is not, as you assert, bullshit. It is an encyclopedic summary of the reliable sources: that a claim was made, but has not been substantiated. You or any other reader is quite entitled to conclude from that lede that claim is bullshit, but however well-reasoned that conclusion, it is is WP:OR or WP:SYN.
Your stance looks ever more like the mix of policy-defiant WP:OR and blatant WP:POV-pushing which is satirised in WP:THETRUTH.
It is long past time that you and the rest of the WP:LONGEVITY tag-team desisted from using en.Wikipedia as a vehicle for your WP:THETRUTH campaign. Y'all are of course free to go and do your original research research in a scholarly way and get it published in a way which meets the editorial oversight criteria of WP:RS. That published material can of course could then be cited on en.wp as an evaluation of such claims. But an unsourced assertion by you or me or any other editor that reliable sources are "bullshit" is pure original research.
I remind you again that Discetionary sanctions apply in this area, and that WP:ACDS#Expectations explicitly says that editors are expected to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines". This OR and POV-pushing is blatantly policy-defiant, and if it continues then I will assemble to evidence to ask uninvolved admins to apply sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, I operate on my own. OR doesn't mean uncritically accepting anything a normally reliable source says even if it's obviously wrong (looking over the Sam Blacketer AfD from many years ago shows just where that can lead), and that is all I'm arguing. This is a facially absurd claim, and a serious reference work will either filter out such noise or, if it's notable enough, explain as much; I happened to think this falls into the former category, so I nominated it. If this discussion results in a keep, I'll keep an eye on this article make sure it continues to say as much (as the sources themselves do). In this specific instance I was wrong about this article's content (while I disagree that the lead is near-perfect, I think it veers into making longevity sound like a sporting competition, that's surmountable), the larger issue of how much weight to give these claims in general is best worked out elsewhere. And also, in my view this really isn't worth getting worked up over; I was around for the party during the arbitration case, we're nowhere near that level of heat, and there's nothing here that can't be fleshed out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in RS has been identified above to meet WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a review of available sources, this subject meets WP:BASIC. North America1000 09:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets WP:BASIC, with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as referenced in the article and with additional sources noted above. He received international coverage in sources independent of each other while he was alive, as well as after he died. There is no policy that meeting WP:BASIC because of the subject's old age excludes them from notability. Discussion here seems to have veered into the quality of the article, which is not the purpose of AfD. However, Wikipedia does have policy on citing uncertain dates MOS:APPROXDATE, as I have had cause to note in another AfD this week. Instead of a ? after the date of birth, the policy recommends placing (unattested) after the date. (I am not sure why this AfD was extended, as it appears to be a clear Keep, not just on votes but on policy-based arguments.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic question is does the article meet WP:Basic and it does, with three reliable sources listed in the article, more listed above, not is the claim of the article's subject fraudulent. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, It has coverage Alex-h (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Reads like a press release. Rejected at ACPERM and moved to mainspace by the author. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:ORGIND. Ifnord (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. We've had plenty of input here over two weeks, with a fairly even split of opinion between deleting and keeping. Michig (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage by RS (scholars and mainstream media) that clearly indicates the topic is notable. Here is a non-all-inclusive list. Note that the term "evangelical persecution complex" is also in use as a synonym. Also, note that not all editors have been informed of this AfD proposal. [13]. Is that Canvasing? Anyway, the list.
Extended content
Books, journals and work by scholars
Elizabeth A. Castelli; Persecution Complexes: Identity Politics and the “War on Christians”. differences 1 December 2007; 18 (3): 152–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-2007-014
Castelli, Elizabeth A. (2008-04-17). "Persecution Complexes". The Revealer. Retrieved 2018-12-10.
Hoover, Linda, "Effects of Negative Media on Evangelical Christians' Attitudes Toward Evangelism" (2015). Dissertations & Theses. 198. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/198
Årsheim, Helge (2016). "Internal affairs? Assessing NGO engagement for religious freedom at the United Nations and beyond". In Stensvold, Anne (ed.). Religion, state and the United Nations: Value politics. London: Routledge. p. 79-94. ISBN978-1-138-93865-6. SSRN2892536.
Ben-Asher, Noah (September 21, 2017). "Faith-Based Emergency Powers". Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. Forthcoming. SSRN3040902.
Cavill, Paul (2013). "Anglo-Saxons Saints' Lives and Deaths". In Kojecký, Roger; Tate, Andrew (eds.). Visions and revisions: The word and the text (Unabridged ed.). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN978-1-4438-4332-4.
Janes, Dominic; Houen, Alex, eds. (2014). Martyrdom and terrorism: Pre-modern to contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN978-0-19-995985-3.
"Anti-LGBT roundup 10.13.17". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2017-10-13. Retrieved 2018-12-10. Please not that this article is placing a link at the term "Christian Persecution Complex", indicating the attention the term has gained.
I took some time to analyze the sources by Cinadon36. Here is my review:
Source
Reason why it is unreliable
Elizabeth A. Castelli; Persecution Complexes: Identity Politics and the “War on Christians”. differences 1 December 2007; 18 (3): 152–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-2007-014
Does not mention "Christian persecution complex" in preview given. Is it even in the source?
Castelli, Elizabeth A. (2008-04-17). "Persecution Complexes". The Revealer.[14]
This is the work of a single author on a non-academic website.
Hoover, Linda, "Effects of Negative Media on Evangelical Christians' Attitudes Toward Evangelism" (2015). Dissertations & Theses. 198. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/198
The link provided does not mention the very term in question "Christian persecution complex."
Årsheim, Helge (2016). "Internal affairs? Assessing NGO engagement for religious freedom at the United Nations and beyond". In Stensvold, Anne. Religion, state and the United Nations: Value politics. London: Routledge. p. 79-94. ISBN 978-1-138-93865-6. SSRN 2892536.
Not accessible. What is the quote from this source explicitly mentioning the neologism?
Ben-Asher, Noah (September 21, 2017). "Faith-Based Emergency Powers". Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. Forthcoming. SSRN 3040902.
How can we use a forthcoming book as a source?
Cavill, Paul (2013). "Anglo-Saxons Saints' Lives and Deaths". In Kojecký, Roger; Tate, Andrew. Visions and revisions: The word and the text (Unabridged ed.). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-4332-4.
Per a WP:RSN discussion (see this) you should avoid trusting "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" as reliable until you have thoroughly reviewed the source. What is the quote from this source explicitly mentioning the neologism?
Janes, Dominic; Houen, Alex, eds. (2014). Martyrdom and terrorism: Pre-modern to contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-995985-3.
It has made a passing mention of the term but that is not really fulfilling GNG. [15]
Our subject is "persecution complex" not "invented story of martyrdom". Can you provide where you discovered details for "persecution complex"?
Jason Wiedel (20 November 2014). Persecution Complex: Why American Christians Need to Stop Claiming That They Are Persecuted. Crowdscribed, LLC. ISBN 978-0-9905917-4-0.
This is once again a newspaper article and it does not use the term "Christian persecution complex", let alone this subject being primary topic of the source.
See SerpahimSystem's comments that why Moss' conclusions (and hers alone) are unreliable.
"Anti-LGBT roundup 10.13.17". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2017-10-13. Retrieved 2018-12-10. Please not that this article is placing a link at the term "Christian Persecution Complex", indicating the attention the term has gained.
They are talking about beliefs of Family Research Council (FRC) and this won't establish notability. Also note that the term is in scare quotes and something not established.
Keep Notable topic and well-sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Echo the above. However, it's pretty poorly written and if it survives the AfD it ought to be rewritten in a coherent fashion. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with the article goes beyond notability, it is a WP:CFORK on historicity of persecution in the early church. The use of the term "Christian Persecution Complex" limits the sources to those who are arguing against historicity, thus with the current title it is not possible to write a neutral article. Our articles on this topic are usually named "Historicity of..." etc. But, not all of the sources above are on the same topic. The term is an ill-defined neologism, so the content about historicity of early Church martyrdom stories and hyperbole in present day American evangelicalism represent at least two different topics. It would be easier to nuke this and start over then it would be to fix it.Seraphim System(talk) 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neither a neologism nor a fork. The article does not deal with the historicity of persecutions in extent-there is just a brief mention in a section. When discussing early christian times the focus is on the perseption of those persecutions, not persecutions per se. Having clarified that, I would like to point out that the main body of the article deals with a current phenomenon -the idea of christians in the west that are being persecuted and in a lesser degree, its effect on mainstream politics. That has nothing to do with other WP articles that I know of (ie persecution of christians) hence I can not understand the claim that the article is a FORK.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the topic is notable is unquestionable. Maybe the article's name should be changed to something else. "Christian persecution myth" could be one option. There are many sources that elaborate on the topic, using different terms of course. But for deletion, I do not see enough reasons. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: I'm commenting on this AfD as an editor who consulted the sources and tried to clean up the article before I saw how deep the issues ran and agreed to support a second AfD nomination. What you are calling the "persecution myth" starts with the narrative concerning Stephen in Acts of Apostles. The text of the Bible, as many editors are probably aware, is considered semi-historical and the degree of its historical authenticity as been discussed at length in scholarship [16][17] - with near unanimity, Stephen scholars assume that behind Luke's highly stylized narrative of Stephen there lies a historical person. We can't just dismiss something that is nearly unanimously agreed upon in scholarly sources because Candida Moss wrote a new book. Since the main article hasn't even been created yet, this is an inappropriate FORK dealing with only one POV about a broader subject.Seraphim System(talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not semi-historical, it is about a current phenomenon. Candida Moss published a notable book that made an impact. She is a leading expert on the subject. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: The topic of usage of claims about persecution is notable, though the current name of the article might be wrong. Could interested editors agree to delete this article and write a new and more neutral one on the topic? If not, is there any other option to cover the topic while deleting this article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my attempt to take a wikibreak to reduce the wikistress in my life, I could work on something along the lines of "historicity of persecution in early christianity" if it will help us reach a consensus here. The plentiful background reading for the article will give me something to do during my downtime.Seraphim System(talk) 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a WP:NEOGLISM and an WP:ATTACK article. Most of the citations used in the article are opinionated blog articles, such as the Salon article. Some of the citations provided by the creator of the article User:Cinadon36, are self-published, such as "Persecution Complex: Why American Christians Need to Stop Claiming That They Are Persecuted" (printed by Crowdscribed, LLC). What a neutral book title by the way (sarcasm). This article also contradicts academic studies that demonstrate that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world in the present day. [18]desmay (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is not an attack, as it entails all views ie the hostility against Christians. WP:NEO does not apply either, as there are multiple secondary sources that are using the term. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article, entitled with a nonextant psychiatric disorder which it uses to describe an entire class of people, is something like a Platonic form of WP:ATTACK pages. "Entail" doesn't mean remotely what you apparently think it does, and "clearly" isn't in and of itself an effective rebuttal.Mr Spear (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:Seraphim System's reasoning both here and on the article's talk page. Take away the handful of op-eds written by unauthoritative commentators in sources that fail WP:RS, and the remaining article violates WP:CFORK. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the idea that Christians suffer from persecutory delusions sounds like a fringe theory. