Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 10

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

The result was redirect to Moral Hazard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morale hazard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant since we already have Moral hazard. The ambiguous difference between Moral hazard and Morale hazard has been covered there by Moral_hazard#Distinction_from_morale_hazard. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moral Hazard. Hard to tell because both articles are poorly cited, but they seem to be the same thing mainly.BayShrimp (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moral hazard. There really is a distinction between the two terms. Using fire insurance as an example, a person who is willing to commit arson presents the insurer with a moral hazard, whereas a law-abiding person who is simply lackadaisical about fire safety presents a morale hazard. But, I can't recall ever seeing the one discussed without the other, so presenting them together in a single article seems the best approach. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Moral hazard as the differences are covered there. -- Dane ^talk 00:08, 14 December 2016 (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. There can be exceptions to the "no Pokémon can have their own article" rule; Mimikyu is an example of that. It is shown that this article passes WP:GNG, regardless of what the "rule" is, and therefore can be kept. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimikyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

WP has a very long history of creating unwarranted articles for individual Pokémon, inevitably merged back to their parent lists. All Pokémon have some sort of routine coverage—the Internet thinks they're cute/fat/scary/whatever—and those passing mentions do not count towards the general notability guideline. This Pokémon has routine coverage, similar to that of every other Pokémon, except we redirect those to their appropriate lists where they can be developed and spin out summary style.

But the easiest tell here are the sources themselves, which cover Mimikyu as one Pokemon among others in a list. Our own coverage is proportional to the sources, and when they treat a point as one in a list, so do we. The majority of the Reception is to say that Mimikyu is scary/creepy and that fans like it for that reason. Good: put it in the list's section. I would not consider Comicbook.com, Inverse, or RocketNews24 blogs to be reliable sources. A redirect to the main list would be sufficient. czar 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In creating the Mimikyu article, I kept in mind that I would not do so if I could not find significant coverage of the Pokémon. The notion that the article's sources only cover Mimikyu as "one Pokemon among others in a list" is only partially true. While the article does include citations to sources which list Mimikyu amongst other Pokémon, it also includes citations to The Escapist, Kotaku, Polygon, Paste, and The Mary Sue that solely mention Mimikyu. I would not consider Inverse nor Comicbook.com to be unreliable sources, as Inverse has its own Wikipedia article and Comicbook.com is not a blog. RocketNews24, however, is admittedly questionable. I would not have created the article if I did not believe with certainty that the character is notable. This is why I have not and will not create articles for Pokémon such as, say, Farfetch'd or Aipom. –Matthew - (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article now also has a citation to an Inquisitr article that is also focused on Mimikyu, rather than simply including Mimikyu as one character amongst several. –Matthew - (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – To me, it seems Mimikyu has received significant coverage, as multiple reliable sources has written an article about it specifically. These are not just standard news messages either: sources even comment on its portrayal in the anime series. The Pokémon seems to be highly popular, so I see no issue in keeping this article compared to other Pokémon, though I understand why people may feel the article is made too early: some more sources to create some more depth in this article would be very nice. ~Mable (chat) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Pikachu, just look at it, that's what it is right? Keep. The Paste, Kotaku, and Inquistr articles are all focused exclusively about Mimikyu, which establish notability. Many of the other sources also do mention it alongside others, combined, this is enough to meet our notability guidelines. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable enough per everyone.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move out-of-universe info into the list. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we please have a discussion of the actual content? The three articles mentioned above are gossipy and says little more than that the character is both cute and scary (as mentioned in the nom). This coverage is on par with that of almost every other Pokemon from the original 1–150, but we cover those in their dedicated sections of the list because there isn't actually any depth/content to the critical response that isn't shallow repetition of the same point. Yes, the character's name is in the title of those sources, but what exactly about this character is notable? (Also I wouldn't treat the Inquistr article as a reliable source—the website is low-quality reposts of news content from elsewhere, traditional clickbait/fluff like early and occasional HuffPo.) czar 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the character discussed thoroughly in a reliable source? Why, tada, that's notability for ya. –Matthew - (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum  This is a content issue.  No admin tools are needed or requested.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unscintillating: Admin tools? No one has mentioned those? ~Mable (chat) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that you want to say something, so please proceed.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2016 (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. There is general consensus for this article to be kept and rolled back to when the article was a stub. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elastance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

useless dab-page, as it has no proper targets The Banner talk 22:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both entries comfortably pass WP:DABMENTION. Maybe a third entry could be added for the general concept in mechanics, but I can't seem to find an article where it's covered (there's nothing at Elasticity or Stiffness). – Uanfala (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator of DAB page). These are two well defined and clearly distinct meanings of this term, both of which are notable in different spheres of natural science and discussed in different wikipedia articles. Without this DAB page, it's confusing for readers searching for information on one of them when they are redirected to an article that mentions the other. There used to be a stub article on Electrical elastance that was then moved to Elastance, and then merged into Capacitance. Much of the content was lost in the merger. I would not be opposed to recreating that stub at Electrical elastance and possibly creating a new stub about the meaning in physiology, if that would fix the issue raised by the OP. However, this DAB is clearly necessary to avoid reader confusion, and quickly direct users to the information they are looking for. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but add a definition of the electronics version to Capacitance so that a sensible bluelink can go there from the dab page, rather than just to daraf. I've tweaked the dab page to make it more WP:MOSDAB-compliant for now. PamD 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have one, but was removed with the edit summary "balderdash". I have just restored it. SpinningSpark 15:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and roll back to this being an article. The two meanings are not entirely unconnected and the article used to explain this reasonably well. The physiology meaning is merely an application of the term in mechanics. The electrical meaning comes through analogy with mechanical systems, hence the name. Many other quantities in mechanics and electrics share the same name because they share the same constitutive relation sometimes mechanics borrowing from electrical science, as in the case of mechanical impedance, and sometimes the other way round as here. Wikipedia could do a much better job of highlighting this. Deleting this article would be a step backwards. SpinningSpark 15:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and roll back per Spinningspark. This was a promising stub until another editor came along and redirected it to Capacitance, saying "merging". This makes for a rather poor dab page. The physiology term can be linked to in a hatnote. — Gorthian (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the so called merge was no more than adding a dicdef. All the real encyclopaedic information was lost. SpinningSpark 00:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The old stub was unreferenced. Does anyone with an electronics background have a source we can include for it if we're going to re-create it? A cursory Google Search reveals this https://books.google.com/books?id=rfHWHeU0jfsC&pg=SA16-PA11&lpg=SA16-PA11&dq=elastance+electronics&source=bl&ots=OPlqwhMvkB&sig=k8vO2u1EDxQ-IZLDOylfDucooIk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNtaK1hfDQAhXHxlQKHXGMCT8Q6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=elastance%20electronics&f=false ("Electrical and Electronics Reference Manual for the Electrical and Computer PE Exam" Page 16-11) but I'm not well-versed in this field so I can't be sure if that's the best citation. I'd be fine with restoring the stub as long as there's a link at the top that says "if you were looking for the inverse of compliance in physiology see compliance (physiology)").. This would be done similarly to the little italic text currently at the top of compliance (physiology) --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is great for the basic definition. This book verifies most of the information in the old article. It mentions the unit daraf and explains the connection with mechanical compliance. The bigger picture for this relationship is in mechanical-electrical analogies and there may be more information in the references there. Although that article does not currently mention elastance, it could do, and both articles should be cross-linked. This paper on Wilhelm Cauer gives some idea why the concept is useful in network analysis through an example of Cauer using it. This source has a table showing the analogy between mechanical and electrical elastance (not very clearly it has to be said). It would be nice to know who invented the term. My guess would be Oliver Heaviside who coined terms for many of the properties occuring in electromagnetic analysis (and was much criticised for it—but they nearly all stuck so he gets the last laugh). And, aha, having made that guess, I immediately find this to back that up, and here is Heaviside himself talking about it. SpinningSpark 15:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice! Thank you! Keep and roll back then. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This can be rolled back to a version that is acceptable. -- Dane ^talk 00:03, 14 December 2016 (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 and WP:SALT. Consensus herein is clear that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and this article has been recreated three times (see deletion log). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilnawaz Qamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Speedy deleted thrice now with obvious signs of no notability or anything significant and, at best, absolutely nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per my original tag to this iteration of the article. Not even a claim of any kind of significance here. Provided references are articles written by the subject--I found no references saying anything about the subject. --Finngall ^talk 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 2 claims of significance: Teaching at a notable university, and writing for a notable newspaper. Adam9007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliably sourced to...? Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt fails all aspects of notability. No suitable refs. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those are speedy criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable psychologist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt given the numerous deletions now and yet there being no actual differences, worse when it's still do blatant hence delete as this is sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - Speedy deletions abound, this is purely not a topic that has encyclopedic value at this time. -- Dane ^talk 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person is entitled to have an article just because she can be nominally verified as existing — reliable source coverage about her in media must be present to carry a claim of notability that passes WP:JOURNALIST. But exactly none of the "sourcing" here does that: as noted, all of the offsite links here are to content where she's the bylined author of the piece, and none where she's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Snowden-Fine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actress, Cant find any evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd forgot this was nominated at AFD and completely forgot I was the nominator - Anyway can't be bothered to CSD that article and this AFD so will just let this run its course (and plus someone could find something I haven't), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As little content as there actually is here, there's (surprisingly) still enough that's different from the prior version to forestall speedy as a "recreation of deleted content" — but still none of it is substantive enough, or reliably sourced enough, to grant her an WP:NACTOR pass. Actors and actresses do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; they must be reliably sourced to media coverage about them. But for "sourcing", what we have here is IMDb, another insignificant and non-notability-conferring database, and a history of Peppa Pig which just namechecks the existence of Peppa's voice actress while failing to be about Peppa's voice actress — and that is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an actress over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable actor --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being a US state level chess champion just does not seem to be enough to make one notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he was a minor master but participation in the very strong Carlsbad 1923 chess tournament probably gets him over the line. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ranked 60ish in the world during the 1910s is good enough for me to consider him notable. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is adequately sourced, and it helps to Build The Web. A very good example of an article that no one would argue is essential, but that helps add to the richness and depth of coverage that Wikipedia can provide as compared to a paper encyclopedia. Linked from Carlsbad 1923 chess tournament, so deletion would also make that article worse. I can't think of any way in which deleting this article could improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Several notable sources on him; passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. the nominator has essentially withdrawn, stating in a comment, "Discussion closed with the conclusion of keeping the article." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A basic search of Jacob Adam isn't finding any real sources to support notability. The person does not meet the notability requirements of a "creative professional" that would allow the article to remain on Wikipedia. MonroeHarless (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The corresponding page at German Wikipedia shows that he has been included in three print encyclopedias, which is a sign of notability - one of them was already in this article. (I'll add the other two sources to the article here in a minute.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Thank you very much! Discussion closed with the conclusion of keeping the article.MonroeHarless (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2016 (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. Most arguments are for failing notability of politicians. There's an additional argument that, if the position the subject held fails that, then WP:BLP1E should apply to coverage on the firing event. slakr^\ talk / 05:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Bacchus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be non-notable individual/politician. A number of small articles about her, but seems to lack significant coverage. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are 13,700 articles about her in Google and, in Google News current archive alone, there are 1,350. Please see the notes I made on the talk page for this prominent politican. Women and particularly women politicians are under-represented in Wikipedia. She served as a trustee of a large Canadian school district for 8 years and as Board chair for 6. She caused significant controversy during her terms of service and was recently one of the nine board members removed by the provincial government. The Provincial government removed democratically elected trustees from office. As noted in the Wiki article, she was named one of the top 100 most influential women in the province by the largest newspaper in British Columbia. I do note that my first attempt with the article had a formatting error that wasn't having the citations show up under current markup standards, but the citations were still at the bottom of the page. See also Talk page for this article Westendgirl (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - First of all, there are only 142 hits for the name "Patti Bacchus", the number you refer to is for the combined searches of Patt, Bacchus, and Patti Bacchus. Regardless, popularity is not the same as Wikipedia define notability.

Being on the school board is not a "prominent" politician. Her firing was a local event. I agree, women are under represented, but that under representation does not absolve any article from meeting the requirements for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I screen shot? I am using quotes and getting far more results. This was not a search without quotes. Those are the exact results I received. Is it possible you are in a location that excludes Canadian search results? I did the search both in Google.ca and in cognito and got identical numbers, so it is not contextualized. I am not suggesting that web notoriety means credibility, but instead disputing the results you brought up first, since you are the one who referred to how many article mentions there are. Bacchus is prominent throughout the province. Wikipedia has lengthy entries for the Vancouver city councillors going back several years, most of whom are far less noteworthy than Bacchus. I am also not suggesting that she be included merely because she is a woman but instead suggesting that her contributions are being minimized in your nomination for AFD. Westendgirl (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, to clarify, the removal of an entire board of democratically elected public officials is a significant even for the entire province, as well as for this country. I'm not sure where you are from, but one level of government has removed another level of government in its entirety and the key players in that process are noteworthy. Westendgirl (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am excluding anything. Try running the query then go to the last page and see if the number on the last page is the number you are seeing. You may have to go to the 2nd to last page to get a count. Let me know. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am on page 51 of search results. Still in quotes. "Page 51 of about 13,700 results (2.01 seconds)" The results are from newspapers in Calgary, New Brunswick and several provincial sources, which supports my assertion that she is known outside of her locality. IN the news articles (as opposed to general web search), I am on page 38 of 1350 articles and the timeline ends at 2013, but certainly there should be articles going back further. SHe's even listed in Google Trends as a politician, which is not something most local people manage to do. I wonder if maybe your results are contextualized to where you live. (I find this interesting from a search POV, but also in terms of using articles as authoritaty indicators.) Yahoo general web search (with quotes) gives me 12,700 results. Westendgirl (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Canadian news outlets cite her repeatedly. "patti bacchus" site:theglobeandmail.com and "patti bacchus" site:nationalpost.com have more than 200 articles between them.

I'll have to get back to my computer to look at this further. All I have is my iPad. reddogsix (talk)

I tried it using google.ca and see about the same results from google.com. If you are only showing 10 results per page you will see a large number of pages. Try setting the "Results per page" to 100 and that will will probably show you the same results as I have. reddogsix (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the number of results displayed per page does not change the number of results. So, in addition to the national newspapers above, I just checked CBC. More than 35 stories and 200 results there. http://www.cbc.ca/gsa/?q=patti+bacchus&gns=SEARCH This is a national media outlet with provincial but not "local" newscasts. Given that there are so many Google, national newspaper and national radio/TV results and that she is also a newspaper editor and journalist and has contributed substantially to Canadian educational issues and policy, I am not clear on what you are trying to establish at this point in arguing this is an AFD. Westendgirl (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if yo go to the last page of the CBC link you provided, this is what you get, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 45 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." This removes duplicate hits.

Well, regardless of the number of hits either of us sees, the article lacks the support for inclusion. If you were to add some articles of substance that support WP:BASIC, I would support inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC most certainly does have local news bureaux; while there's only one provincewide CBC Television station in BC, there are six separate CBC Radio One stations which do each report their own local news separately from the "provincewide" service. So the fact that a news story happens to be on the CBC's website does not automatically constitute "nationalized" coverage in and of itself — we still have to base it on whether the substance of the matter is of nationalized significance or not. And what's of national significance here is the event, which can be discussed in the article about the board — it does not demonstrate nationalized significance for every individual person who happens to be involved in the event. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. School board trustees (even school board chairs) do not get Wikipedia articles just for serving on a school board; it is a level of office that does not pass WP:NPOL. While Westendgirl is correct that the firing of the school board is a notable event, it's an event that warrants coverage in our article about the board — it does not, in and of itself, constitute justification for a standalone WP:BLP of an individual trustee, because it just makes her a WP:BLP1E. She can be mentioned in the board's article, but nothing here rises to the level needed to make her a suitable topic for her own biographical article separate from the board's article. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete school board chairs are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets the GNG with headlines in the Vancouver Sun, Global News, CBC, The Globe and Mail, CTV and more from at least 2014 to 2016.  The Steve  15:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Headlines for the Board is not a in-depth discussion of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The board meets GNG with headlines in media outlets from at least 2014 to 2016. The coverage of Bacchus as an individual topic separate from the board does not. For similar comparisons: the CEO of a company does not get a standalone BLP just because his name happens to appear in media coverage about the company; he gets an article when he's the subject of significant coverage separate from the company as a whole — and the lead singer of a band does not get a standalone BLP just because her name appears in media coverage about the band; she gets an article when she's the subject of significant coverage, in her own right, separate from the band as a whole. GNG is not met just because her name appears in coverage which is about the board; it will be met only if and when coverage which is specifically about her, isolated from "coverage of the board as a whole", can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into an article about the Board. On her own, she is not notable.Yellow Diamond's Pearl (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable school board member fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:20, 14 December 2016 (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. MER-C 02:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Storm Wrestling roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is not supported by references demonstrating notability. A related article created by same user (Northern Storm Wrestling) has also been submitted for consideration for deletion. Parkywiki (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the Northern Storm Wrestling page is up for deletion for WP:GNG, it doesn't make any sense to keep the roster page as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Comatmebro...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berg (Kabbalah Centre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one of the sources is aboutBerg, the other provide passing if at all mention of him. Berg is just not notable as either the Kabbalah Centre co-director or as a writer to justify having an article on him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:23, 14 December 2016 (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. MER-C 02:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Storm Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not demonstrated by content or references; article is wholly promotional in nature. An associated page Northern Storm Wrestling roster has also been created by same user. Parkywiki (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. A clear case for speedy deletion. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTPROMOTION...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2016 (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. MER-C 02:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolis Souvlakos (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not establish notability as per WP:NSPORT nor, as its professional wrestling, WP:ENT. Parkywiki (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable wrestler, plus the article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the way the article is written makes him seem non-noteable. 2 years of pro wrestling experience? Occasionally at very small self-organized events? C'mon... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ENT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• Delete No proof of this guy existing per a cursory google Prmcd16 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT. -- Dane ^talk 00:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Development Finance Analyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the Institute that delivers this certification is bien discussed for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Chartered Institute of Development Finance Domdeparis (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The institute that delivers this certification has had it's article deleted. This article has similar sourcing issues and suffers a fail under WP:GNG. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:GNG - Insufficient neutral secundary sources. All sources seem to be by involved institutes. I googled for news items containing this articles exact name and found 0 results. This should not be possible for a notable English language certification. -- Taketa (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:30, 14 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melaina Shipwash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Shipwash is only marginally notable for being Miss Colorado. However being miss anystate is not enough on its own to establish notability. There is no coverage of her beyond this, and the coverage of her for this is largely confined to Colorado Springs and not to the larger media market of Denver let alone notice beyond the borders of Colorado. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been relisted in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions now that it has been reopened.

• Delete -- run-of-the-mill state level pageant winner; in the absence of other notability factors, such pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another pageant winner who is not notable. -- Dane ^talk 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2016 (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. With no prejudice towards draftify or userfy requests on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Drake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. WP:BLP, pitched like a public relations advertorial, of a writer and performer. While this looks extensively sourced on the surface, a deeper examination of the sources reveals that it's actually very strongly dependent on blogs and primary sources, such as his own website and Twitter tweets and the self-published websites of organizations or institutions with which he was directly affiliated, with only a very small minority of the references being to properly reliable sources — and even some of the genuinely reliable sources are just glancing namechecks of his existence, rather than coverage that's substantively about him. There's also a lot of reference bombing going on here; for example, the statement "He has performed this piece around the world at various universities, conferences, festivals, etc" alone is referenced to 22 separate citations for each individual performance, again mostly primary sources rather than reliable ones — and the number of footnotes is also significantly padded out by unnecessary reduplication or retriplication of some of the same sources as multiple footnotes rather than one (frex, #19 and #22 are the same thing, as are #49 and #50.) So while it's certainly possible that he might be eligible to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, this article written and sourced this way is not what it takes to make him notable.