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is both a current psychological and sociological phenomena that is being researched, talked about and dialogued about in academic circles. The sources are not primairly blogs or self-published, :) :( that is a fringe claim. Sethie (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quickly reviewed about three mainstream sources in the article and this passes WP:GNG pretty clearly. SportingFlyertalk 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that Bmbaker88 noted above. Dhalsim2 (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsubstantiated by reliable sources. Majority of the sources are self-published or simply unreliable. Given the confirmed lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources" I believe there is no reason to keep the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are unreliable? The Atlantic? Salon? Al Jazeera? The numerous published journal articles? All of these easily combine to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyertalk 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can say yes, and also include patheos blog, medium.com, etc. for confirming that this subject lacks GNG. Those sources claim that this belief is old, but if it is really old then why it failed to receive attention of reliable sources such as scholarly publications? Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This argument makes absolutely no sense. We have multiple academic articles which discuss the topic and multiple secondary independent news articles which discuss the topic. Calling the Atlantic or Al Jazeera "unreliable" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it's unquestionable WP:GNG has been satisfied. If you think the article should be deleted, you need to find something in WP:NOT to overcome the presumption the article should be on Wikipedia. SportingFlyertalk 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The extraordinary claims in this article need reliable high-quality sources, not just the opinions of one author contained in non-scholarly online news articles. Knox490 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article should be deleted per WP:POVTITLE and WP:CFORK. Could you imagine Encyclopedia Britannica or Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia hosting this article? I think not. Carajou (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reasons to delete, as deletion is not cleanup. This article just passed an AfD several months ago where it was clearly established it passed WP:GNG, especially with the sources found by the user E.M.Gregory (who I am not hotlinking so I do not canvass.) I'm not sure what making a comparison to the Britannica has to do with notability, either. SportingFlyertalk 03:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing that can't be fixed through regular editing, with plenty of WP:RS on the subject. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A subject such as this could receive significant coverage by reliable sources if it really happened to be notable. I have searched for the sources there is obvious scarcity of reliable academic sources. Lorstaking (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A handful of top quality reliable sources is enough. WP:NEO doesn't apply to scholarly research. wumbolo^^^ 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are sufficient. -- , and as they are from mainstream academics, I do not understand the claims of insufficient reliability. The delete arguments do not seem to apply to the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of primary sources to effectively refute the contents of this article. James Clifton — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Walter Clifton (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, merge, or delete. In other words, NOT Keep as is. The title is POV. I object to any proposal that results in a standalone article with that kind of a title. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expand content, this is about a controversial term, there should also be adequate coverage of opponents of the term in the article. Note that the article title is not POV because the article title just reflects the term that the article is about. It is the term itself that is controversial, that makes quite a difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't even have an article on persecution complex (this redirects to "persecutory delusion" becasue no serious psychiatrist talks about a "persecution complex" any more) so its absurd to have one on "X persecution complex". And if we had articles specifically about "X persecution complex" for every group where someone had alleged that some members of the group had a "persecution complex" (whatever that means) we'd be cluttering up Wikipedia absurdly. NBeale (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the Christian Persecution Complex has nothing to do with any kind of medical term. The term was coined by academics in the discipline of humanities, not medicine. Maybe a tag/note "not to be confused with...." would solve this particular problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand what is going on. Delete !votes based on "this is a content fork" and delete !votes based on "this is not a content fork". wumbolo^^^ 13:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise it when I voted, but it appears this is a controversial topic. Maybe that's why it was tagged in the political thread? For instance, the table above explicitly excludes a reliable source (how is the Atlantic unreliable?), doesn't mention other sources which count towards WP:GNG, and most of the delete votes are baffling. SportingFlyertalk 23:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but the Atlantic is rather politically biased (witness their editor's recent disastrous attempt to bring a single never-Trumpish conservative writer on board). Its fact checkers and fairly high standards can be depended upon for hard news stories but their op eds from, e.g., Ta-Nehisi Coates are not remotely RS for their topics. In this case, the page is attempting to present American Xians as suffering from a (discontinued) psychological disorder, which its writers are not even remotely qualified to review, let alone diagnose.—Mr Spear (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With User:Mr. Guye, rename, merge, or delete are all fine. There are probably salvageable scholarly resources (which does not remotely include the politically-biased journalists at Salon or the Atlantic) to include into sections in the Persecution of Christianity, questioning its applicability in the present-day US and blaming such a perception on Christian privilege, which should also include mention of such sources. There doesn't need to be a CFORK here at all, let alone under such a blatantly prejudicial title based on humanities professors misusing a former psychological term to disparage their cultural opponents as mentally ill.
Fwiw, I'm atheist but still find it unquestionable that some aspects of Judeo-christian belief are necessarily curtailed in a secular nation. A non-biased title for the same page, which presented the side disagreeing with the scholarship being presented, would be something like Persecution of Christianity in the United States, which would present the current content as a counterpoint and avoid non-medically-based disparagement of Xians' mental health altogether. That said, it's obviously a CFORK if there's not enough content to justify it.—Mr Spear (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my answer to Excelse's comments.
Source
Reasons why it is Reliable Source Quotations by user:Excelse, in green
Elizabeth A. Castelli; Persecution Complexes: Identity Politics and the “War on Christians”. differences 1 December 2007; 18 (3): 152–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-2007-014
Does not mention "Christian persecution complex" in preview given. Is it even in the source? Yes, it is even in the source. Here: "It is the goal of this essay to explore some of the stakes involved in this work and to analyze the logics of this particular iteration of the Christian persecution complex." Worth noting that it is CPC is not just mentioned in the article.
Castelli, Elizabeth A. (2008-04-17). "Persecution Complexes". The Revealer.[19]
This is the work of a single author on a non-academic website.. Answer: The Revealer is published by the Center for Religion and Media at New York University.[20]
Hoover, Linda, "Effects of Negative Media on Evangelical Christians' Attitudes Toward Evangelism" (2015). Dissertations & Theses. 198. http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/198
The link provided does not mention the very term in question "Christian persecution complex." Answer:The quotation can be found it the WP article: "Castelli (2007) believed the reluctance to self-disclose could be the “Christian persecution complex” (p. 156)"
Årsheim, Helge (2016). "Internal affairs? Assessing NGO engagement for religious freedom at the United Nations and beyond". In Stensvold, Anne. Religion, state and the United Nations: Value politics. London: Routledge. p. 79-94. ISBN 978-1-138-93865-6. SSRN 2892536.
Not accessible. What is the quote from this source explicitly mentioning the neologism? Here: According to Elizabeth Castelli, this engagement can be asc ribed to a ‘Christian persecution complex’ that gathered pace throughout the 1990s, with the adoption of the US International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 as a significant milestone, and with the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 as an accelerating factor (Castelli 2007: 173). This complex “…mobilizes the language of religious persecution to shut down political debate and critique by characterizing any position not in alignment with this politicized version of Christianity as an example of antireligious bigotry and persecution. Moreover, it routinely deploys the archetypal figure of the martyr as a source of unquestioned religious and political authority. ” (Castelli 2007: 154).
Ben-Asher, Noah (September 21, 2017). "Faith-Based Emergency Powers". Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. Forthcoming. SSRN 3040902.
How can we use a forthcoming book as a source? Answer: It was published in 2017. Now it is 2018
Cavill, Paul (2013). "Anglo-Saxons Saints' Lives and Deaths". In Kojecký, Roger; Tate, Andrew. Visions and revisions: The word and the text (Unabridged ed.). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-4332-4.
Per a WP:RSN discussion (see this) you should avoid trusting "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" as reliable until you have thoroughly reviewed the source. What is the quote from this source explicitly mentioning the neologism? Answer: The author, Cavill Paul, is a lecturer at the University of Cambridge, usually ranking among the top 10 universities of the world, plus he is well cited- in the specific field.[21] Even if he was writing to his own blog, it would be a Reliable Source. The link you provide does not prove that Cambridge Scholar Publishing is an unreliable source. Quite the contrary
Janes, Dominic; Houen, Alex, eds. (2014). Martyrdom and terrorism: Pre-modern to contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-995985-3.
Example text It is not just a mention to the CP Complex. There is a discussion of the term. Since I can not copy-paste from the text, I ll re-write the paragraph myself. Note that this is not the only paragraph related to C P Complex. "To begin with, it is still a common misconseption that a systemic policy was aimed at Christians by Roman Law or Roman Governors, although scholarship over the last half century has shown that there is no non-Christian evidence to corroborate with the idea often suggested in Christian sources- that the Christians were explicit target of persecution. Indeed in a recent study by Candida Moss The Myth of Persecution has suggested that the Christian "persecution complex" was the result of internal Christian identity polics The following paragraphs discuss the same topic.
This is just a dissertation and not a published paper. The author even puts the neologism in scare quotes, indicating it's not a real thing. Dissertations are RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP (part of WP:RS):"Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources". Moreover, it is insignificant in terms of Notability, whether the an author is accepting or refuting an idea.
Our subject is "persecution complex" not "invented story of martyrdom". Can you provide where you discovered details for "persecution complex"?. Please see the text above, commenting Martyrdom and terrorism: Pre-modern to contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jason Wiedel (20 November 2014). Persecution Complex: Why American Christians Need to Stop Claiming That They Are Persecuted. Crowdscribed, LLC. ISBN 978-0-9905917-4-0.
This news article doesn't count as a RS. Says who? Surely not Wikipedia policy WP:NEWSORG: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" and in the same section "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Now lets see who wrote that article. "Alan Noble is the managing editor and co-founder of Christ and Pop Culture. He is an assistant professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University."[22] Clearly RS
This is once again a newspaper article and it does not use the term "Christian persecution complex", let alone this subject being primary topic of the source. Washington Post is a Reliable Source per WP:NEWSORG. More to that, the author, Harvard educated- Eugene Scott, was recently a fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics.[23]
The author is a film critic. How does his opinion establish notability of the term?David Ehrlich is discussing in an RS, the impact of Christian Persecutio Complex on the film industry (part of pop culture). It is surely appropriate and notable.
See SerpahimSystem's comments that why Moss' conclusions (and hers alone) are unreliable. Reliable or not, a wiki editor can not prove a RS of being "unreliable". Plus, we are not measuring reliability here, we are estimating the notability of the subject.
"Anti-LGBT roundup 10.13.17". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2017-10-13. Retrieved 2018-12-10. Please not that this article is placing a link at the term "Christian Persecution Complex", indicating the attention the term has gained.
They are talking about beliefs of Family Research Council (FRC) and this won't establish notability. Also note that the term is in scare quotes and something not established. Answer: Oh, there is a paragraph dedicated to CP Complex.
As I have stated earlier, the above was a non all inclusive list. There are other scholars utilizing the term in their work. Here is another two
Religious Liberty and the Origins of the Evangelical Persecution Complex Stephens, Randall (2016) 'Religious Liberty' and the Origins of the Evangelical Persecution Complex. Religion Dispatches. Note that Randall J. Stephens is a Reader in History and American Studies at Northumbria University [24]
Christianity Today discussing "New research nuances the American church’s “persecution complex.”"