As always, neither actors nor writers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, if the resulting article is this heavily dependent on poor-quality references — he has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG. Basically, this is a nuke and pave situation — even if he can be shown as notable enough to qualify for an article, we're still better off starting over from scratch than we are trying to repair all the problems with this version of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lots of references to own website and own wordpress. Did he really have 9 highlights in his career in 2015, but none in 2016! Orphan article in mainspace - he's not notable enough to be mentioned in the article about his current employer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Heavily relies on the primary sources and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to draft A lot of work has been done, but yes it needs a good dose of wikisalts. Heavily relies on is not the same as only. Removing 11 or so duplicated references still leaves about 80 unique references (see right), but yes a lot of primaries or at least not independent. Send to draft and get it mentored into an appropriate article. We need to encourage contributors, but send them in the correct direction. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

O.b. (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references. Not independently notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Women. Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a very well-known brand with a 66-year history. I have expanded it and added further references in addition to the two lengthy articles in the German press which were added by another editor yesterday. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: o.b. is a well-known brand; I'm surprised there wasn't a Wikipedia page on them sooner. Funcrunch (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Longstanding highly recognizable brand. Not surprisingly after only a couple of seconds I found these examples of significant coverage. .[1][2][3] I'm sure I'd find much more if I bothered actually trying. No references in an article of a notable topic is a matter of regular editing, as excellently done so far by Voceditenore, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Much improved. Keep it.Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Since you're the nominator and no one has voted to delete, you can withdraw the nomination and close as speedy keep, per AfD instructions. Funcrunch (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Never done that before!Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quake mods#Quake II. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qoole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I would've PRODed if not for the 2006 AfD which emphasizes something since even they deleted it, nine of this amounts to actual notability and substance and I've found nothing at all for actual convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quake_mods#Quake_II. Rationale copied from talk page (with a few changes) after my explained redirection was reverted without explanation: "Not sure what there is to discuss. If you remove the patently unreliable sources, which I just did, we're left with next to no sourced information. We don't keep separate articles for topics about which we have (as I originally said and linked) a 'dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources'. Personal websites don't pass muster but there are plenty of vetted video game-specific sites at WP:VG/RS, just none of them mention Qoole in any depth. Also redirection is not deletion and Qoole is mentioned at the Quake mods page. Feel free to expand on the topic from reliable, secondary sources there." czar 21:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quake_mods#Quake_II. Fine with me! --DanielPharos (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quake_mods#Quake_II as the most appropriate spot. -- Dane ^talk 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quake mods#Quake II as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 14 December 2016 (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. MER-C 02:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keenaz Hakeem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I still confirm my PROD as it's clear this is only existing for advertising and thus policy WP:NOT applies and it's clear the one account is only here for advertising this ine subject. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOM as WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 01:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. A clear case for speedy deletion. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pale (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to World of Greyhawk. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge very sparingly to Greyhawk. The vast majority of this article is unsourced, overly detailed WP:CRUFT, but the basic information on the location can be merged into the main Greyhawk article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking into it a bit more, I agree with BOZ that Flanaess is the more appropriate place for a Merger. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. An article on Flanaess may not be necessary, but, while we have it... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flanaess...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demonweb Pits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the Wired article contributes towards notability, or merge to Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons). The only non-primary source is a top-ten Wired list, which alone is not enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Additionally, its not really about the place of the Demonweb Pits, its about the specific adventurer, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, in which descriptions of the actual place, which is what this article is about, is limited to just a few sentences. As far as the Merge target, the article on the Abyss is much more appropriate, as, like this article, it is about the actual location, rather than one specific adventure that took place within that location. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons). I agree with 64.183.45.226 concerning the Wired source; a great reference, but not really about the location. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2016 (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. slakr^\ talk / 05:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed referendum on Irish unity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm taking issue with the naming of the article 'Proposed referendum on Irish unity'. The topic of Irish (re-)unification has been around since Ireland was partitioned in the 1920s and so this hasn't been the first time a referendum has been suggested: in fact, if you do a Google news search for 'Northern Ireland border poll' you'll see it stretches back far and wide, and you'll find a referendum was held in the 1970s. But, my issue is that there has been no proposed referendum and seems to focus only on the EU. I would've suggested a merge for this article to United Ireland, but the information on party stances, reaction to the calls for a referendum following the Brexit referendum are all on that page, so the information is duplicated. I would be happy for a redirect to United Ireland, if this article isn't deleted. st170e^talk 01:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True but now there is the possibility of one actually happening. No proposed referendum? Did you read the article? There is a bit of a focus on the EU but only because Brexit is what caused this referendum to be proposed but it is by no means the focus of the article. I'm against a redirect, there is more information to be added with regards to party responses in the republic of Ireland and the Irish government response. Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been a possibility of one happening ever since the Good Friday Agreement: if the majority of citizens seem to be in favour, a referendum shall be held. This is nothing new and the information you've given is already in the United Ireland article. st170e^talk 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but it was quite low, now there's a real possibility. Only some of it is and as I said I plan to add more.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been a possibility, but that isn't a factor in deciding on the deletion of articles. You've created a spin off from United Ireland and your information should be located there. Look at Google news for 'border poll' and you'll find it's been suggested and proposed for years and years. st170e^talk 20:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said now there's a real possibility, not just a slim chance. No I haven't this event is worthy of its own article. There's enough info and discussion about it to warrant an article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been a real possibility. This is entirely WP:CRYSTAL. If you want to include this article, then add it to the United Ireland article where opinion polls and party stances already exist. st170e^talk 20:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating it doesn't make it so. Only now are major figures (Enda Kenny for example) saying there is a possibility and that it should be discussed. How on earth is it WP:CRYSTAL Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Major figures' have suggested this in the past, this really is nothing new. 'Expected future events should be included only if [...] [it's] almost certain to take place' - this is from WP:CRYSTAL. 'Proposed referendum' would be acceptable if the House of Commons was in the middle of writing a bill for this type of referendum. Until such an event, the content of the article should be in the United Ireland article, as I've already stated. You're seeming to imply that this is the first time anyone has suggested a referendum on Irish unity, and you're also seeming to suggest that it's only been brought on by Brexit. st170e^talk 20:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok even if thats true all we need to add is 2016. Proposed referendum on Irish Unity, 2016 would be the title. I'm not suggesting that at all. Proposed referendum is not the same as happening referendum. WP: Crystal is referencing the later not the former. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not grasping my point. The 2016 bit does not add anything to the article; in fact, it has worsened the situation. This entire topic is covered in a different article and this is my argument for this to be deleted. st170e^talk 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know wat your argument is, it's just been poorly made. As I have stated numerous times there is enough information and it's a significant enough of an event to warrant an article. It's you who is not grasping my point. I'm well aware that a referendum has been proposed before but not in this fashion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but remember that there is a difference between 'proposed' and 'suggested'. I fully understand what you're saying, but the fact is that some calls for a referendum after Brexit doesn't warrant an article. st170e^talk 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just someone calling for a referendum. Many senior figures of Sinn Fein have for the first time in long time explicitly called for a border poll. Enda Kenny has even engaged the idea, there's also the Leitrim County Council motion that was passed. For the first time in a long time a border poll has been discussed in the south. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See United Ireland#Political support and opposition for unification. st170e^talk 22:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see your point. What exactly are you refering to? Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said above regarding Enda Kenny and the council vote should be included in that section and not on this article. st170e^talk 22:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No because as I have said above there is enough information regarding it to have its own article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- This is complete WP:CRYSTAL. If a referendum is declared, that is the time to create an article. Unity has been a Republican dream sever since partition, but there is a Unionist majority in the North and no evidence that they would vote other than to maintain the union with Great Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article is titled Proposed referendum on Irish unity following Brexit. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed means that it is in the process of becoming a referendum, or there is serious consideration from both governments. This is not the case. These are 'Calls for United Ireland' and do not deserve a separate article. st170e^talk 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what proposed means. According to Oxford it means

"Put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propose

Clearly that's not what it means Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware what proposed means; the title is misleading. But that's not why this is at AfD. st170e^talk 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In now way is it WP:CRYSTAL. The infromation is here, epsecially the positions of various institutions and parties, mediat etc... There clearly are articles about proposed stuff, like the Basque movement etc... It's not just talk if it's widespread. KeepEccekevin (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on some calls for a United Ireland after the Brexit vote which is already covered in the United Ireland article and on the Brexit main article. This can't exist as a lone article because I don't see how it's notable for a separate article. st170e^talk 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 12,000 bites long of course it's notable. As you can see in the article Sinn Fein have formally launched a campaign Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should re-read Wikipedia guidelines on notability if you think that article length is a contributing factor in the determination of notability. st170e^talk 17:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, all the information in the article itself proves it's notable. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it would be better to cover the material in some kind of article about the entire issue, not just about one thing that might happen.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more balanced and "encyclopedic". Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After all there must be some people who don't want a referendum (or else it would have already happened.) Should we have another article on "Possible not having a referendum on Irish unity"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS As an American with Irish ancestors I would vote "yes." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called proposed referendum on Irish unity following Brexit. Not referendum on Irish unity following Brexit. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems like an ongoing news story, against WP:Notnews. Also if the intent of the article, as it seems to be to me, is to promote the proposed referendum then it might also be against WP:Howto.BayShrimp (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is it?

Further Developments for consideration - TheJournal.ie asked TDs if they would be in favor of a border poll within the lifetime of the government. 33 (including 23 Sinn Fein TDs) said yes. http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-border-poll-3136932-Dec2016/ Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete ritual dance with some PR value but without real political significance. The Banner talk 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Seljuk Empire. Many delete votes shared the opinion that any sourceable content should be merged to this article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuq Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The term Seljuq Armenia does not appear in reliable sources dealing with the history of Armenia. The tiny amount of information contained here should be merged into the Seljuq Empire article. Copied from rbedrosian.com and mixed up together, just like an article that was recently deleted. 92slim (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator. --92slim (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't support the article's existence with its current title - as I said on the other recent AfD, the Seljuks ruled almost nothing in Armenia since whatever they had captured they very quickly either gave away to local allies, sold, lost, or just walked away from. The Saltukids, Shah-Armens, Shaddadids, etc., that are mentioned in this article were not Seljuks, nor did they even hold territory that abutted proper Seljuk territory. But there are gaps in the history of Armenia that needs to be covered (Armenia did not disappear after the 1070s), so maybe this AfD can initiate discussion about how to address that history. Maybe have articles with just a time periods as their title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is such little information in the Seljuq Armenia article that it could be safely merged into the Seljuq Empire article and deleted. What do you think? --92slim (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep but change the title to "Armenia after the Seljuq conquests" (keep the old one as a redirect) and do a ground-up rewrite of the current content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after further thought, I withdraw my suggestion to use just a series of neutral time-based titles (something like Armenia 1075-1200, and so on). The often divergent histories of the various parts of Armenia would not easily fit into such titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion to delete - there is no emerging consensus on a title change to my proposed title, so it would be better to delete the article given that the current title is claiming something that in reality did not exist and thus presents a false image of the history of Armenia during this period. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete State articles should be named with their official name. Since a state or region with those names never existed it warrants deletion and merger into the main articles that deal with periods of Armenian and Turkic history. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - change title to Armenia under the Seljuq Empire if you prefer. This is a notable topic in Armenian history. The Armenian version of the article is lengthy and referenced, Persian version is even longer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of the AfD, there was no Armenia under the Seljuk Empire. That's WP:OR. --92slim (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Armenia has been around for thousands of years, even if ruled by different empires/invaders. Thus, Mongol Armenia, Russian Armenia, Ottoman Armenia, etc. I see no reason why Seljuq Armenia is any different or less notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's factually incorrect - historical Armenia ceased to exist after 1071, and was only survived by expat rulers who created the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, which is not located in the region of Armenia proper. Russian and Ottoman Armenia are debatable names, since at various points of time in history the area may have been called Armenia and called so by its rulers. The reason I nominated the article for deletion was because in this case, Seljuqs and Mongols didn't call it Armenia by its name, and neither were those places governed by Seljuqs or Mongols, or known by such names until someone created these articles, so both Seljuq and Armenia shouldn't go together as there are no reliable sources that corroborate such states. I understand the concept in the abstract in terms of historical periods, but it's a bit like saying Turkish Greece, or British USA, Spanish Mexico or Japanese China. Those states and places didn't exist as such at the time and were not known by those names either by anyone. --92slim (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the main issue is that NONE of the article's content deals with any parts of Armenia under the rule of the Seljuk Empire. So the title is seriously wrong. Whether some parts of the western ends of historical Armenia were within Seljuk domains, or under rulers who were directly subject to the Seljuks, I honestly don't know (but even if there were, it would still be undue weight to have an article titled thus, given that most of Armenia was NOT under Seljuk rule. It would be like calling 19th-century Spain "Victorian Spain" because, in the 19th century, Victorian-era Britain was at that time the most powerful and influential country in Europe, militarily and culturally. There seems to be problems with the terminology used in other Armenian-history articles too - Mongol Armenia's content is actually mostly about the relations with and alliances with Cilician Armenia and the Mongols. There is negligible content there about the parts of Armenia that were under direct Mongol rule and I do not see any sources that directly call Cilician Armenia "Mongol Armenia". I have to disagree with a sweeping statement like "historical Armenia ceased to exist after 1071" because that is an oversimplification inappropriate for this era; we are not talking about modern nation states with fixed borders and modern-era concepts of a government signifying the existence of a nations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you do agree, that Mongol Armenia didn't refer to Cilicia, which is what the Mongol Armenia article refers to in its current form. That's my point. The articles don't refer to what they're supposed to, if anything at all. I'm not saying the territory isn't called Armenia, I'm saying it wasn't called Armenia then, and it wasn't controlled by the Seljuqs, and even if it was, they wouldn't have called it Armenia because there are no RS sources corroborating that. In any case, Armenian rulers stopped controlling Armenia and Armenia didn't become a client state of neither the Seljuqs or the Mongols, but entirely different entities. I think we agree that both articles are WP:OR and have no basis in secondary sources. --92slim (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the articles Seljuq Empire, Timurid Empire, Mongol Empire (section is Ilkhanate), Kara Koyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu represent the states that were in existence at the time, with no particular attention to small details. I suggest deleting WP:OR articles such as Seljuq Armenia and including the sections in each of the individual articles in the main empire parts, or in the case of Mongol Armenia, creating an Armeno-Mongol relations article and redirecting the Seljuq section to the main Mongol Empire article with a new section. Turkmen Armenia was deleted also for being a mish mash of unsourced content with random sources that fail RS, and has to be included in the main articles in the same way now. --92slim (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do agree that Mongol Armenia isn't Cilicia - I'm pointing out that the Mongol Armenia article would suggest it does, since almost all its content is about Cilician Armenia not Mongol Armenia. I am thinking that it would be better to rename the article under AfD here to "Armenia after the Seljuq conquests", keep it as an almost stub article to be expanded in the future, and that the "Seljuq rule 1071–1201" in the History of Armenia infobox be likewise changed to "Armenia after the Seljuq conquests 1071-1201". Also I think "Mongol Armenia" should be changed to "Armenia under Ilkhanid domination" and most of the Cilicia stuff in it deleted and either moved to Kingdom of Cilicia or, as you suggest, a separate new article on Mongol-Cilicia relations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Basically per 92slim. Sourced content should be merged into the relevant articles (if its not already present there). - LouisAragon (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge Rajmaan (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Երևանցի ^talk 10:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SYNTH...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Nemko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article has an impressive list of 37 references. But none of these, as required by the general notability guideline, discuss Nemko "directly and in detail". They're a mix of stories written by Nemko, and places where Nemko was quoted as an expert. He is never written about in reliable, independent sources in the level of depth that a Wikipedia article needs. Pretty much every biographical detail is unsourced; the rest is just a list of places that Nemko has been.

I tried searching, and found only a couple local news articles mostly focusing on his work in theater. But they're not really enough to show that Nemko meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a Wikipedia page, I am taken aback that Nemko's worthiness for Wikipedia is called into question when he had a column for The Atlantic; has a show for more than a quarter century with an NPR affiliate in San Francisco; been on Talk of the Nation, Oprah, The Today Show, 20/20, etc. Being a primary source for The New York Times and the WSJ and writing a #1 rated career guide and being #2 on the WSJ bestseller list, seems, when taken together, like considerable notability. I also note that his youtube on higher education reform has more than a quarter million views. It seems that someone must disagree with his perspectives, which makes the issue censorship, not notability. Warren Farrell, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.79.5 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to the user at 50.161.79.5. I am the Wikipedia editor who nominated this article for deletion. I'd like to try to explain my rationale in more detail and try to reassure you that this nomination comes out of a desire to improve Wikipedia, and that I don't have anything against Nemko personally. I came across Nemko's page after reading an article by him and seeing that his author bio consisted of a link to Wikipedia; I had never heard of him before then. It's true that Nemko writes for many well-known publications, but that's not what a Wikipedia article requires. For the Wikipedia article about Nemko to remain, it would have to be shown that Nemko himself has been written about in depth in reliable, independent sources; see this page for more on the guideline. That's not what I saw when I tried to look for sources. I was unable to find enough articles that were about Nemko, where Nemko is the focus of someone else's writing. Almost all of what I found was articles about careers, or college, or something else, that quote Nemko, but don't talk about him. If you're aware of articles, books, or other sources that are about Nemko and discuss him in depth, I (and I assume the other editors here) would be very interested to see them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that calling into question Dr. Nemko’s Wikipedia article is unfounded. I have followed the progress and considerable accomplishments of Dr. Nemko’s career for over 40 years since we were graduate students together in education at the University of California. As a Ph.D. myself, I feel qualified to comment on his notability. He is distinguished both in education and career/workplace issues and the intersection of the two. Dr. Nemko does not hesitate to take on challenging issues and document his points of view with data and evidence. For example, in education he was a key individual in triggering the national movement to hold colleges more accountable for their enormous cost and poor value in terms of employment and learning. As evidence of that he wrote a seminal article in higher education’s publication of record, “The Chronicle of Higher Education.”  On the strength of that article, the Chronicle of Higher Education hired him to blog regularly about the need to critique higher education. His national influence on the issue extended further; he wrote feature articles on this subject for some of America's most prestigious publications: TIME, The Atlantic, and Washington Post. He was a member of the WASC (Accreditation Commission) Blue Ribbon Panel to increase higher education accountability. He even made an appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. Dr. Nemko has also achieved eminence as an nationally prominent expert in career and workplace issues. U.S. News called him "career coach extraordinaire" and "career guru.  The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) selected him as the one man in a one-man nationwide public-television Pledge Drive Special, “Eight Keys to a Better Worklife.”  In addition on a National Public Radio station, he has the perhaps unique distinction of being for 27 years in a row doing an hour-long Sunday morning call-in radio show on career issues. He often has speakers addressing relevant career topics and invites listeners to call in for advice. I listen to his program often and have received feedback from friends and acquaintances how helpful his program is. For that work, Toastmasters International named him the non-member Northern California Speaker of the Year. His book Cool Careers for Dummies reached #2 on the Wall Street Journal National Business Bestseller List. His Wikipedia article lists many more of his publications. Having known Dr. Nemko for all of these years, I can attest to his intellectual rigor, desire to make a positive difference for people, and his courage in taking on a wide range of issues that should be addressed, but may not always be politically correct. I would hope that Wikipedia would not question his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4202:7F20:7044:6CED:986C:A869 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2016 (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. This discussion is a clear indicator that the community needs to have a full discussion (the RFC process comes to mind) on whether WP:NJOURNALS should be treated as more than an essay, or turned into de facto policy. I can assure you however, that such a consensus will not be attainable here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NJournals and, surprisingly, the Wikipedians commenting the last time claimed otherwise even though it clearly does not. The three criteria are:

• Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
  • This is not true. The journal is panned by those who have evaluated it.
• Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
  • This is not true. The journal is basically never cited.
• Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
  • This is not true. The journal is of zero historical significance.

It is also clearly serving as a coatracking promotion of the fringe theories. jps (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Note that I created this article.) How is the article acting as a WP:COATRACK? There is very little promotion, or even discussion at all, of any alternative medicine/paranormal/other pseudoscientific topics in this article. Also, jps would do well to look more closely at the NJOURNALS criteria, specifically the part that says: "For the purpose of C1 [criterion 1], having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports always qualifies." This journal does have such an impact factor: 1.012. [4] Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a coatrack because it is trying to pretend that there is academic legitimacy to this pseudoscience. Elsevier is an umbrella group that gives full editorial control to its editors and only cares about subscriptions not content. Thus, using Elsevier as a shield to claim, "Look, we have legitimacy" is what is going on here. It's fringe alt med and paranomral enthusiasts pushing their ideas into Wikipedia. Very bad. jps (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP means that the journal is a coatrack, not that the Wikipedia article is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of this obscure, non-notable journal is a coatrack for the idea that the ideas contained in this journal are mainstream. jps (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. However the article creator seems a reasonable character who in fact merely bought into the argument that if it's in the medical databases then it must be allowed here. But it is clear that GNG trumps that anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:JOURNALCRIT or be otherwise notable. Fringe coatrackery compounds the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in the light of the following discussion, this is not true. The journal meets WP:JOURNALCRIT #1. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Where is the evidence? Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you had bothered to look for this evidence, you would have seen it in this very same discussion. Let me repeat: "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports always qualifies." Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help:

Major premise: "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports always qualifies." (WP:JOURNALCRIT)

Minor premise: "According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2015 impact factor of 1.012." (referenced in the article)

Conclusion: The journal qualifies under C1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT.