Carey, G. (2017). Daniel as an Americanized Apocalypse. Interpretation, 71(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964316688052 Discusses in extense the CP Complex. "Beyond millenarian speculation, however, many modern interpretations of Daniel feed into one of two American Christian narratives: (a) a generic appeal to moral integrity in the face of peer pressure and cultural decay; and (b) a less widespread but socially significant persecution complex." (underlining by me) And "Scholars and journalists alike have identified an “evangelical persecution complex” In our culture. This term unfairly stigmatizes all evangelicals but identifies a widely shared sensitivity. Some Christians major in the persecution complex, even to the point of associating florists who will not serve same-sex couples with actual Christian martyrs in the Middle East.24 Recent films like God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 imagine embattled Christians prevailing against entrenched secularist opposition" That explains the film critique that was mentioned above.Cinadon36
Hornback R. (2018) Afterword: White Nationalism, Trolling Humor as Propaganda, and the “Renaissance” of Christian Racism in the Age of Trump. In: Racism and Early Blackface Comic Traditions. Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. " In so doing, he, his speech writers, and advisors were pandering to the rising Christian white nationalist persecution complex in Poland and throughout Europe, giving voice to a message that Western Christianity—and Europeans—will defeat fundamentalist Islamism. He even concluded with an overt call to a modernday Crusade.." (underlining by me) and "...The metaphysical, religio-nationalist proto-racism brought by seventeenth-century English colonists from the Old World to the New abideth, reanimating the persecution complex of Puritans like Winthrop and Mather among the Puritans of our day..."Cinadon36 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with User:Mr. Guye. Current title does not appear exactly NPOV. Anything worth keeping re Christian perceptions of persecution should go with the persecution article. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is based on a Neologism which never caught up. It is obvious that some of sources referenced here mention the subject in quotation marks, in connection with the author who originally mentioned the neologism. The term, therefore, did not get out of the connection with the author and it is pretty clear that there is little usage in reliable sources for this term. It is therefore not reaching the requirements of General notability guideline. Furthermore, the article is extremely problematic as it is a Synthesis which is not only unacceptable in Wikipedia, but also does not make any sense: It is equating unrelated references to "Evangelical", "American Christian" and "Christian Right", as well as "Christian white nationalist" to "Christian" in general. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Synthesis in the article. Synthesis refers to combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I 'd ask @FocalPoint: give an example of Synthesis. "Evangelical" and "american christian" are not "unrelated" terms. Moreover, as other users have pointed out earlier, WP:NEO doesn't apply to scholarly research. Cinadon36 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning by Seraphim System & Mr Spear, if the content is merged elsewhere, I would not be opposed to that if the content was made more neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability issues. Sources are unreliable and the subject cannot be described without relying on self-published unreliable sources. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and abstract concept; far from encyclopedic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are reliable and of good quality. Besides this, there is not a problem with the title of the article, because it is purely descriptive of a subject that has many references and is well documented in academic work. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking above, the concerns about sourcing have not only been rebutted, but Cinadon36 seems to have demonstrated that this article is well-sourced for its size, to a degree that other pages should strive to emulate. Furthermore, this is clearly a WP:NOTABLE concept especially within American politics -- I note this dispute is, probably not coincidentally, occurring during the happy month of the year where accusations of "War on Christmas" responded to by accusations of "War to impose Christmas on non-Christians" tend to be hurled back and forth. Within that discourse, the concept is clearly of note and worthy of study even by those who disagree with it. It being controversial (yes, it clearly is) does not negate its clear notability. --Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, It will be a crime against humanity to delete this article, on the basis of !votes frivolously claiming unsourced/poor source. After careful review of the sources in the article and those presented and discussed above it is quite obvious for anyone that the topic is a highly notable topic and should be discussed separately. The sources are highly reliable. Absolutely no problem with the sourcing. Delete votes appear to me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Just because Persecution of Christians exists is no reason to delete this article. "Persecution of Christians" article can contain a para about this topic and this article Christian persecution complex can elaborate about it in detail. The article Persecution of Christians is already 230 KB and heavily bloated. WP:SIZERULE applies here, hence this is an absolutely valid WP:CFORK for this article. I also agree with other participants above like DGG, Calthinus who have also rightly pointed that delete reasons stated, don't really apply here. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish that this is its own topic; there's plenty of room for expansion and improvement, but I don't feel this is anywhere remotely close to the point where a deletion or merge can be credibly considered. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? This isn't how Wikipedia works. For sources, you need reliability. For content, you need notability. Cinadon36 has aptly demonstrated that this page has both. --Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reviewing Cinadon36 and Excelse's discussion of sources, I find the former more persuasive and more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I see no reason to exclude sources like The Atlantic, so WP:GNG is met. Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an WP:ESSAY with not enough citations to establish notability. If someone searched, "atheist persecution complex" you'd also get Google hits because some polemical sources use that term (that's the same thing that's going on here). As others have said, it doesn't belong on the project. Eliko007 (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
]] versus a whopping 15,500 results for Christian persecution complex [[25]]. Nevertheless this is essentially an "other shit (doesn't) exist" argument that holds no water logically.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the title and the text are more suitable for an opinion essay than for an encyclopedia article. "Complex" is a term from Freudian psychology. The article contains no discussion of whether or not the term is appropriate. The clear implication is that Christians are of course crazy. FineStructure137 (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, this is a term for discussion within societal discourse. This is histrionics at best.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment:. I feel like we should keep the article as it clearly passes all relevant criteria. Arguments for deletion were A)WP:GNG The term was used and discussed by academics (E. Castelli, C. Moss, P. Cavill, Noa Ben-Asher, Randall J. Stephens, Hornback Robert and others), mainstream media (the Atlantic, Washington Post, Huffington Post and others). B)WP:NEO was pointed out, but it doesn't apply to scholarly research, as enough secondary sources describe the term well. C)WP:FORK which does not apply here either as the article is not about the persecution of Christians, whether persecutions did happen in ancient Rome. It is mostly about the modern view of some Christians in the west, that are being persecuted- and its socio-political consequences. The historicity of persecution is only remotely discussed. Merging with other articles poses some serious problems. Persecution of Christians is already a huge article. Moreover, the topic of the article is different than the topic discussed in CP Complex. Surely, there are some drawbacks of the article that we need to address. Most probably, some Christians might feel the title is offensive as there is a medical condition by the name "Complex". We should strive to make it as clear as it can get, that the term has nothing to do with a medical disorder, it is a term that is being used in humanities.Cinadon36 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinadon36: You have already voted once. No need to vote again. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ktrimi991, I didn't know that, I am not familiar with this relisting procedure. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see an article on a real topic with current, reliable sourcing, both from "popular" and from academic sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any problems with the article--I am not sure that the "early" complex and the current complex should be treated in the same article. I also detect an essayistic tone, but I don't see it verging into the polemical. In other words, I don't see anything that collaborative editing can't fix. Keep. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, retitling to "Modern Christian persecution myth" or something else that avoids the suggestion of mental illness, and restrict to modern history. Persecution of Christians in the days of the early Church is a historical topic with which the modern phenomenon of mistaken perception should not be confused. There is ample coverage in reliable news sources of the contemporary phenomenon. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That proposed title would seem to present as many problems as solutions. After all, there is some real non-mythical persecution of Christians in the modern world. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not sure there is sufficient coverage in reliable source to build an article around. When User:Headbomb said there were plenty of sources, I clicked his link and found 17 at GScholar. Subtracting mentions of Castelli, I get 7 hits. And there are false positives (i.e., not all are RS). I strongly disagree with the views of many that mainstream media sources like The Atlantic, Salon and HuffPost are RS for this topic. They are not. Also, User:NBeale's concern that we do not even have an article on persecution complex goes to the argument others have raised about vagueness. If this isn't a psychological or medical condition like persecutory delusion, what is it exactly? Who suffers from it? Why are we reporting how a few humanists use a term from Freudian psychoanalysis? On the other hand, I tend to agree with User:Drmies that given the existence of some RS this should just be hashed out between editors the normal way. The fact that nobody knows exactly what a "persecution complex" is, is to me the biggest red flag. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Srnec, for the "modern" persecution complex, which is about how alleged "Christians" feel about their position in society, those are exactly the right kind of sources--current issue, current publications. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Drmies, that raises other issues. If the mainstream sources are disseminating scholarship, we don't need them. If they are doing their own social analysis... well, what do you make of an op-ed writer at Salon talking about a "Christian persecution complex"? I do not make of it anything Wikipedia-worthy (i.e., encyclopedic). Is a writer at The Atlantic really a reliable source for "how alleged 'Christians' feel about their position in society"? Beyond a handful they may have interviewed, no. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We use "mainstream sources" and their analysis all the time. The Atlantic is a reliable source. Yes, a writer for that magazine can be a valuable source for this topic. I'm sorry, but these sources are accepted all over Wikipedia for precisely these kinds of topics. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs much more work, but there is coverage for the topic.Resnjari (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is based on notability. that's been pretty thoroughly established above, in the article, and with even cursory searches. Discussion of what the title should be can happen on the talk page. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—clearly the topic meets WP:GNG per references established above. RM is the place to request a move, and AfD is not cleanup. This article discusses the attitude of Western Christians towards secularization, not the actual persecution experienced by Christians elsewhere, for example the Soviet Union or Islamist states. Catrìona (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redistribute the material more appropriately. There are basically three sets of information here: one, some reasonably-well-sourced stuff about persecution and its perception in the early centuries of Christianity; two, some other stuff about feelings of persecution experienced by (or claimed by, or used as a means of manipulation by or of) 20th/21st century evangelical Christians; three, some other stuff about genuine hostility experienced by Christians. These three do not (and, I think, cannot) make a cohesive whole. The stuff about early persecutions should probably be merged into Persecution of Christians. The stuff about the modern perception of loss or persecution that is sometimes labelled a "persecution complex" is actually a more complex phenomenon and deserves better treatment and a tone that doesn't come off as WP:ATTACK. It should probably be covered over at Christian privilege and/or Religion and politics in the United States. And finally, real and recent persecution of Christians has a home over at Persecution of Christians in the modern era. PepperBeast(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I certainly hear a lot of claims about Christians (by Christians) being persecuted, both in person and on religious forums. Squad51 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but claiming that you are being persecuted is not remotely the same thing as having a persecution complex. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently deep discussion in RS to warrant a separate article. Merge useful material elsewhere. I deny that op-eds in mainstream sources are RS for this topic. The actual discussion of a modern "Christian persecution complex" in the article is quite short. In terms of scholarship, the term is strongly connected to one scholar (Castelli). Only seven hits on GScholars that don't mention her. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our article on right-wing socialism was moved to paternalistic conservatism in 2017 and largely revamped, yet "right-wing socialism" gets 109 hits on Google Scholars compared to just 17 for this title. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Francesca Stavrakopoulou answering a Question on Christian Persecution Complex. (at 22:40) It was recorded at the World Humanist Congress 2014, Oxford, UK. Held by IHEU, run by the British Humanist Association (BHA).[26]. According to Stavrakopoulou, it is a core belief of Christian Faith, that if you are a Christian, you should expect to suffer and be persecuted.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does everybody who expects to be persecuted have a persecution complex? Also, is an Old Testament expert speaking to a crowd of humanists really a reliable source for the core beliefs of the Christian faith? And is that what this page is even supposed to be about? Is the contention of Castelli that a "Christian persecution complex" is inherent in Christianity? There is no mention of a persecution complex that I can find in her Martyrdom and Memory. Srnec (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage exists in unreliable sources contrary to the need of coverage in reliable sources. The persecution of Christians in the modern era is phenomenon that is ongoing. [27][28] To say that this is a "complex" flies in the face of facts. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weakly sourced biographical article, nominated for deletion under the General Notability Guidelines. There is no evidence the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Moreover, what sources are presented appear to be about other people, with the subject mentioned only incidentally. Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak deleteKeep I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but this is failing to demonstrate notability and the issues raised at talk: need to be addressed.
I know that one editor doesn't get to tell another what to edit, but I do wish that we had half the number of drag racing articles, and what we do have was getting a bit more depth to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠You're right, you don't get to tell anybody what to edit, & there aren't half enough pages on drag racing for my liking. Would I prefer they were less stubby? Of course.
♠As for Thorley, a delete on somebody who won TF/FC at the Nationals, recorded the first 200 mph (320 km/h) pass, provided headers for Carol Cox, ran one of the few mid-engine floppers, & founded a national header company: not notable? Really? And pages on losing candidates for Cognress are? And pages on 18th Century British politicians are? Really? Or is this really about indifference, or hostility, to the subject?
When are you going to accept that there's a difference between an article on a notable topic, a vague hand-wave on some meta-page about a claim of notability, and demonstrating this, in the article, with WP:V and WP:RS? Yes, such a claim would go a long way to demonstrating notability. But you first have to put it in the article! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've expanded it since it was nominated. So, no, I hadn't read the new claims yet.
If he really was the first with a 200mph pass, and that's adequately sourced, then that would go a long way to keeping it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use this AfD page to argue about the content. It all boils down to reliable sources. If the article is adequately sourced, it will likely be kept. It wouldn't matter if he was the first guy on the moon if there aren't reliable sources to describe his moonshot. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠That was before I read the policy on BLP, which says not one word about deleting a page for poor sourcing. And since the nomination for deletion was added about two minutes after the page went up, & since the nominator has demanded better sourcing at risk of deletion, I'd love to hear exactly where the need for "significant coverage" demands deleting the page in its absence.
♠While I'm at it, would you care to define "significant"? Say, mention in a national magazine describing his FC win? Like the November 1967 issue of Hot Rod, for instance? Or a mention at Hot Rod online, describing the event?