You're welcome. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's on old version of WP:JOURNALCRIT, and is not "C1". We need evidence of notability as defined by policy, not by circular argument in a weak essay. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per consensus at WT:NJOURNALS, that #1 criterion of having a JCR impact factor is no longer "always" and this argument is no longer valid. The "always" came from WP:PROF and was originally meant for Nobel laureates, nobody spotted the vast disparity between having a Nobel Prize and being one of the ten thousand journals that have an impact factor, however low. That has now been fixed, and there is agreement from Keep !voters here that thisd was appropriate. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This was kept at AFD just 1 month ago and nothing has changed. A trout for the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy TROUT for you because the AfD 1 month ago included very poor arguments in favor of keeping this non-notable piece of trash. jps (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable per the OP. I found a few citations in other sources, but one could not by any stretch call them reliable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would the delete !voters please care to explain why this journal having an impact factor assigned by JCR, which WP:JOURNALCRIT explicitly says satisfies the first criterion of the notability guideline for journals, somehow does not confer notability in this case? Everymorning (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that "high significant impact factor" gives a better description of the criterion's intent and I do not see that reflected in JCR's pathetically low rating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC) [updated 18:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)]][reply]

  An impact factor does not show the journal is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because that is not enough to satisfy the first criterion. It simply isn't. Having a low impact factor absolutely does not confer notability on a journal. Actually, having a high impact factor doesn't necessarily do so either (and, anyway, knowing where to draw the line between low and high is arbitrary). jps (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are making up straw-man versions of C1 and then boasting that the journal doesn't meet these fake versions of the criteria. Before jps recently decided to change the criteria so they would suit his personal vendetta against this journal, the criteria stated that having a JCR IF, high or not, qualifies as a pass of C1. [5] Everymorning (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree with Everymorning. Taking this to AfD one month after it was closed a unanimous "keep", while simultaneously modifying NJournals to suit the arguments made here is more than a little bit disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My goal is to keep Wikipedia clear of bullshit like this. There seems to have been pushes trying to skew Wikipedia towards accepting pseudoscientific claptrap as legitimate research. I am unapologetic about pushing these problems out of here. jps (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding this article - I think something is fishy about this having an impact factor and it should not have one. I have edited on this project for a long time (off and on) and this is the first time I have seen a psuedo-scientific hocus pocus mumbo jumbo journal such as this have an impact factor. As I said, something is fishy about this, but I don't know what it is.(Redacted) -- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the AfD on this article one month ago. Per WP:DPAFD "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again". No specific amount of time is stated, but I'm pretty sure one month is not reasonable. Unless new information has since come to light that should have changed the previous discussion, let's avoid relitigating previous consensus so soon. Ajpolino (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New information has come to light. The people who argued for keep did so for very problematic reasons. Such as the existence of an impact factor or the fact that the journal was indexed. Did you read the discussion above? jps (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not new information but was clearly stated in the previous AfD. That you don't like that is irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can those bashing us over the head with WP:NJOURNALS and its section WP:JOURNALCRIT please note that it is an opinion essay - not even a guideline, never mind actual policy. It is worthless in the face of WP:GNG. And here, the existence of a few database entries and an impact factor does not provide RS for a significant level of citation and/or wider discussion. Given the lack of wider discussion and the pathetic level of citation, affirmed by the equally pathetic impact factor, no way can these toys establish notability of this journal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just indicative of the larger problem here at Wikipedia where someone writes an essay, the teeming minions treat it as gospel, then they establish some "consensus" which is totally at odds with the way the world actually works. They then proceed to complain about "process" and "consensus" and "too soon" issues. C'mon, people. We're here to curate an encyclopedia, not to invent a WP:BURO. I hope the realpolitickers (i.e., sycophants) commenting here to the tune of "keep -- consensus" know that I am watching and will be interested in opposing their attempts to climb the power ladder at this website. jps (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck is that supposed to mean? Don't vote "keep" or I'm coming after you??? --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is true that WP:NJOURNALS is not a guideline or policy, but rather an essay. However, just because you personally don't like a journal because you think it or its contents is "bullshit", as jps stated above, certainly is not a policy- or guideline-based reason for deleting a page either. This remains true whether or not you can get a whole bunch of your sycophants supporters to post delete votes in the same discussion, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, where the most votes determines the outcome of a discussion. Insulting a journal with your own unsupported claims that it consists of pseudoscience, bullshit, etc. is the least policy-based reason to delete a page. Everymorning (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ad hominem attack is also the least policy-based reason to keep a page that your victim thinks should go. Worse, it actively flouts policy, in the form of assuming good faith. Please strike out the word "sycophants" in your post and on the part of those who disagree with you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I have done so and replaced it with "supporters"; I hope this is an improvement. My apologies. Everymorning (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Elsevier periodicals (with a mention there in the list). Since WP:NJOURNAL is but an essay, the next best notability rules come from WP:GNG. I cannot find anything but passing mentions (as in "According to a study published in Explore, bla bla bla...") in my GNews and GBooks searches. Ergo, not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but does exist, so it can be mentioned in a higher-level article. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Try clicking the link to GScholar above. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on it and again found nothing but passing mentions in reference lists. No significant coverage to support more information than a one-lined permastub. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The journal has an impact factor and is indexed in Scopus, thus meets notability criteria of WP:NJOURNALS, our de facto guideline at AfD. In short, nothing has changed since the last nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  No, as has already been pointed out, WP:NJOURNALS is not a guideline, it is an essay and as such stands only as an opinion piece which we are free to disagree with. This, along with the very low impact rating, are both new information to the discussion and therefore this AfD is not merely a repeat of the same old same old. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, and WP:GNG is only a guideline and not policy. We can go on like this all day long. People refer to essays all the time, it's a kind of shorthand so that they don't have to repeat the same arguments over and over again (especially to people that have decided they don't want to hear them whatever be the case). --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No, as has been pointed out many times at other journal AfDs, WP:NJOURNALS has been used as a de facto guideline for at least the four years I have been an editor. While WP policy has ossified to the point that it is difficult to get people to agree to creating new guidelines, in this case, precedent has been established. --Mark viking (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mark viking. StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no reliable sources to confer notability. The impact factor is indeed low. Include in a list of Elsevier publications by all means, but I see nothing to indicate that a useful article can emerge from the present dismal stub. Mcewan (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability due to not having much discussion from other independent sources of any depth. Sagecandor (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think merely having an impact factor indexed by SCOPUS meets the "is frequently cited" of criterion 2 at the essay WP:NJOURNALS. Anyway, it seems likely that the correct guideline is not one about academic journals, but one about peddling in pseudoscience, WP:NFRINGE, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is at least one independent secondary source that mentions this journal in passing referred to in the article as known for publishing pseudoscience. (It gives the example of a study of whether it is possible to embed "intent" into chocolate.) It discusses this journal along with two others, and concludes that "these three journals are shams masquerading as real scientific journals" (emphasis mine). This strongly urges us to apply NFRINGE in our assessment of the journal, and if there are more such secondary sources, I think this article could be kept under that guideline. Otherwise, I do not think it meets that guideline, and therefore should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, the "secondary source" Slawomir is referring to is this blog post on Science-Based Medicine. Everymorning (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I had not realized that it was a blog post. Better sources are required, even under WP:FRINGE. So, I'm going to go with delete, for lack of independent sources, unless that changes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to add to my last, since some editors here have raised the point that the NJOURNALS essay has created a de facto standard, I would like to rebut this. Although the essay has provided useful guidelines in assessing journals for their mainstream scholarly impact, it is singularly unsuited to dealing with journals on the fringes, which do require independent secondary sources in order to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, and (secondarily) our usual notability guidelines (which are actual, as opposed to imagined, guidelines). This essentially echoes Guy's comment below, which I think is the strongest policy-based argument in this discussion. Edges cases like this are one of the specific reasons that the essay [[W[:NJOURNALS]] failed to become a guideline in the first place. See the discussion. In any event, since I think this discussion would benefit from the insight of a library professional, I am pinging @DGG:. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding further, following Jytdog's comment below: "If there were strong sources discussing how garbagey it is, I would probably be !voting keep, but it is not even notable enough to have mainstream people discuss how bad it is." This is exactly the point. Notability is about whether a topic has been noted in reliable sources. Impact factor is just a rule of thumb used by WP:JOURNALS as a proxy for notability. In this case, however, notability fails rather directly because of a lack of sources. This also feeds into the issue of whether it is possible to write a neutral article based on existing sources (a blog post that says the journal is a sham masquerading as a real scientific journal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the present case, there's actually no need for NJournals, because I think this article arguably passes GNG. It is analyzed in-depth in reliable secondary sources (Journal Citation Reports and CiteScore) and there are in addition two references (one to a blog by a recognized expert in the field, one to Skeptical Inquirer), making for a total of at least 4 sources. Perhaps it fails WP:FRINGE (by now this debate is so long that I don't knwo whether that's above this comment or below...) but that is irrelevant because GNG trumps any SNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment below that I do not think journal citation reports are appropriate as secondary sources, any more than library catalogs are sources establishing notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think EdChem's recent edit has tipped the balance towards weak keep for me. It's still a bit weak and coattracky, because the criticism seems focused on specific studies published in the journal rather than the journal as a whole. But this seems to be a weakness in the sources rather than something specific to our treatment of the subject, and I think it is now possible to write an article consistent with NPOV, provided that these details are included in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the journal has an impact factor, and is indexed in several selective databases, making it a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Update And with sources such as "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing is a journal known for its publication of truly ridiculous studies." /"It’s also published in the second woo-iest of the journals, Explore." / "(Elsevier) also publishes ... the quack journal Explore, which, as I described before, publishes Dean Radin’s pseudoscientific articles on “distant healing” and food imbued with “intent.”" it is also a clear pass of WP:GNG.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just added references to 2 sources with passing mentions to your !vote, one cited twice as though it were two; one of them is a blog. Your representation of the sources and interpretation of GNG is about as solid as the science published by this journal. You also changed your !vote, which had already been responded to, without redacting. Also questionable. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, NJOURNALS is an essay. Second, if simply having an impact factor is a "clear pass" then it is rather obviously the result of a group of editors who want as many articles on journals as possible, agreeing among themselves with absolutely no outside input or reality check at all. I've found impact factors as low as 0.15, which means probably well over 90% of everything published in the journal is never cited at all. 0.33 or less is common, which means that on average only one in three papers gets cited (and probably much less as it only takes a handful that are cited multiple times). Having an impact fator is a great criterion for a directory, but we are not a directory. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what these IFs mean. 0.33 means that on average, one third of all articles have received a single citation in the first two years after the article was published. Not: "ever". In fields like mathematics, citations generally come much later than the first two years. In fields like systematic botany, they sometimes start coming in after decades and works that are a century or more old can still be cited with a certain regularity today. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we most certainly do not want to have articles on "as many journals as possible". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because there are insufficient reliable independent sources to write a verifiably WP:NPOV article. This is important because Explore, probably more than any other journal published by a mainstream company, is a platform for abject nonsense. A journal that can publish a paper on the medicinal efficacy of chocolate imbued with "intent" has completely lost any connection to the scientific method, and indeed the editor has described the teaching of science as tantamount to child abuse. He repudiates the scientific method., Thus, we can't have an article based solely on the self-description provided by the publisher, we absolutely must have solid reliable and above all independent sources. Most of the reality-based world imply ignores this journal. You won't find editorials in the NEJM saying that despite the latest paper in Explore, distant healing is still bullshit. Psychologists have come to the conclusion that Emotional Freedom Techniques is nonsense, the fact that advocates publish favourable papers in Explore won't change that and they won't comment on the journal that publishes those favourable results because it's ignorable. I have only found one source to date that comes anywhere close to WP:RS that actually talks about this journal, rather than one of its editors. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most (but to be fair, not all) of your comment is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact that the journal publishes abject nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with whether it deserves an article. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I !voted "Keep" at the first AfD with the edit summary reluctant keep - it may be a junk journal, but with an IF the criteria are met because there are established standards that have been applied relating to journals. They may need changing, but trying to change them during an AfD is unwise, not least because any local consensus formed will not stand up against a broader, pre-existing consensus. As I explained to JzG, Changing that practice is a different discussion, but I anticipate the standard approach will be applied [in that AfD]. I'm not saying the practice is a good one, nor that the journal is worth the electrons inconvenienced to display its website, I'm just saying that it is standard and applied dispassionately that means keep is the appropriate outcome. I strongly object to this post from jps which has a clear implication of intimidation and implies that those who disagree with him (the "teeming minions") are servile / unimportant underlings [6] [7] [8] of (presumably) Randykitty. Well, I've disagreed with Randykitty at times, and certainly would not automatically agree with anything s/he might say. I opposed deletion the first time this journal was nominated as the process being used is inappropriate to changing consensus, and the attempt to delete the WP:NJournals essay is an even more objectionable way to try to "win" an argument by avoiding having a rational discussion. As I noted in that MfD, we need a discussion of the essay and its content at its talk page. However, despite all the above, I am not yet !voting on this AfD because I think that a reasonable first step might be to change the rigid rule that IF = notable to (say) that having an IF gives a rebuttable presumption of notability, because setting an IF cut-off is nearly impossible due to differences in publishing practices in different academic disciplines – I know journals with an IF of 1 which are highly respected in their field. So, for me the question becomes whether there are grounds to rebut a presumption of notability in the case of the Explore journal based on it being a purveyor of FRINGE nonsense and PSEUDOSCIENCE. I would find an AfD premised on evidence (rather than assertion / opinion) in those areas much more persuasive – though even then, a list of such journals might be a useful resource for our readers, but not an article which gives the impression of it as a legitimate academic publication. EdChem (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets the usual standards. It's included in JCR and that is the basis for notability of journals, because it's what the entire academic world accepts.We do regard it as a clear pass, just as we regard evidence of someone playing in the 1908 Olympics a clear pass, even if nothing else is known about them, and even if they came in last. WP:N is a guideline, and says right out it does not always apply.

The reason for deleting "because it contains nonsense" is a total and unambiguous repudiation of our basic principle of NPOV. We contain articles on nonsense using the same standard that we do for anything else. We make clear what it does contain, of course, like we do for anything else. There are various methods of doing so, appropriate for this or any controversial publication--for example, indicating who edits and contributes to it, and where it is cited. The very fact that this was raised as an argument would greatly influence my view about whether we should keep it. I'm a scientist by training and profession, and I have a very strong personal bias for the Scientific Point of View. Therefore I try especially hard to keep articles on the things which have an unambiguously anti-scientific point of view. Just the same as I try to keep articles on political views I think are utterly wrong and even dangerous. WP is not an instrument of propaganda. Even for the things which I think merit persuasion and advocacy, it belongs off wiki. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a rationale for deleting. The rationale for deleting is that it is well known to publish nonsense, but we cannot source that properly because the sources accepted as proof of notability are not independent (so don't mention the fact) and the sources which do mention the fact tend to be informal, of the kind we might accept when discussing a pseudoscientific topic but not generally accepted for journals. A cleft stick.

And why do we accept participation in the Olympics as automatic notability? How can we verify that the article is neutral if literally all we have is a scorecard? This is a bit personal for me since one of my boyhood heroes was my swimming teacher, an irascible Scouser called Bill Thornton, who was a multiple medallist (Gold, Silver and Bronze) in several swimming events and also basketball between 1960 and 1968, and I cannot source an article on him because this was paralympics. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood me. Of course we cannot say this directly. It is nonetheless possible to indicate the content of a journal in many ways. The one I like best is to list the 5 most cited articles. This usually provides enough information for people to draw their own conclusions. This is applicable generally to pseudoscience --we do not have to say that something is bogus, we give the factual information from which a sensible reader will realize it by themselves. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice. Sadly the most ridiculous ones are never cited. The ones advocating water memory, distant healing, "intent" and the panoply of mind-body woo that the editors love, are simply ignored. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the most highly cited paper in the journal seems to be this, which has 190 cites on Google Scholar. Everymorning (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And its lead author, Eric Garland, is definitely not a crank judging from his publication list. According to Google Scholar, this review has been cited 373 times, from a journal with IF = 5.88. Co-author on this 2011 paper in a journal with an IF = 10.38 (2015), and 189 GScholar cites. 185 cites, IF = 3.69 (2014), 174 cites, IF = 1.18 (2012), Scopus says h-index = 21. EdChem (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It publishes claptrap and nonsense, but is nonetheless notable for doing so. It has a healthy impact factor and (checks) 401 citations since 2006 in Web of Science. Seriously, there are many perfectly good scientific journals that have a lower impact factor than that. It has many more citations on the more promiscuous Google Scholar. Famous_dog (c) 11:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"nonetheless notable for doing so": is it notable for publishing nonsense? The only secondary source is a rather weak one. If more such sources exist, this argument might carry more weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Clearly this passes WP:NJOURNALS, but of course that is an essay rather than a guideline. My general feeling is that NJOURNALS is an attempt to find an objective way to distinguish reputable from disreputable journals, and that it mostly succeeds in that purpose, but that in the case of this particular journal it has failed to do so. So, although I would usually follow NJOURNALS (as a convenient shortcut for straightforward cases), in this case I think we should fall back to our actual guidelines, which for this case are WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE (as alternative medicine is mostly a fringe topic). On the side of GNG we have that it is listed by various reliably published indexes, and that those indices' coverage of it is arguably in-depth. The Journal Citation Reports page for it, for instance, includes data for a dozen different summary statistics for the journal, broken down for each year over a roughly ten-year period, as well as its overall ranking and impact factor. So I think it is a pass, just as I think that the "included in multiple indexes" clause of NJOURNALS is a shorthand for the fact that the coverage in these indices will always provide a pass of GNG. On the side of FRINGE we need mainstream sources that assess the content of this journal from the mainstream science point of view, so that we can provide an appropriately neutral description of the subject. Here we fall down. We have only a single source with a single line, the source of the "truly ridiculous studies" quote, but no detail on what makes these studies ridiculous. Without more depth to this quote, it just comes off as an unbased attack, but without this quote we inappropriately legitimize this journal. Rather than fall into this dilemma I think it would be best avoided by not trying to have an article on the journal. But, as in most past instances where I have argued for deleting problematic but GNG-passing subjects, I expect the discussion here to go against me.—David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view has always been that WP should go out of its way to find reasons for covering fringe topics, rather than reasons for not covering them. We are especially well equipped to provide neutral presentations of them, and have learned how to prevent their advocates from taking over the articles (tho it's been a hard-fought battle at times), All we need do is give the titles of articles. NBTW, many of the most cited articles are the ones that come nearest to mainstream, at least if omindfullness is considered mainstream. The most cited ones, though, are the reports of Robert G. Jahn's well-known and much hyped experiments. [9] Our job is not to legitimize anything, but to provide information, whether what we are providing information about is sensible or absurd. But an objective article on the jpournal Jahn publishjed them in will indicate the real situation. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I have been watching all this. Here is my take. yes the journal has an impact factor, but it is pretty low and probably a lot of the "impact" is people saying that article X is ridiculous. This is a journal that publishes bad stuff, and to address DGG's remarks above, the way we are dealing with that now is by citing (with some attribution) the usual skeptics (Gorski and somebody from the Skepitcal Enquirer) who do their blasting away. This is not really great. The best thing to do would be to say nothing about this journal. If there were strong sources discussing how garbagey it is, I would probably be !voting keep, but it is not even notable enough to have mainstream people discuss how bad it is. This is an instance where people trying to apply the "Impact factor rule" should take a breath and remember how unusual it is that WP:Journals even has a "rule" like this - rules are not something WP does much. And instances like this, are a reason why. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As it stands there seems to be nothing in the article, at all. It certainly does not seem worth keeping, but people are saying material was removed, I shall have to have a deeper look, but right now I am leaning towards delete (some RS establishing notability might help).Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have tried to find this fantastic article we used to have, and am not seeing much mroe then we have (beyond a bit more about how rubbish the magazine is (really is that what it is notable for being a bit crap?).Slatersteven (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

really briefly, there are many WikiProjects in WP, and many of them have developed notability criteria for their subject matter. The Journals WikiProject has an essay with notability criteria for journals (WP:NJOURNALS that they have used for like 7 years now (a long time!) and has apparently served them well. if you read votes above, you will find that this essay contains a "rule" that says if a journal has been given an impact factor then it is "automatically" notable. They are frustrated that even though this article is clearly notable to them, other people are trying fiercely to delete it. People who don't regularly edit journals or deal with that essay and its criteria but who regularly deal with FRINGE-y content in WP have tried to delete this article because the journal is so flaky, and some of them have gotten really angry and behaved badly in face of the "rule" being deployed, and others are just being very determined to get this article deleted. So there is a big ruckus right now as the people in the journals Wikiproject and the Skeptics (all of whom are generally great Wikipedians) struggle over this culture clash. It is a hard issue. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it C2 is the only one that might apply. The problem is that "impact factor" is not what is said, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." is what is said, and impact factor alone does not establish that. In fact reading the impact factor article makes it clear that it is not a good way to determine how often an given publication is cited in RS (and in fact the system can be gamed, oddly the example given an similar impact factor similar to the one so prominently mentioned in this article).Slatersteven (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This ruckus has started a discussion of the essay and will probably lead to ~some~ changes to it and to how it is used (which is just as important). In the meantime, as a community we need to decide whether to keep or delete this article using the standards that are in place today. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a fair description of the issues, I think. What bothers me, though, is that the characterization of the journal as "flaky" or "fringe" is based purely on the personal estimation of WP editors, but not on reliable sources. In contrast, we do have reliable sources for notability. Besides being selected for the Index Medicus, a highly selective database curated by specialists of the United States National Library of Medicine, the journal has been selected for inclusion in the selective databases Scopus and the Science Citation Index. The raw citation data provided by those two sources are in their turn the subject of in-depth analysis in the Journal Citation Reports and CiteScore (a new service from Elsevier that has not yet a separate article).