♠Of course, I expect this to make no difference in the long run, any more than any other protests I've ever made. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 21:31 & 21:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is, of course, subjective. Please read WP:N, where Wikipedia goes into the matter in some detail. New articles not properly sourced are almost always nominated for speedy deletion within moments of them being created. That is normal. You are making this too personal, and assuming "your" article is being singled out for special treatment. It is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normal: sadly, yes. Useful, appropriate or constructive? Nowhere near it. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠Significant coverage? "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Presumed to have received, & since Thorley did win TF/FC at the most prestigious event NHRA has, & since that event was covered in Hot Rod (& you can bet it was covered by ND, too), the presumption is all I need.
♠So far, I've seen nothing saying a page that meets that standard but fails to cite the "significant coverage" must be taken down. WP:N seems to say, all I have to do is show it's likely to exist, & between the Nov '67 HRM article, the NHRA website mention, the HRM website mention, & the NHRA website poll, it seems to me very likely such coverage does exist, even if I can't find it online.
♠And yes, I'm taking it personally, because I've had at least five articles tagged, not counting this one, including one of somebody who's at least as well known as Thorley. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 22:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠Something else crosses my mind (& IDK why this didn't occur to me before). If Thorley's been a match racer since 1964 or 1965, he will have gotten more than a few mentions in the rodding magazines, & in National Dragster, over that period, independent of his NHRA, IHRA, &/or NHRA event attendance--which also will have gotten mentions. Without owning the back issues, there is no way to cite that--but, as I read the policy, I don't need to cite it, just demonstrate it's likely. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 03:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠One other thing crosses my mind. Thorley made the NHRA "favorite cars" poll without being on a list of nominees, which suggests he was well-enough known by enough people for even a small number to pick him over better-known (or more successful) drives like Prudhomme, McEwen, & Force. If he hadn't gotten enough coverage, how was he well-enough known? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 21:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does this need to be said? Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources where the subject is the main topic - that's basically the standard to meet here. You have done great work looking for more sources, but they're still weak; however, the case they make is stronger than it was at the time of the AfD nomination. Not enough for me to withdraw the nomination though. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"How many times does this need to be said?" Show me where it says I need to cite it. Show me where it says the page has to be deleted. You appear to be the only one who thinks it does. And I have quoted the page of the guideline that says nothing about citing or about deleting. So where is it, except in your head? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to support your reason for deletion, either. And since the page has already met the notional notability criteria... TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The article can be considered for deletion based on several of those points, and it doesn't meet the notability criteria (at least not yet, anyway). The only thing that will convince me is some cast iron reliable sources, and I'm not seeing any yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠"doesn't meet the notability criteria" Oh, really? The notability requirement I read (evidently not the one you've failed to show requires deletion) explicitly says (as reproduced above) "presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". What part of that don't you understand? Furthermore, the sportspersons' notability page says, "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." or "Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest". Thorley has done both, & his win at Indy was a first for the class at that location, besides. That meets notability, despite your claim. What part of that don't you understand?
♠"can be considered for deletion based on several of those points" It doesn't fail on any of them, let alone "several", so where's your rationale? Neither does it fail the speedy delete criteria. So, yet again, where is the rationale for deletion? Beyond your dislike of the page? Because it's beginning to look like that's all there is. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. I am not interested in further discussion with you, because you aren't able to assume good faith. Other editors will weigh in, and when the discussion is concluded an uninvolved editor will make a decision based on merit, and then close the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠"I disagree with your interpretation." Really, I'd never have guessed. Your evidence for your position is?
♠Not assuming good faith? Yeah, after seeing signs of sheer stubbornness by the only vote to delete, from somebody who nominated the page within minutes of its creation, it gets hard to believe good faith is involved. Assuming it doesn't mean it's proven true. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is absurd, since there has been plenty of opportunity for anybody who cares to comment & agree with the one vote to delete, & nobody has. Of course, that won't make a damn bit of difference, will it? Since my vote doesn't count at all, does it? So I'm not going to bother to say any more about it. It's a complete waste of time. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 19:54 & 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the driver meets WP:NMOTORSPORT points 1, 3, and arguably 8. The NHRA is the top national series of the United States so just competing at a national event for the sanctioning body meets 1 & 3. Then he won which enhances his notability. Having an unofficial world record also enhances notability. This website even goes further than the article does noting his use of a supercharger in his single Funny Car win as being ground breaking and causing all teams in the class to switch from injected-only to injected+supercharged within a few months. Setting that trend was an important milestone of note (and a point of notability) that belongs in the lead and the article. It is very difficult to work on articles for subjects whose notability predates the World Wide Web by several decades since sources are so difficult to find (print only). Royalbroil 02:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I add several points to my comments: 1) NMOTORSPORT point #1 says "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series". He went far beyond driving in a single national race. He WON a single national race. He didn't win an average national race - he won the United States championship event! It is comparable with winning the Daytona 500 in NASCAR). 2) He also owned the dragster which meets point #4 of NMOTORSPORT. 3) I added citations in reliable sources. The periodicals Drag Racer and Hot Rod (magazine) are not some random fandom website. Both magazines have been long lasting (greatly predating the explosion of the World Wide Web) and are the biggest / most respected magazines for drag racers. They meet the rigorous editorial standards needed for using in a Featured Article. I consider them "cast iron" quality. More specifically, they address GNG points - "significant coverage", highly "reliable", "objective secondary sources", and "independent of the topic". 4) The magazines are NOT using what is being portrayed as trivial mentions but have articles / chapters dedicated to him. I remind everyone that this is a 1960s topic so just because a cited source isn't available online makes analysis of those sources problematic. Royalbroil
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous! After two full weeks, all of one vote, the nominator, for deletion, & an enormous chorus of "I don't care", another relisting? What, you're not going to be satisfied until the page is deleted? How many people is the nominator asking to relist this? How many times is it going to take before he's satisfied? And yes, now it does look like bad faith is involved, because the same damn thing keeps happening. Once is coincidence. Twice isn't. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 08:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trekphiler: I think it's time to drop the stick here. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"drop the stick here" I'm not the one who keeps asking the page be relisted! How much "I don't care" does it take? There is exactly one vote to delete. Since when is one vote to delete anything remotely resembling "consensus"? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 14:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Checking through and reading the references, most are passing mentions or results of particular races. UninvitedCompany 20:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just expanded, including cited book sources that dedicate pages to him. I also linked to a full 174 page book dedicated to him and his company. Royalbroil 14:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also find, from the Los Angeles Times, that in 2002 he was an NHRA Motorsports Museum Heritage Award honoree [29], and there's an article about him the same year in the Daily Spectrum (St George, Utah), which says he would be inducted into the NHRA Hall of Fame (the same thing??): 'Feeling the Need for Speed' [30], which gives biographical details like his age, where he grew up, the school he went to, that he started working as a rancher. His 1967 win was reported nationally. I have not looked thoroughly enough to find newspaper references for breaking 200 mph, but I have found references stating that he had broken the 190 mph barrier on 6 different occasions before 1968. I don't know anything about drag racing, but from the sources included in the article, and other sources available, I'd say he clearly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit niche - and not one of my niches. And it needs more work. Please, someone, do it. But wikipedia set out with some pretty eye-watering ambitions in respect of scope, and you're not going to come close if you start deleting things that don't belong in one of my - or one of your - niches. As a general rule, the world of business is woefully under-represented in wikipedia IM(H)O. In England you would say that was down to traditional English snobbism. We all admire our lawyers, bankers and journalists, and like to despise folks who simply make or sell stuff. But wikipidia is international and in America .... they always told me the business of America was business. WE - the contributors - can't all be retired academics and bean counters. Success (and happy Christmas as required.) Charles01 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a bit niche" It is, but, to echo the sentiment on business, coverage of drag racing on WP (indeed, on anything related to hot rodding or customizing) is pretty awful. WP went years without a page on Ed Iskenderian! Or Pete Chapouris. How is that possible? (And then I get a "not notable" nom for Magoo! Really?!) How much of it is pure ignorance? I don't nom for delete on pages where I know nothing about it, but it seems a lot of other people don't have the same good sense. This isn't even a specialty of mine; if it was, the sourcing would be better. As for anybody improving, I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you... TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura
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. The discussion has gone on for three weeks, and at present there is no clear consensus for deletion although there are legitimate concerns as to whether the topic deserves a separate article. At present the article does have some sourcing, but the scope is limited by nationality, genre and "silent", making for a very specialized topic. But there are no obvious policy violations to make me call a deletion here when there are clearly good faith calls to keep. Sjakkalle(Check!) 15:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PRODed for being a violation of WP:NOTESSAY - subsequently de-PRODed by another person other than the author but with no significant improvements made. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and lack of sources indicating notability through signfificant coverage of the subject as a whole. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can't judge articles by the sources they use though, only by the relevance of the citations to them, and their relevance to the article. This is looking very weak. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to review and rate articles – such peer-review takes place at WP:PR; WP:GA; &c. The article is obviously a weak start on the topic but it's our clear policy that that's fine: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Our job at AfD is to determine whether deletion is appropriate and for that, we need a reason to delete. Poor quality is not a reason to delete; it's a reason to improve. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to review it, the article creator needs to demonstrate notability. It's all too easy to sprinkle an article with uncited, but unimpeachable, sources – yet unless they're used and relevant to the topic, they don't help to support that topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, I agree completely with Dingley here, and find Davidson's apparent lack of healthy editorial skepticism quite concerning. Granted, I don't think he actually believes it's okay for a nonsense article to throw on the names of a bunch of "sources" without actually using them as sources, and this appears to just be an act (it's an act I've seen play out in a number of other AFDs previously), but still. It's really difficult to discuss content when AGF says we should assume other editors are being sincere if they don't say they're playing devil's advocate or anything like that, but assuming the other person is being sincere also necessitates assuming they have extremely low standards for Wikipedia content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article with plenty of sources fails to make appropriate use of them in order to make its point. But that's not enough to make me want to delete this. There are plenty of national film genres where a group of films from a narrow period are seen as particularly significant (German Expressionist film being the obvious comparison), and I can't exclude this topic as one quite so easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the first source (Offscreen) is one that validates this cross-categorization of three topics (British film, horror film, and silent film), I am hard-pressed to find this validation in the other sources. We do not have cross-categorization articles of any two topics (e.g., British silent film, silent horror film, or British horror film), so this seems borderline against WP:DIRECTORY #6, "Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." I am aware that this article is not a list, but I think the same logic can apply to prose articles. Considering that the remaining sources are not actually used in the article, I cannot tell if they truly indicate that this cross-categorization is culturally significant any more than if it was a section in a higher-level cross-categorized article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm inclined to delete. Reading what we do have here more carefully, I see this as just such an arbitrarily chosen intersection, not something that's described in one of the sources as a notable grouping. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of overcategorization, it's about treating a narrow categorization as if it's a notable category intersection. That requires some external source to have also identified that same intersection, and described it as notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:ATD-M, we'd merge items with insufficient notability into a broader topic. And it's moot in my view, because we have enough sources and content for the topic as is. Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no higher-level cross-categorization article to merge to. That's why this narrow topic is a question mark. While the Offscreen source counts toward notability, it is definitely not clear from the article body whether the other sources actually explore this topic other than tangentially. Considering that this was written by a student editor, it's possible that this is an essay that mixes the first source with other sources that do not actually comment directly on this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR mess, nothing apparently worth keeping, and, at least according to my understanding, the history of the genre classification "horror" makes the very concept of this article problematic, since (virtually?) no films were billed this way on initial release until much later, and so any Wikipedia article on the subject would need to be a lot more careful with citation of secondary sources, and clarification of what is meant by the "British silent horror", than this one is. It borders on WP:NOTCLEANUP but the writing style of the article is also pretty abysmal: I find the no-doubt-accidental reference to lesbianism (and anachronistic reference to gay marriage) amusing, but if that's not a reason to delete the article it's certainly not a reason to keep it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, I find the above back-and-forth between Andy D. and Andy D. to be almost as amusing. Not because of the content, as I haven't read it yet, but just because the usernames are similar. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) )[reply]