I admit that I haven't read any article published by this journal. I don't think that is my job here at WP. Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we are supposed to go by what reliable sources say, not what we personally feel or think. I realize that this might lead to the unpleasant situation where we have to cover a subject that we feel is not "worthy". On the other hand, if a journal is as bad as editors here claim it is, then there should be sources for that. There are plenty of magazines/websites that are RS and that report on fringe science. Have none of those reported on this one? GScholar indicates that some articles in this journal have been cited up to 200 times. Somebody above remarked that this probably was all remarks on how bad the article is. Frankly, I doubt that. Academics rarely cite an article to say that it is bad, even if it is directly related to their own field.

So in short, my take of this is that we have significant sources indicating that this journal is notable, whereas we have two sources saying that it publishes nonsense. (One is a blog, but written by a recognized specialist and therefore admissible as a source, in my estimation). Including these in the article would seem to me a clear warning to our readers that this journal may be shaky and I therefore don't see any harm in keeping the article as it currently stands. --Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some links showing it has been included, rather then just assertions?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you need do is look at the article. All links are there (except the one EL that I give above). This more than meets C1. As for C2, there is one article mentioned here that has been cited around 200 times. You can verify that by clicking the "scholar" link at the top of this page. That's just one single article. I don't care much about C2, but if you do, then I think this is met, too. I don't see anything justifying a pass of C3, but with C1 being met, who cares... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

r to User:Randykitty and User:EdChem (and really everybody who is just citing the "indexing" thing and considering this conversation over) i hear what both of you are saying with regard to NJournal's notability criteria

One of the problems that has beset this discussion is the way NJOURNALs has been used.... as though it is the only thing that matters. There is no discussion anywhere in WP where policy can set aside. And I will note that NJOURNALS says nothing about whether there are sufficient sources to write an NPOV article. It is silent on the question. That is a hole the academic journals project should address. It is an essential one, because the whole point of any notability guideline should be whether there are sufficient sources with which editors can generate an encyclopedia article that complies with all the content policies. All of them. I recognize that a problem that the journals wikiproject faces, is that the "reliable sources" for journals (and everything begins in WP with how you define RS) are databases, so most WP journal articles are really just collections of data and not what-we-usually-think-of-as "articles" that actually characterize their subjects, narratively. (Randkitty dealt with the problem of sources extensively here, and this brings up larger issues of NOTDIRECTORY that I will not get into here)

The discussion about deleting this journal in light of NPOV is entirely valid. I will ask people who have been saying this deletion discussion is invalid or should be speedy-closed, to rethink that in light of this hole in NJOURNAL, and to rethink your !vote.

This journal publishes a boatload of fringe garbage. That is a fact that anybody can determine from looking through some issues and has been described above. This is a "sky is blue" kind of fact but has been discussed above, a bunch.

With respect to people raising OR concerns about that...

Maybe you don't know this but in the subculture of dealing with FRINGE in WP (and especially in past decade or so as NCCIH has poured money into alt med and more and more journals have been created) we run into stuff like this journal all the time, where there is this veneer of rmainstream-ness and maybe one or two mainstream aspects) but things are fringey from the ground up. Often the only kinds of sources that really deal with this are skeptic refs like Gorksi etc.. The reason for that, us because it is too "out there" for mainstream people to even bother talking about - this is discussed somewhat in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing which is a guideline - something that has wider consensus again than the NJOURNALs essay.

This is a real problem throughout WP and it is this project's problem too.

So Randykitty and Edchem, please describe, if this WP article is kept, how it can comply with NPOV. The current version of the article tries, by citing Gorski and Skeptical Enquiry and is pretty lame. My argument is that there are insufficient sources to allow us to write an NPOV-compliant article on this topic. DGG made an interesting suggestion above, of listing the titles of the top articles, which will speak for themselves (and I have asked him, if he has time, to try to implement that so we can all see it). But I am asking each of you, as Wikipedians who pay mind to all the policies and guidelines, how to address NPOV here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the consensus in the last AfD. It meets the journal standard that's been used for a long time. Emily Goldstein (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Earlier in this discussion, I mentioned treating IF as a rebuttable presumption of notability. Randykitty has explained one reason for this presumption, that the data to produce an IF is collected in selective databases and then processed by JCR to produce information about the journal which is not primary. The arguments based on FRINGE are weak in that they rest primarily on opinion and not on reliable sources, and sources could be added to comment on the journal in its article, also as Randykitty has noted. Further, the alleged most highly cited article from the journal is not by a crank but by an established academic with highly cited work in other journals and an h-index of 21, suggesting there is a mix of content. Based on the standards applied for years, Keep is the only possible outcome. Based on a rebuttable presumption, there has not been a sufficient case made for deletion in my opinion. I suspect this will close as 'no consensus' given the division of opinions, and certainly the discussion of NJOURNALS needs to continue (preferably without further POINTy AfDs / MfDs), and depending where it ends up, maybe we will need to revisit this case. However, the proper sequence is to agree a general position and then apply it, rather than to object to a general position so keep raising cases in an attempt to overturn the consensus instead of just holding a discussion at an appropriate venue, perhaps including an RfC seeking broader input. EdChem (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NJOURNALS is an essay that will never make it to guideline due to it being not fit for purpose. The relevant guideline would be WP:GNG which this completely fails to satisfy. Anyone who argues SCOPUS indicates notability needs a trout, only sources independant of the subject can demonstrate notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some very minor cites for this in RS journals (see the Psychology Journal cite I mentioned). But all the ones I can find seem to be of the "this is a pile of garbage" variety. None seem to actual treat this magazine as a serious piece of academic work. But I will still hold judgement for a while, they have been cited it's just a question of how we word the article (and as another user said, can it be neutral given the attitude the few cites we have, all of which seem to be negative).Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provide two LINKS fulfilling any one criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
• Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources

Provide the citation, not just the fact it is cited by SOME sources, they have to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

• Answer: read the article and the comments above. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, and see nothing that establishes any importance. I see it in a list of publications (that merely establishes it has been published, can you provide an explanation of why these establish historical importance?). A couple (one by the publisher) of lists of how often it has been cited (policy says it is quality not quantity of cites that matter). A blog (not RS) and one source saying (in effect) it's rubbish (not exactly established any historical importance). Maybe I am missing the evidence, perhaps you would care to provide the link? As to the scholarly citations, which of these are RS? Why can you not just provide two citations as asked for?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From the journal webpage, here are the most cited articles. Data is independent of the journal as it comes from SCOPUS. For each, you can click the article and get a SCOPUS report on that article – for example, the article at doi:10.1016/j.explore.2010.12.003 PMID 21397868 has this SCOPUS report showing 71 citations.

Mindfulness-Based Approaches: Are They All the Same?

"...and the frequent differences across interventions with

respect to total duration, homework, practices, nonmanualized interventions (e.g., Toneatto &

Nguyen, 2007; Winbush, Gross, & Kreitzer, 2007)"