Delete. There is is no evidence here or at the article that British silent horror represents a "culturally significant phenomenon" as permitted by WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just compare the google hits for it to that for anime and manga (which can be described in simple terms as Japanese animation), which does qualify as a body of work with a unique identity and is subject to wide coverage. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. Beyond the first source, it does not appear that the other sources are supporting evidence for the notability of this particular cross-categorized topic. My own search engine test does not appear to show this particular cross-categorization as "a culturally significant phenomenon" per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm open to being proven wrong, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out for now per RebeccaGreen's improvements. Would like to see the discussion continue further. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, it looks like this will be deleted. I have been doing some editing on the article by finding the sources listed, and any others, and converting them to inline citations as much as possible. It is clear to me that the themes mentioned in this article come from the sources. I do not know why Wikipedia does not have "cross-categorization articles of any two topics (e.g., British silent film, silent horror film, or British horror film)" as one editor mentioned above - British horror film is most certainly a topic covered at length in sources. Anyway, the non-existence of other articles is not a reason not to have this one. As for the "horror" classification, it was first introduced in 1932, so as a classification did not apply to silent films - but as this article makes clear, the Gothic genre was a strong influence on early British films, and whether it was called Gothic, horror, Gothic horror, etc, it was a genre in films of the time. I see enough coverage in sources of this topic to believe that it is notable. The article could do with much improvement - for example, while, as far as I can see, it is based on the sources listed, with no original research or synthesis, it only mentions 4 films, and there are other titles of which multiple silent versions were made (eg Faust (6 films by 1927), The Red Barn Murder (4 films by 1928)), which should surely be included because of their popularity and significance. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of my concerns is that this article does only mention 4 films. If that's the whole genre, then I don't think it's a notable genre. Now are there enough films which aren't listed here to make it one? As the article is, that's very hard to judge. If you've read the literature and think it is, then that would help a lot. I'm not a movie buff: I only have a couple of robust cinema books here and scanning those (which are giving some in-depth coverage to European horror in the silent era), they're still not talking about British film in that genre and period. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am currently relying on what's online. This webpage [31] would no doubt be considered unreliable, but does give an idea of the number produced. I don't currently have access to English Gothic: A Century of Horror Cinema - there is no preview online, but as it was published in 2006, it presumably includes films from 1906 on. It does come up when I search for its title plus "The Beetle", but not for the other films named in this article - so presumably it includes at least one other film produced between 1906 and 1919 (the date of The Beetle). The British Horror Film: From the Silent to the Multiplex mentions that the Maria Marten (Red Barn) murder had been filmed many times before the first sound version, and also discusses the difficulty British filmmakers had in competing with America and Germany - in general, as well as in horror films, another topic that could be included in this article. I haven't yet checked whether I can access the other sources listed in the article - I may be able to, but I'm not sure it's worth it if the article is likely to be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The silent feature film era was relatively short (15–20 years) so it seems like an arbitrary sub-grouping to me rather than a cohesive body of work that merits its own article. You could pick out any decade of British horror (e.g. 1960s defined by Hammer, 1970s dominated by folk horror) and they all have distinct characteristics. You could probably find interesting well-sourced things to say about any of those eras but they probably belong in a general article about British horror. If you look at the sources they generally discuss British silent horror films within a wider context. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My take: it's never a good sign when other people express serious concerns about the content of an article misrepresenting its cited sources, and someone comes along and adds a bunch of inline citations without changing the content itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the "someone" who came along and added inline citations, I would like to ask what you mean by "it's never a good sign"? A number of editors voted Delete on the basis that this article was original research. I simply checked the sources which are online, found which sources provide the information included in the article, and converted the "Sources" to citations at appropriate points. Anyone could do the same. Anyone could also change the content, if they feel it doesn't represent the sources well. As I have commented above, there are films which are not included in this article which some of the sources mention as being significant, and there are other aspects of the topic which also could be mentioned. It doesn't seem worth doing that if the article is going to be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask what you mean by "it's never a good sign"? Exactly what I said; I said that the article was extremely clumsily written and was not using its sources carefully enough, regardless of what those sources were, and then you came along and added a bunch of inline citations without changing a word of the text, except to fix a spelling error I had pointed out (which implies you read my comment here but chose to ignore the substantial parts of it). The article, if it is to be acceptable as an entry in the mainspace (I coulda sworn entries from new editors needed to be confirmed...) needs to be completely rewritten to actually reflect what the sources say, and to treat them as sources for an encyclopedia article rather than infallible fonts of factual information. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply, though I am no clearer on what you mean. I fixed several spelling errors, typos and punctuation errors. You are, of course, equally free to revise or rewrite the article, or correct any spelling errors you notice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep: Well, it's an interesting discussion. I've checked the available sources (which is the criterion for notability, nothing to do with how badly the article is written (no matter how essaylike), nor even with whether the article bothered to cite the sources, check the policy for yourselves) and they aren't too bad, though the five in the References section seem to be most of those that exist. That makes notability a bit marginal - there aren't thousands of reliable sources out there on the topic as a whole: but there are 5 at least, which is surely over the "multiple" threshold (we often assume 3 is about the bare minimum, ridiculous I know). The article's history isn't great, but, again, that's not the criterion. I think we should keep this, though if someone is writing a rather specific article with a slightly broader scope like Silent horror film then I wouldn't oppose a merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I would argue with you that in fact the sources are not there, since of the five only one is specifically about "British silent horror", while the other four are all sections of sources on British horror, and the fact that all of the sources are clearly misrepresented as revealed by even a cursory reading of our article means that, "notability" aside, we can't have this article in the mainspace as is and we don't even know what the sources say about the topic. But actually I too would not be opposed to a merge to British horror film (again, what all the sources are talking about). The problem is I don't see anything there to merge: if you or RebeccaGreen (talk·contribs) or Bmbaker88 (talk·contribs) want to write that article based on the sources, that would be great, but if anything from this article is kept you're going to have to defend it on the talk page anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are the sources clearly misrepresented? You allege this without providing examples, while on my reading, the article can be clearly sourced to the references - and to one which was not included, but which I have added, showing that the ideas in this article are not limited to only one source. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already elaborated in my initial !vote above (which, again, you appear to have already read) how the very concept of this article is problematic and sources that talk about "British silent horror" either do so in a nuanced fashion (in which case we have to copy their nuance, otherwise we are misrepresenting them) or are not reliable for this content to begin with. The paragraph about literary influences looks like pure OR, and honestly it kinda offends/amuses me as a Dubliner (in fact a Clontarfian) that Bram Stoker's Dracula is called "British", since even when Ireland was part of the UK it was never part of "Britain" (which refers to the island). I believe Tom Shippey addressed this latter concern (the misconception that "Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" are the same thing, which even most British people share) in one of his lectures on Tolkien and Beowulf, but I don't have the time to watch all five hours of them to find the exact location. I do recommend them to you if you haven't seen them already, mind, as they're pretty amazing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Chiswick Chap mentioned, I think it would be worth it to expand the scope of this article to Silent horror films in general, rather than just British silent horror films. More sources would be available on that topic. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Betty Logan, according to the article Silent film, it was 35 years (1894-1929). Which is not to say that the topic of this article might not belong as part of a larger article on British horror, but that article does not currently exist (although Horror films of Cambodia and Horror films of Mexico do!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you think Wikipedia doesn't have enough of an Anglosphere bias? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear ... RobinCarmody (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not allege or imply that at all! Nor am I suggesting that those articles should not exist, merely expressing surprise that they do exist when there are not similar articles for countries like Germany, France or Japan, which all produced significant horror films, as well as the US and the UK. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
German horror films of this period are, from my understanding (mostly documentaries and lectures viewed on YouTube, mind...) normally discussed as "German Expressionism", which does in fact have an article (although only a portion of it is about film, and that not exclusively focused on horror. Again, if you want to create articles on the horror cinema of the UK or other European or Anglosphere countries, no one is stopping you, but if you see no problem with the kind of garbage that currently occupies this article and what you would write would be no better, that is a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: Betty used the specific wording "silent feature"; the silent film era began when film began (and that exact point in time is actually disputed), but almost no feature films were produced before circa 1915 (The Birth of a Nation is frequently credited with popularizing the form, although I'm not sure what the first was or when). It's this kind of careful nuance that is missing from the article; you're not at fault for that, but you haven't helped it either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour is bordering on WP:BLUDGEON if not WP:HARASS at the moment. I only came back because I was pinged and specifically asked to comment on your edits to the article, and now you're just haranguing me for disagreeing with you. I never claimed to have improved the article, since I don't know enough about the topic to "fix" it enough that I would change my opinion on whether it should be deleted/draftified/userfied/redirected/whatevered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I just cannot see what justifies a separate article on this sub-topic outside silent film; looks to be a content fork with no way to room to significantly improve it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Whilst there are fan-sites and other non-RS sites (e.g., comicbook.com) giving this guy coverage, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources giving this guy significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 11:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely WP:TOOSOON due to lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Excelse (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made-for-TV movie with no professional reviews or any other RS coverage as far as I can see from searching online, does not meet WP:GNG. Its only claim to fame is having some notable actors on the cast (particularly Olivia Newton-John), but looking through WP:NFILM that doesn't appear to actually be a criterion for film notability. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 11:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete naff all in any route to NFILM notability. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as nomination appears to have skipped the WP:BEFORE step. The article needs improvement, and not all of the sources listed above contain significant coverage, but many of them do, providing more than enough significant coverage to easily pass WP:BAND#1. Thanks to Michig for working to improve the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned above by Michig. JC7V (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there are a massive number of big mentions, and lots talking about his article on the electoral issues, but none of those sources actually did an in-depth piece on him. The only in-depth pieces I could find weren't independent/reliable. It is possible I'm missing one (that sense of so much coverage you're sure it's there somewhere), but for now he just doesn't seem to pass GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like promotion(maybe undeclared paid editing), most likely not notable. Eatcha (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can be userfied or draftified via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was a speedy. The subject is marginally notable. The article, while well written, lacks balance. There are many references but they do not appear to support the assertions that demonstrate notability. Several are just passing mentions, and the detailed coverage is in weaker sources. It is hard for me to see how this passes WP:GNG. I believe the article is not salvagable without significant work but thought it best to list it here for a fuller discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It will be better to work on it there, rather than to try to fix problems within the short time of the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A minor academic with little evidence of passing the requirements at WP:NACADEMIC. A Google Scholar search finds that her publications have been cited very few times by other scholars, while I can find no significant reviews of her books beyond minor listings of their existence. WP:NACADEMIC uses the term "impact" several times to demonstrate the notability of an academic, and there is little evidence of that here. Note that she made the news briefly in 2016 regarding the use of an Israeli film in a conference she organized, but that was also a minor story in just a few outlets. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to American Pragmatism: A Religious Genealogy or keep. I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The first book, American Pragmatism has received multiple academic reviews. The second book, Imaging Religion in Film: The Politics of Nostalgia has one review as far as I can tell. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think four published reviews for two books is enough (barely) for WP:AUTHOR, and enough to save this from a WP:BIO1E redirect. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to a redirect in the other direction, from the book to the author. Or do we really want a separate article on every academic book with more than one published academic review? I'd think that we'd want sources that demonstrate sustained interest over multiple years rather than the sort of routine interest every book gets at publication time, before having an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with you (and amended my vote). I started the article on the book so there was an option (if needed) for redirection rather than deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her books have gotten respectful and positive reviews and had some impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: The subject is a major recurring character in the work of Andrzej Pilipiuk, one of Poland's more prominent speculative fiction authors - and Polish speculative fiction gets enough attention in Poland to make it quite likely (though not certain) that there are enough reliable sources in Polish to establish notability. However, even if so, none of them have been cited in this article and just one in the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article (according to Google Translate). Unfortunately, very few Polish speculative fiction authors get their work noticed in the English-speaking world, Pilipiuk does not seem to be one of the few (though, from this article, I feel that that is our loss), and my knowledge of Polish is effectively non-existent, so I am not in a position to search out extra sources myself. On this basis, unless someone with a knowledge of Polish can improve the article, the best option would be to redirect to Andrzej Pilipiuk. PWilkinson (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: I agree with your logic here, but there are no references in the article whatsoever, so there's nothing to merge. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Negligible independent reliable sources about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. No substantial independent reliable sources. Cabrils (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Grand total of coverage (5 results in google news, 3 that mention the subject): two sentences in Miami.com, what appears to be a reprinted press release in large part copied from [45], and mere mentions/routine listings, [46], [47], [48], and this source which I can't access but just appears to be an interview. (the deleted revisions don't have any more sources that mention the subject) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more hunting around and found a twitter account and a business listing showing both indirect and direct professional ties between the *06 editor(s) and Klainsek (I'm tempted to link them here but they weren't terribly hard to find and others may uncover them as well). I think we have a case of undisclosed paid editing here. – Athaenara ✉ 15:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there this CNN link that is supposedly an interview of him yet does not appear to be? Plus this paper that clearly too old to mention him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was deleted after nomination by myself due to having been full of spam and copyvios, was then recreated without those problems and with references by MarkZusab, that was speedy deleted after nomination by Theroadislong on the grounds of notability, and then the original was restored by reverted back to a pre-copyvio state. I briefly saw MarkZusab's article but did not have the chance to assess the references. I would like to do so before I comment here - can it be made visible? Dorsetonian (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsetonian, I did list about every reference in that deleted version by MarkZusab above, but here's the full text of that version (attribute to MarkZusab):
Keep I have added some additional links and references to the article that I could find. Additional improvement may be needed. Perhaps someone else can get involved with improving the text using the information I have added to meet the Wikipedia rules and regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlover06 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any specific policy that justifies inclusion? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am indebted to Galobtter for making the "alternate" article content available, and to Artlover06 for identifying further online coverage - and have reviewed it all carefully. We can be in no doubt the subject of the article exists but I see nothing that meets the WP:GNG - the majority of the content does not appear to be "independent of the subject" and there is nothing that comes close to "significant coverage". Assessing against WP:CREATIVE it is apparent that the artist's work appears in some galleries but there is no evidence of any of it having: "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Clearly there has been some problematic editing here too, and the article has been promotional and non-neutral - but purely on grounds of notability, this article is at best premature and should be deleted, and it should not be recreated until/unless circumstances significantly change. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDorsetonian Thank you for your feedback. Addressing some of the mentioned above: the content is "independent of the subject" as it is researched and the text is also referenced in the sources I have listed or has been added by the original user. We can change any of the text that rise up the copyright issues. Addressing, WP:DISCLOSE I am not connected to this artist and do not have any connection to him, nor am I being paid for this. I am a student in NYU; my class went to see this artist's exhibition in New York. I have been following Klainsek's work ever since and am writing my thesis this year on the important contemporary art of living artists, specifically on this subject. An exhibition with an established New York gallery is also referenced in the article that in detail describes the artist's work (261 words) by a reliable and notable publication Art of The Times[1] much of the text used in the current version of the Franz Klainsek article can be referenced there, or in other sources referenced in the article. To address: (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition - please see references here from December 2018[2], you can find information on Mana Contemporary and Pinta Art Show are both significant and notable. Klainsek's work is credited and showed on images on Pinta's website here[3] where 4 of the images are referenced to his nail installation also referenced in The Miami Herald Article (Referenced). Other artists in this show are Camila Cañeque, Hugo Crosthwaite, Sonia Falcone, Franz Klainsek, Luciana Lamothe, Mira Lehr, Mark Niskanen & Jani- Matti Salo, Graciela Sacco, Raquel Schwartz, Stefania Strouza, Francisca Sutil, Pedro Tyler, Cydney Williams, and Agustina Woodgate. Mana Contemporary's Ad-Astra is featured in the link that I linked to CNN. You can read the importance of Ad Astra on [4]ABC-7 news[5], Financial Times[6], [7], Market Watch[8]. Klainsek's work with HG Contemporary has been published and have shown alongside notable artists such as Natvar Bhavsar and Retna - please see specifically reference 1 for detail.
For clarification, I meant "the majority of the content in the references does not appear to be independent of the subject". Regarding "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" - the exhibition in question has a webpage here and a 206-page catalogue here. Both the website and catalogue list him as one of the many exhibitors, but not in the "Main Section" of the exhibition and with nothing but a name check - no biography and no description of the work; clear evidence that his was not a "substantial part". Dorsetonian (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG as there is inadequate SIGCOV. I removed most of the external links as they were mostly things like this event announcement added by artlover06, which aren't necessary and do nothing to contribute to notability. After collapsing several duplicate sources it's clear that the article has been massively puffed up by the addition of anything at all that has the words "Franz Klainsek" in it. Artlover06, you need to read WP:RS and stop adding poor quality items to this article. Adding sources like ISSU means you don;t understand that self-published items like ISSU are not a reliable source. (Also, before you reply, please read WP:BLUDGEON about how not to act at an AfD. The large plastered walls of text above are hindering, not helping, your argument.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CAbstain - There are valid reasons for both deletion and keep per all above. I recommend further study for reliable sources, but I doubt it.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Co-host of newly-launched flagship national television program, previous co-host of national breakfast television program, noted business journalist. Article has sources indicating verifiable coverage, per WP:NEXIST the absence of citations in an article does not indicate not notable. Quick search produces multiple instances of interviews, profiles and coverage. Meets the GNG and CELEBRITY -- Whats new?(talk) 21:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep defending your articles about non-notable journalists, but saying they are notable doesn't make them so. Being a co-host, etc. is not sufficient for notability. If you have better sources than the ones you have used in the article, please post them here for a review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Negligible independent reliable sources about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify, I'm not finding support for notability in either the current sources or a quick google search. valereee (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any reliable, significant material via ProQuest news search. Fails WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The only source that is good here is the RS piece. I found [50] and [51] which appear to be WP:ROUTINE. Possible search term, so a redirect to his band article (where the well-sourced content could be moved). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can't redirect to his band's page because that name <Mt. Eddy (band)> has already been redirected to this Jakob Danger article.---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We must accept that the dude has gotten some reliable press thanks to being related to someone famous. He's actually been profiled at least twice in Rolling Stone: [52], [53], and once in NME [54]. Those are reliable sources and the stories transcend mere routine listings. Here are some more journalistic works: [55], [56], [57]. Looks like he's gotten past the minimum requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the last source. The previous two are less than convincing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion has formed here. North America1000 06:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RAWDATA. Content doesn't match source and is only relevant for one particular year. Not encyclopedic. PROD removed by author when article was created last year Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuel economy in automobiles, assuming the data can be verified. Listing 10 cars may be excessive, but the most efficient one in 2017 would certainly be a useful addition to that article. I'm not opposed to a re-structuring to a new fuel economy of automobiles in the United States article either. This is too specific to be a stand-alone article at this title, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RAWDATA. I do not have an opinion on whether or not a list on this topic could be written; however, this article contains nothing encyclopedic. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need a very specific snapshot like this. there are similar lists I can imagine being notable, but there's no encyclopedic content to retain by itself here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 06:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly because there's nothing encyclopedic to merge. It was completely made from the raw data found in the source, only without the images. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a 1993 academic paper which has sunk pretty-much without trace; 3 or 4 gHits, including the original paper. Tagishsimon (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem important. "Notable", yes? I think not. --Jirangmoon (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a brief Google Books search turns up a number of references to this management strategy (e.g., 1234). Whilst some of these are drive-by references, at least two are significant coverage. I think it just about gets over the line for WP:SIGCOV.FOARP (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article relies on a single source and is headed by a tag saying it may not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Vorbee (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NEXIST. The article's state is not necessarily correlated with notability or a lack thereof. Also, the presence of a One source template does not qualify deletion in and of itself. North America1000 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching finds a bunch of citations back to Haeckel's original paper, and not much beyond that. No prejudice against recreation if better sources, especially sources independent of Haeckel, were found. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Without prejudice to competent recreation. Sandstein 09:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is getting restored (see Valaiyar, including the deleted edits), we probably need to run it through AfD once. The article at this point contains only one reference which is a primary source, and notability is very far from obvious. May be the article can be rewritten though, I am not an expert in castes and would not be able to do it. Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Current article is possibly WP:TNT worthy. This particular caste, however, does seem to have INDEPTH coverage in what may be a RS - e.g. these two books - [58][59] - seem recent and from an academic press with quite a bit of content.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The current sub-stub is bad, but if I didn't have to go AFK right now I would've written a proper few sentence stub. It's 5-10m if anyone cares to rescue this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with an eye to WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating. Ifnord (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm not giving weight to the IP that just linked to a Google search, and less weight to Piotrus's keep because he refers to an argument later abandoned by the person who made it after more in-depth discussion. Sandstein 09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a journalist, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to media coverage: her list of media outlets that she's contributed to is referenced to her own self-published Squarespace page, not to media coverage about her; her book is referenced to its own promotional page on the website of its own publisher, not to media coverage about it; her award win is referenced to a press release from the organization that gives the award, not to media coverage about it. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an article about her from having to be referenced better than this -- the notability test is not what the article says, but how well the things it says can be referenced to reliable source coverage about her in media. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just showing the results page of a Google search is not enough in and of itself to demonstrate that a journalist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article — it fails, for one thing, to distinguish references that are sufficiently about her to count as valid support for notability from (a) references thatjust glancingly namecheck her existence without being about her to any non-trivial degree, and/or (b) references in which she's the bylined author, neither of which assist in showing notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Searching for and "distinguishing" the relevant references is the job the nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the job you're supposed to do if you expect any of the references to count as convincing evidence that she is notable. I already did a search and didn't find that the references were "distinguishable" into the correct proportion of notability-making coverage about her vs. unsubstantive other stuff that doesn't actually help. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that coverage of Westervelt on NPR stations is probably not INDEPENDENT, since article states that she has worked for a series of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of those is a 404, and one of them is an interview in which she's talking about herself in Q&A format. Those are not sources that assist in building a WP:GNG pass for a person who hasn't already cleared an "inherently" notable SNG, and GNG requires more than two sources, so what's left isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one of the four sources not working has been corrected but even if the link didn't work here, that doesn't magically mean the in-depth coverage doesn't exist. As for one of them being an itnerview, once again it has to be explained that when a source independent of a person is publishing an interview of the person that the independent source conducted, that is in-depth coverage of that person by the source. It only wouldn't be independent if person was self-publishing an interview. But that's just one of the sources anyway. Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the "GNG requires more than two sources" bit. Wrong. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Multiple sources here. Two, and sometimes even one can demonstrate passing of WP:GNG. Oakshade (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not actually wrong — the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed, but it is a factor of what notability claim you're shooting for. If a person has a hard notability pass, such as winning a Pulitzer Prize for her book, then one or two sources are enough to pass GNG — but if you're aiming for the soft notability criterion of "notable because media coverage of her exists", then it takes considerably more than just one or two sources. The list of people who could show two pieces of media coverage includes presidents of church bake sale committees, everybody who was ever an unsuccessful candidate for city council, teenagers who got local human interest coverage for trying out for their high school football team despite having a non-standard number of toes, my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard, and me — so if you're shooting for "doesn't actually have a hard pass of any subject-specific inclusion test, but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then it takes quite a lot more media coverage to get there than it does for somebody who actually has a straight pass of a subject-specific inclusion test. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting you were wrong on WP:GNG requiring "more than two sources" ("the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed"). The coverage presented is way beyond the scope that "media coverage exists" but significant independent coverage from multiple independent sources. The claim that the coverage is akin to your neighbor's mother getting in a local paper one time is bizarre and has nothing to do with the coverage demonstrating easily passing WP:GNG here. Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't wrong and didn't "admit" anything: I have been correct all along about how GNG works. Two sources are enough to pass GNG only if they're supporting a hard notability claim such as the winning of a notable literary award — two sources are not enough to pass GNG if you're aiming for "notable because media coverage exists". There still aren't sources in play here that constitute support for notability under GNG — all ten of the footnotes present in the article are still either primary sources (directories of her own writing, etc.) that do not count as support for notability at all, or Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did admit you were wrong about the number of sources required.[64] You can never erase the diff. You're only making red herring arguments as you're writing about only the sources in the article, not that I've presented in this AfD which is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources of this person passing WP:GNG, not just "notable because media coverage exists." And you just made up the must-win-award criteria for GNG. Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely misrepresenting everything I've said. Firstly, the diff you're linking as "proof" that I "admitted I was wrong about the number of sources required" is no such thing — there's not a single word in that entire comment that's even slightly inconsistent with what I just said in the comment immediately above. Secondly, I've already addressed earlier in this discussion why the new sources you've shown aren't enough. And thirdly, not once in this entire discussion did I ever say that a person has to win an award before they pass GNG — what I said, and am correct about, is that if a person wins a notability-conferring award, such as the Pulitzer Prize for literature, then just one or two sources are enough to start the article with, but if you're shooting for "notable just because media coverage exists", then it takes more than just one or two sources to get over that bar. We have "hard" notability claims, which represent important enough distinctions that an article has to be allowed to exist as soon as just one or two reliable sources can be shown (e.g. winning a notability-conferring literary award, being elected to an NPOL-passing office, etc.), and we have "soft" notability claims, where notability is not automatically extended to everybody who can show just one or two reliable sources. "Notable because media coverage exists" is the soft kind, where it takes considerably more sources to get a person over GNG than it does for a person who has a hard notability claim — lots of people who have no serious reason to actually belong in an encyclopedia can easily still show one or two pieces of reliable source coverage, which is precisely why "notable because media coverage exists" requires more than just one or two sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You actually did admit you were wrong about GNG "requiring" more than 2 sources. Here's your quote: "the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed". In nowhere in GNG does it demand an award be won by a person in addition to significant coverage by independent reliable sources. But the coverage I presented is far beyond "coverage exists" but significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, and more than two - you keep on ignoring the fact that the broken source you noted in your first response has been fixed. Anyway, this person is the recipient of the Rachel Carson Award[65] so even by your invented standards this person easily passes WP:GNG.Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're still misrepresenting what I said. Nowhere in this discussion did I say that winning an award was a necessary precondition of passing GNG — what I said, and am correct about, is that if a person has won an award that is notable enough to confer an ANYBIO pass, then one source which confirms that award win is enough to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, but one source is not enough to get the article kept if the notability claim you're shooting for is "just because media coverage exists". That is not the same thing as claiming that GNG requires an award win in order to get passed in the first place — I never said that at all, and you're putting words in my mouth if you think I did. But also, as has been pointed out below, she did not win the Rachel Carson Award, she won a secondary award that was presented at the same ceremony and announced in the same press release as other people winning the Rachel Carson Award. And an award doesn't get over ANYBIO just because it can technically be referenced to a primary source press release written and distributed by the granting organization itself, either — the test for whether an award is notable enough to get its winners over ANYBIO for winning it hinges directly on the extent to which media can be shown to care enough about the award to do journalism about it. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat is right, to demonstrate notability there has to be substantial and sustained coverage about the person. Like an author is judged by those who write about them (not about what they write themselves), a journalist is judged by what others write about them, not the interviews they do with famous people, etc. Ifnord (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument as the case of keeping is in fact based on significant coverage about this person satisfying WP:GNG not "the interviews they do with famous people, etc." Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete. No in-depth coverage (WP:INTERVIEWS at best, and those are problematic, 2-3 paragraphs in another source). Minor awards. Recent book that doesn't suffice to pass WP:NAUTHOR. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait for her to win a notable award or for someone to write about her life and work in a proper fashion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Rebecca, please take another look at those awards per my comment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a widely published, highly regarded journalist. But there is not enough written about her or about her work to pass WP:JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep, and Question She has already won three awards for her journalism, so I would have thought she would meet WP:ANYBIO. Where does it state that there has to be media coverage of those awards for them to count? (Answer: it doesn't, it just says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." #3 of WP:ANYBIO is "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" - should there be media coverage of a DNB entry for it to count?) The awards are notable, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - there are Wikipedia articles for two of them. The article could certainly be improved, and it might then be clearer that she meets notability guidelines - but the information is there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete per E.M.Gregory's review of the awards. The Audubon Rachel Carson award, according to the Wikipedia page, appears to be a fellowship or internship, and nowhere near as prestigious as either the Audubon Medal or the Rachel Carson Award. There is media coverage of the RTDNA awards, but I agree, there are so many regional awards that they are not very notable. A Murrow award at National level might be, but as E.M.Gregory has pointed out, it's one of many categories in many classes, in many regions, and she was one of six or so people in the reporting team (even though lead reporter, according to a report about it). Thanks for digging deeper into the awards! RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage of the award is what tells us whether an award is "well-known and significant" or not. In the absence of adequate media coverage of the award to establish that it's a notable award in the first place, absolutely every award that exists at all could claim to be "well-known and significant" enough to get its winners over ANYBIO — we have seen people attempt to claim ANYBIO passes on the basis of winning local "Best Community Gardener" awards from neighbourhood homeowner associations, and writing awards from local poetry clubs, and film awards from the "buy your film an award for PR purposes" class of fake film festivals, and even high school honour rolls. So it's not the statement of winning just any award that gets a person over ANYBIO — the award has to surpass a certain depth and breadth of media coverage about it in order to establish that it's notable enough for us to deem its winners notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made a start on making her claims to notability clearer in the article, by adding an Awards section and a lead sentence. The article still needs a lot of work, to be more neutral and less about now (eg she may be based in Lake Tahoe now (actually in Truckee, California, I think), but she has not always been [66], and how relevant is where she lives?).
About those 3 awards. 1.) "2007 - Folio Eddie and Ozzie Award" is this given by Folio (disambiguation)Folio a non bluelinked trade magazine? 2.) She did not win the Rachel Carson Award, she won a special award given by the National Audubon Society's Women in Conservation sub-organization in 2015 to a group of for green journalism to a group of 6 journalists of which she was one. 3.) Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association) appears to be given ever year in dozens, perhaps scores of categories. She appears to have won in the category "for the best small-market radio news series." in region 2, but this award was given in 14 regions and within each region it was given in ~50 categories. That works out to about 700 of Edward R. Murrow awards are given every year.[67]. These are not the sort of "major" awards that carry someone past WP:JOURNALIST. To me, this continues to look like WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 with 7 journal articles being cited over 100 times, one over 1,000. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although she is an author of some highly cited lab papers, she appears to not have an advanced degree, and her UC Davis bio speaking of her expertise in developing cytometry facilities suggests that her role in those papers may have been as a lab technician rather than as one of the leaders of the work. The only publication listed in her Google Scholar profile that has her as first author ("Help Us Help You! The Cytometry Interest Research Group Bridging the Gap Between Sample Purification and Downstream Applications") has zero citations. So I'm skeptical that we can use WP:PROF#C1 in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not too sure how the professor criterion works, but she does have a PhD, MA, and BA- the link also lists studies that she was a part of. SL93 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely unrelated person with the same name. We're looking at the UC Davis cytometry/administration one, Julie A. Auger, not the literary scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a lead author on enough papers to show field impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Epstein's analysis. I couldn't find anything else that suggests passage of PROF either. Notability has been challenged here, and unless there is an indication of meeting PROF then this should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her bio says that her expertise is in administration of research so I'm inclined to agree with the above comments that WP:NPROF is not met. The only reference is her bio page at UC Davis so WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I already commented above, I don't think her high-citation-count publications can be counted towards WP:PROF#C1, and her current administrative role is certainly not enough for notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 06:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability. One of the sources is self published; my library blocks the other two, so I imagine they are porn sites & in the context of a porn actress they count as self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not even asserted and the article's references are unacceptable. Looks like a candidate for A7 speedy to me. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. I try to find clean reference but I just see litle information. I try to write simple thing about her. Wikipedia have a lot of simple article. So, don't delete. Now, i think i just want to add an image. She so beautiful. Đông Minh (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key problem is that the references are self-published and unreliable, not just that they are porn sites. The internet is flooded with porn. Very little of it supports notability. Finally, beautiful does not necessarily mean notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleted XXX the ref and edited article. The references are self-published it's just for ages, height and weight, not others. Đông Minh (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted one source and added IAFD, which constitutes neither a WP:RELIABLE source nor significant coverage for establishing notability. The article no reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay • Gene93k, i'm finish my edit, can you check it again ?, If you feeling it's okay please bring out the sign. Đông Minh (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've traded two unreliable sources for two more unreliable sources, Freeones and Everpedia. Freeones is yet another porn site. Everpedia says, "Any source is valid, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn." The sources cited by Everpedia are PornHub, Babepedia, Twitter, etc. Nothing reliable. You need to find sources with a good reputation for fact checking. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I lost many hours for small article, so now, I leave this on your hand, you can do anything. I have a question for you, you check so clean and clear every new page with it's reference, so why english wikipedia have a lot of pages with cite error. Some time I work at page Category:Pages with reference errors, so what you do really ? why ? I'm think you should be spend your time at this page, we have many numper pages with reference errors 15,929 article in total Đông Minh (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many different tasks in maintaining and improving Wikipedia. Among other things, I monitor the porn project for new articles and articles that may be deleted. This article came up under both categories. I also review drafts at Articles for creation and loosely follow AfD. Finally pages with technical references errors is not the same as pages without reliable references, where my efforts tend to fall. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi • Gene93k, sometime I see little page (in Category:Pages with reference errors) have only one reference and that's reference is a cite error: Cite error: The named reference "example" was invoked but never defined. So now I ask you ? If I delete all reference in Melena Maria, it's will have red ink with error, will you accept my article ? Because it just a page have reference no content. Đông Minh (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of getting too far into WP:WAX, if all the references are broken, first you try to fix or replace themso long as reliable sources are available. That's why reference errors are classified as potentially surmountable maintenance issues. Let's focus on this case where reliable source coverage does not appear to be available. Deleting or breaking the references would only compound the notability/verifiability problems and make the article an unsourced BLP (also grounds for deletion). • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Gene93k alright, do not lost your time, delete it. we stop here. have a good day ! Đông Minh (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet relevant notability guidelines; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have notability guidelines for porn talent at WP:PORNBIO, which the subject does not meet. Ifnord (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above !voters that reliable sources are lacking, making this a WP:BLP issue. --Kinut/c 21:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing in article fails WP:ORGCRIT and my BEFORE doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched news archives using various keywords + "Children First" such as "Children First" + Hekmat. not finding sources. This appears to be PROMO for a non-notable activist group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The absence of any participation in defense of this article leads me to believe that had this been subject to a PROD, it would already be gone. No need to stand on further ceremony. bd2412T 03:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Presented source is just a forum discussion. Not able to find any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hitro talk 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to lack of any sources that are even slightly reliable Spiderone 14:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a stub of a stub. The few sources that are out there are primary sources written by people closely associated with the topic. Further it has been nominated before and closed as a delete
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually WP:G4. All statements made in the original AfD still hold. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Coolabahapple/Elmidae — Rhododendritestalk \\ 06:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note – This new version of the article is significantly different from the version that was deleted. As such, it does not qualify for WP:G4 speedy deletion. North America1000 07:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can find no reliable sources that offer significant coverage that is specifically about this writer and his career. Many of the article's existing sources are dead links, and others list him as merely being present at a certain event. His works have been listed similarly in a few other sources, but all are routine listings that do not establish notability for an author. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I usually do with authors, I began by running searches because if a writer is at all notable a unique name like this will come up in a proquest news archive or similar search. Nothing came up. No hits at all. As Nom says, may of the sources on page lead no where. Fore example, the first one I clicked, "AILAP names fourteen new authors at UBOD New Authors Series II (pighúgot 2012-01-17)," led to http://www.ateneo.edu, not to a specific article. But even if it had, it sounds like a list of writers giving talks at the school. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find no in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources to show that they pass WP:GNG, and can't see where they meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969TT me 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. bd2412T 03:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG. Article creator in contesting PROD says there is coverage of her during her life. There are mentions of her in passing in articles that focus on her husband. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and coverage of the subject herself is WP:ROUTINE. And with the article creation after her death, WP:NOTMEMORIAL also needs to be considered. Prove me wrong, that there actually is significant coverage of her before her death. I looked and I'm not seeing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Steinbrenner - doesn't appear to be notable enough on her own & any sort of notability she does have is mostly derived from her husband/sons that own/owned the Yankees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WNYY98 (talk • contribs) 20:35, December 16, 2018 (UTC)
Redirect per nom, not notable in her own right. WCMemail 10:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given for deletion were a) that notability is not inherited. The notability of Steinbrenner is in her philanthropy, which is work she did herself, and therefore isn't inherited. She can also be considered notable for her position of vice-chair of the Yankees, also work she did herself and isn't inherited; b) that WP is not a memorial. There is coverage of her prior to her death, but it was more apparent and more easily accessed after her death. This is common and doesn't indicate non-notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is written to deter editors from writing articles about deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances etc. This is not the case here, this is a genuinely notable person whose page was finally written after she died. MurielMary (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she was indeed "genuinely notable" on her own, there likely would have been plenty of coverage before her death. sixtynine• whaddya want? • 15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding multiple sources on newspapers.com going back to the 1970s valereee (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Such as? Briefly mentioning her as George's wife doesn't count as "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: working on it, have found at least half a dozen stories in which she's the focus rather than her husband, have added to article valereee (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how content mentioning George's dealings with Howard Spira (whoever he is, as he has no article) and a taped conversation involving her adds notability, nor her commentary about how he "should see a doctor", so it's been removed. Also mentioned in passing in 1990 "Morning After" article. sixtynine• whaddya want? • 20:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reply to sixtynine: your belief that notable people receive online, accessible coverage while alive is completely false. There are plenty of notable achievers all over the world who don't have such coverage e.g. minority ethnicities, women, historical figures who weren't written about during their lives but were "discovered" after their death etc etc. MurielMary (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69: Not everything in an article has to add notability. A person's birthdate and birthplace don't show notability, but they're included in every bio article. This is an interesting anecdote about the subject, and it was reported in multiple sources valereee (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think if newspapers all over the country, including places she never lived, are announcing a death and mentioning the person's origins, professional position and philanthropy, the person was probably notable on their own. valereee (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. There are multiple reputable and independent sources spanning decades that are about the subject. Several of these sources are now referenced in the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but... MurielMary canvassed this discussion on WIR without apparently disclosing that fact here.[68] Both the subsequent "keep" !votes are WIR members, one hadn't otherwise !voted in an AFD in almost three years (and so almost certainly only noticed this AFD as a result of the canvassing) and the otheralmost never !votes "delete". Neither editor disclosed how they noticed this AFD, and while the latter likely has a valid, non-canvassing related reasoning, the former really should have disclosed the canvassing.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not from any canvassing. If you look at my entire edit history you'll see I took a nearly an over two-year break from Wikipedia which explains why no AfD votes in that period. valereee (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your second point. I noticed this canvassing AfD because I have a gadget turned on that turns AfD articles pink. I don't do sports, but I did recognize the name Joan Steinbrenner when I saw it listed in bright pink. I'm from Ohio, and we know her here. valereee (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... holds up, I guess. You still hadn't !voted in any AFDs last month, when you were highly active, but I guess I'll accept that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the definition of "canvassing" - WiR keeps a record of articles created during its editathons and to keep the records accurate it seemed useful to add the relevant detail to the list; if the article got deleted the WiR organisers would know why it went red on the list after starting off as blue. Look through the WiR lists and you'll find plenty of these kinds of article details e.g. "rescued from PROD" or "from AfC" etc. IMO it's not much different to adding an article to a list of articles for deletion - and I note that an editor added this article to the "People-related" list but not to a "Women-related" or "Women's History-related" list even though the article is tagged to those projects on its talk page. Is there a reason for the selective nature of listing articles in these lists?? MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, it is entirely appropriate to notify the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion of an AfD. Adding the AfD to the article's entry in a list of articles of a WikiProject with an interest in the topic would seem to be legitimate. MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 As you note, I was highly active. I created from scratch multiple articles last month and took five of them to DYK. I reviewed five DYK nominations as QPQ. So I was pretty busy. And I don't go hunting for AfD to participate in. I'm not sure why this is barely believable, or why you seem to want to assume bad faith, but I can assure you my only "agenda" here is that I'm concerned about Wikipedia's tendency to redirect notable women to their much-more-notable husbands. :) The specific reason I turned this gadget on a couple weeks ago was that it shows redirects in bright green. It also turns AfD bright pink (which is how I ended up at another AfD just yesterday) and may in fact cause me to start attending more of them. But the reason I got here was seeing a name I knew in bright pink; it's not so often that I actually recognize an AfD bio. And the reason I got involved to the point of spending multiple hours yesterday on newspapers.com was that the suggested solution was to redirect her to her much-more-notable husband. One of the articles I created last month was the exact same situation, and I find it sad that having a husband who is MORE notable should mean a woman's life is relegated to a redirect. valereee (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary I think Hijiri's concern is not the notification, but that the notification wasn't disclosed here, and it's a fair point. Full disclosure: I notified 'women-related deletion discussions' yesterday, and while I was trying to figure out the directions for adding that note here without breaking the page (something I do all too frequently due to being terrible at wiki markup), editor Thsmi002 came along behind me with an assist, for which I thanked them on their talk page. valereee (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little of both: the stated rationale for making the notification (if the article got deleted the WiR organisers would know why it went red on the list after starting off as blue) doesn't make sense since clicking on a red link would immediately show that the page was deleted per an AFD, and most likely link to the AFD (I'm not an admin and so don't know or much care if they are required to so but they seem to do so every time). Additionally, while I love WIR and agree with their (well, our -- I thought I had signed up as a member like a year ago but I guess I forgot to save the edit) motives and the work that they/we do, but it is definitely a non-neutral forum to post notifications of ongoing AFDs. If you (MurielMary) want to add an AFD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, you should feel free to, but adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People is not an act of canvassing that would justify what you did do. And I hardly think it's in WIR's best interests to get a reputation as a canvassing forum. Some women, like some men, some books and some companies, simply are not notable, and I have no doubt that a lot of the entries in WIR's editathons (like those of every editathon I've ever participated in) were problematic and should never have been mainspaced. The proper procedures for writing articles apply regardless of the topic or the editathon in question: I am normally happy to create an article on any topic that has a standalone article in the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, Encyclopedia Nipponica or the Nihon Rekishi Daijiten, but if Japanese Wikipedia has an article on Minamoto no Kanetoshi's mother and none of those paper encyclopedias do, I gotta wonder why (but I will similarly wonder why Taira no Chikakiyo's four daughters are not given their own standalone articles). Given how many indisputably more notable women from the thousands of years of human history still don't have articles, I don't see the point in fighting with people who are on your side over this one article just because you don't want to be accused of inappropriate canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not canvassing to post a neutral notification of an AfD discussion to a talk page. To quote WP:CANVASSING: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects", and "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of comment would shock me, if I hadn't recently seen even worse willing ignorance of policy here. It wasn't neutral (in context, it was essentially "I created this article on a marginalized woman to help combat systemic bias, and now the article has been nominated for deletion!"), and it wasn't in a neutral forum.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Hijiri88 - really, you need to refrain from assigning "bad faith" motives to editors' actions. You have accused me of canvassing, you have accused Valeree of coming here as a result of said canvassing, you have analysed his/her past edit history and passed judgement on his/her motives for commenting here, you've argued that my reason for taking an action "doesn't make sense" and now you are accusing me of "willing ignorance of policy". It would be much more helpful to take everyone's actions and comments at face value rather than assuming these nefarious intentions. Editors should not have to justify to you why they do something then have you attack that reason. Editors should not even have to justify what they are doing to you, as you're not a judge and gatekeeper here but a peer. MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are there, which establishes at least GNG. While it's true that a lot of her notability is inherited from her husband, she has a basic level of notability as established by the multiple sources over time, her role as a philanthropist and the coverage given to her death in multiple highly reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is mistaken in thinking that post-mortem coverage cannot suffice. In this case there is coverage both during lifetime, and in obituaries. But there it is not required. What is required is WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I'm still neutral (believe it or not one can oppose canvassing, even vehemently so, and still agree or at least not disagree with the canvasser), but I think you are misinterpreting what Muboshgu (talk·contribs) wrote as indicating they "[think] that post-mortem coverage cannot suffice". Obviously for someone who has been dead for a long time, both pre- and post-mortem sources can be used to establish notability (example: no one is ever going to nominate my recently-created article on Chikakiyo's fifth daughter, despite the cited source clearly post-dating her death by around 700 years, and we aren't even sure if any sources from before her death even exist), but for someone who just died recently and the post-mortem coverage is only obituaries, having a standalone article on her may border on WP:NOTOBITUARY or even WP:NOTNEWS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, @Hijiri88:. That is indeed a misrepresentation of my point. The only significant coverage I see of Joan Steinbrenner is her obituary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu There are now many sources referenced, from multiple areas of the country, starting in the 1970s and continuing through the early 2000s, that are about Steinbrenner and only mention her husband in passing. When a person's relative is much more famous than they are, it is quite normal for mentions of the person to also include mentions of the more-famous relative; those passing mentions don't make the less-famous person not-notable. valereee (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: You have added a lot of sources, but many still seem to be about her husband and mention her in passing. I can't read them all as I don't have a newspapers.com account. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Yes, I know. It's unfortunate. If you'll look at my edit history, I think you'll find that I have generally acted in good faith and assessed notability reasonably when citing sources that are freely available. I'm afraid I'll just have to hope you'll assume that means I do the same when citing sources that are behind paywalls, too. Maybe someone else with access to newspapers.com will be along to check my work. :D valereee (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newspaper.com articles are readable by clicking on a link, but it's one big paragraph consisting of everything on the selected page of the publication. It's a challenge finding the needed content but is not unreadable. sixtynine• whaddya want? • 02:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went through and clipped the articles from Newspapers.com. They should now be easier to access. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are there to meet WP:GNG Fubar100 (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment:. I feel like we should keep the article as it clearly passes all relevant criteria. Arguments for deletion were A)WP:GNG The term was used and discussed by academics (E. Castelli, C. Moss, P. Cavill, Noa Ben-Asher, Randall J. Stephens, Hornback Robert and others), mainstream media (the Atlantic, Washington Post, Huffington Post and others). B)WP:NEO was pointed out, but it doesn't apply to scholarly research, as enough secondary sources describe the term well. C)WP:FORK which does not apply here either as the article is not about the persecution of Christians, whether persecutions did happen in ancient Rome. It is mostly about the modern view of some Christians in the west, that are being persecuted- and its socio-political consequences. The historicity of persecution is only remotely discussed. Merging with other articles poses some serious problems. Persecution of Christians is already a huge article. Moreover, the topic of the article is different than the topic discussed in CP Complex. Surely, there are some drawbacks of the article that we need to address. Most probably, some Christians might feel the title is offensive as there is a medical condition by the name "Complex". We should strive to make it as clear as it can get, that the term has nothing to do with a medical disorder, it is a term that is being used in humanities.Cinadon36 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Abstain - There are valid reasons for both deletion and keep per all above. I recommend further study for reliable sources, but I doubt it.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