Seems to be questioning the methodology of the article, so yes it is a cite in an RS, but not exactly an endorsement of notability (beyond being a but poor). So again I ask for prof that this is cited in RS as a respectable and notable source, and not as one of questionable quality. But I agree this may go someway to establishing notability as a fringe and pseudo scientific publicationSlatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And SCOPUS is not RS, it's by the publisher of the magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability != Quality, and Scopus is RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be notable it must have notable mentions in RS independent of the subject, Scopus is not independent of the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCOPUS is an Elsevier product, which also publishes the journal under discussion. In that way, it is not independent of the subject. And anyway, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using SCOPUS, which is just a database, as a secondary source in an article. That would be like arguing to use the output of a Google search as a secondary source. What's needed is an actual secondary source, providing an author's analysis of the subject, the kind of thing that normally qualifies as a "source" in an article (apparently, any article except for journals). That's important here because the journal under discussion has been characterized as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal", so proper WP:NFRINGE sources are required under actual black-letter Wikipedia policies, rather than imagined guidelines that were failed proposals. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus is independent from other Elsevier journals. I know that people like to bash Elsevier, but please realize that whatever you may think of them, they are not stupid. Elsevier realized when they started Scopus that it would never take off if it were perceived as not being independent. It's in their own best interest if the academic community knows that it is editorially independent. Just like any decent academic publisher will not interfere with the editorial policies of journals that they publish, because any hint of improper influence will kill those journals (or Scopus, in this case). And I think that above I showed that there are secundary sources based on the raw citation data provided by Scopus and the Science Citation Index. --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of independence, I think you miss my main point, which is that SCOPUS is not a good secondary source for meeting notability under our guidelines. It is just a database that includes statistics about all Elsevier journals. It might be useful as a proxy for notability, in the same way that Google scholar citation numbers are useful as a proxy for notability of academics, but it does not guarantee that there exist reliable secondary sources. Those are still required for us to have an article about the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Randykitty has pointed you to the google scholar data, but FYI this search returns 498,000 hits. Here is the list of 150 references which cite the first article on the search. We seem to be dealing with a journal with a mixture of pseudoscientific drivel and work which is cited and used. But it is cited, and by reliable sources. EdChem (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is quality, not quantity that matters, that is why I am asking for actual cites, not just raw numbers.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you follow the links, you can look at each and every citing article from the scholar searches, and you can do the same with SCOPUS if you have access. But expecting us to follow the links, cut and paste each citing article here for you, along with the journal information, etc, is (a) unreasonable and (b) not going to be done by me. Also, you deciding which citations are worthy for notability and which are not is original research. EdChem (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for all, I am asking for two (one of which I have provided), and no I am deciding which citation are worthy, you have provided one beyond the SCOPUS one, which as it is by the publisher woudl almost certainly fail RS, but you are correct. So I will take this to the RS forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be used to establish notability a source must be independent of the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, this perfectly encapsulates the problem. The most cited paper is written by advocates to punt a therapy that lacks mainstream support, the subject would have been covered in a decent journal if the methodology had been better, the majority of the citations don't make PubMed (many are in woo-mungous journals of nonsense), and the citations include reviews that note substantial risk of bias. And that's the best paper they published. Others are frankly risible, such as the effect of intent on chocolate. It's a journal devoted to promoting the ideology of its editors. Its most cited paper has 71 cites, compared to the all-time record of over 300,000. A thousand cites is a decent number, an indication of a genuinely significant paper. 71, of which only 30 make PubMed? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, 1000 citations is something that only a vanishingly small proportion of articles reach. I just went through the Clinical Medicine section of the Essential Science Indicators (accessible through the Web of Science) and there are 370 articles with 1000 citations or more. This from among 25,182 "top papers" (the most cited ones in the field; 1.47%), themselves selected from a total of more than 2.5 MILLION articles (less than 0.015%) in this category! I also went to the Science Citation Index and generated a "citation report" for the journal. Since it was established 10 years ago, it has accrued 2477 citations (excluding self-citations). The 10 most-cited articles have been cited 34-86 times each. (Note that a similar exercise in GScholar will yield higher figures, because it includes many more sources - not all of them reliable. These figures are citations from the selected journals included in the Science Citation Index.) The top 3 titles are "The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001", "The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on sleep disturbance: A systematic review" (concluding that "controlled studies have not clearly demonstrated the positive effects of MBSR"), and "The role of mindfulness in positive reappraisal". --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's published by Elsevier, one of the world's largest publisher of scientific journals. Some of the arguments to delete this article smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The argument that it's a WP:COATRACK is irrelevent as that's not a valid reason for deletion. If it was a coatrack, that can be solved through normal editing of the article. In any case, I just read the article as it stands today, and there's nothing coatracky about it that I can see. Maybe it was in the past, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even though I am one of the proponents for keeping this article, I have to point out that A Quest For Knowledge's !vote is not based in any guideline or policy and violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Who the publisher is, is immaterial. And not every journal published by Elsevier is automatically notable. (In fact, I just PRODded Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences). --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but I'm allowed my opinion. :) Honestly, I don't have the time or the inclination to find additional sources to make sure the article meets WP:GNG. It has 5 or 6 sources. That's good enough for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that clarification is a policy-based !vote and you don't need IAR for that, either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain existing Keep consensus  Six months is the default minimal amount of time to wait to re-nominate after a Keep result, and even then should not be an attempt to roll the dice to get a new result, or an excuse for disruption.  Neither science nor Wikipedia dispense Truth^TM.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now the only citation for an RS have been removed form the article, at least in part because it is only an oblique citation that does not contribute anything to the notability of Explore. so (Again) I ask for some citation, not a list a citation) that established that this is a notable publication. The removal of that cite proves that you need actual cites, and not just a list of what (maybe) trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, you cited one paper that made comments about methods in alt med research and used it to support a claim that the journal in which that paper was published, rather than the authors of that article, had criticised multiple studies in Explore. It was never going to survive as it was a misrepresentation. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone: I have expanded the response section with a series of criticisms from notable scientists. Please have a look. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good job. I've changed my !vote accordingly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edchem and User:Randykitty thanks very much for your changes here. Two questions: do you believe these edits would be sustainable in the face of challenges that this content is WP:UNDUE in that it focuses on a couple of papers which may or may not be characteristic of the articles the journal publishes, and b) that if we are going to lower source quality and use refs like "Science-based medicine" to characterize this journal based on Emoto's and especially Radin's work, we should also bring in sources like say this book (ISBN 9781504341059 page 168) that also characterize that work in particular? Am bringing this up because all although skeptics here may "like" this content it needs to be sustainable per policy and guidelines. If this is sustainable - if we are agreed that these are sufficient RS such that we can characterize this journal in a way that complies with PAG I will switch to "keep". Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC) (fix typo Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Jytdog, I think these changes are sustainable based on WP:RS/SPS as I am quoting content written by notable authors with experience in this field. I think UNDUE is a problem, but one I intend to address by adding a section on content, which will draw on the journal's own description of its content and balance it with criticism of individual papers. I plan to separate out criticism of the journal as a whole based on its editorial board, as there are RS materials on the executive editor and both editors-in-chief. I note, for example, that the journal homepage congratulates Radin on being given this award which has been given to other prominent fringe proponents. I am always open to comment / criticism / feedback based on policy and I favour an NPOV outcome, so if balancing is needed, I'm happy for others to look at it / change it, etc - I don't OWN anything, obviously. I started expanding from this version of the article and just added sources as I followed leads from the two references in the article, so the article-focus was inevitable. I've already noted at the talk page materials others can pick up and use before I get back to them if they wish. I see that book as usable for supporting that Radin's work has adherents, though I wonder if we'd also need to characterise Walmsley, the author. If there are papers that have been praised / used in mainstream RS, we should add that too. This is part of what I meant at the NJournal discussion about providing what is useful for readers, in line with policy constraints. EdChem (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• pinging those who !voted/commented with some intensity on the various perspectives on this article to get their thoughts on whether the article complies with NPOV sufficiently as it stands now: jps, User:Everymorning, User:Steelpillow, User:Randykitty, Guy, User:DGG. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. The evidence for notability is pretty slim. If we accept such slim evidence then we must accept the equally slim significance of the panning it receives by anybody reliable who bothers to check out its content. Indeed, the journal appears more notable for the panning it receives than for anything else. We have to reflect that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes Pretty mush as above. The article must reflect what the sources being used to justify notability say about it. If it's notability is as a scholastically poor publication then that is what the article must reflect.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is now just more of the same weak sources. I have a massive problem with sentences like "The 2006 Radin and Emoto paper showed an effect supportive of Emoto's theory" sourced to the paper itself, we really should never do that. Citing this bullshit paper twice as an actual source in the article is a sure sign we're doign it wrong. Most of the critique comes from Gorski, who is a well known critic of bullshit but in the end is just one commentator. The inescapable conclusion here is that as far as the scientific community is concerned, the bullshit is this journal is not notable enough to demand a response. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. we can cite a primary source for facts which support and illustrate the case verified from secondary sources. It is fair enough to say that "The 2006 Radin and Emoto paper claimed an effect supportive of Emoto's theory", as the subsequent dissection makes little sense without that claim. I have changed the article accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this pseudo-journal and move on. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Journals, like everything else, have to pass WP:GNG, i.e., need substantial coverage in reliable sources. The NJOURNALS page is an essay and therefore of no help in determining any presumptive notability. It is not apparent from either the article or this discussion what the reliable sources (i.e., presumably not any involved in propagating pseudoscience) that cover this journal in any depth could be.  Sandstein  12:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I have argued above multiple times, this passes GNG (so no need to bash NJournals, just ignore it). QuackGuru and Sandstein, please comment on that. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it doesn't. The sources are either weak or not independent. And don't get me wrong: I would love a properly NPOV article on this junk journal. That would be a public service. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, I don't see how this passes GNG. Above you wrote that "Journal Citation Reports and CiteScore" are the relevant sources for that. Well, I don't find anything called "CiteScore" in the article, and it seems that Journal Citation Reports merely collects citation statistics, which I'd say are not the sort of in-depth secondary sources we can base an article on.  Sandstein  16:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: The Science Citation Index collects citation data. Based on these primary data, the JCR provides an in-depth analysis of that, which indeed results in a number of statistics (2-year impact factor, 5-year impact factor, immediacy index, and a host of other ones). CiteScore is mentioned and linked above. I have not yet had time to add it to the article (I am currently traveling and visitng family, so my time is limited, but sources don't need to be in the article for the sake of an AfD discussion). --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N has only one requirement; and that requirement is not "Articles must satisfy WP:GNG.", which is the concept called "WP:GNG-centrism".  Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am so going to take your bait! In your view, User:Unscintillating, what is that one thing? Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see the talk page here.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you want to re-interpret WP:N based on some snippets of text you picked out of it and a template, and empower essays to take precedence over WP:PAGs. Not workable, and not helpful for the current discussion. Instead of looking down the tree to essays, it would be better to look up the tree to governing policy: WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is effectively a requirement for a standalone topic, since "if a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article" (as is being proposed: stick this in the Elsevier article). Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave out the PA's shall we and try and keep it civil?Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Who are you addressing this to? That remark sits directly below one of mine, but I don't see any PA there. --Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a general comment to a number of users, it's why I did not indent it as a reply to you. The standard of debate is turning a tad personal.Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of whether it passes WP:NJOURNAL, it passes WP:GNG since it has been referenced in independent sources multiple times. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hm. GNG is significant discussion in indepenent sources. part of what has roiled this AfD is the lack of substantial discussion characterizing this journal in multiple independent RS. (there are some stats on it in journal indexing databases etc... but those don't characterize it). GNG is not cut and dry here. I wish it were. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the coverage in JCR/Index Medicus/Scops, etc, as well as "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing is a journal known for its publication of truly ridiculous studies." /"It’s also published in the second woo-iest of the journals, Explore." / "(Elsevier) also publishes ... the quack journal Explore, which, as I described before, publishes Dean Radin’s pseudoscientific articles on “distant healing” and food imbued with “intent.”" and many others are all "significant coverage". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:34, 23 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Barron founded a successful department store. Still it was just located in one county in South Carolina. We have a local obituary and maybe mention in a local history, and that is it. Just not enough to demonstate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means as the obvious piece is the fact it was started as a family memorial by his own family, there's simply nothing amounting to genuine notability and substance hence delete as WP:NOT also applies. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, gsearch brings up nothing useable, just lots of listings of businesses located on the lane named after Barron, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian De Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He's a plastic surgeon. Does WP keep pages on random physicians? Kellymoat (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for a number of reasons - and a number of these are included in the article - as well as being someone who contributes to the UK's national discourse. Apart from his contributions to medical science - through numerous papers on subjects as diverse as glaucoma and orbital fractures - he also has a significant public profile. Please let me know what further supporting evidence you require. Suburb 77 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please note - Suburb 77 is the sole contributor to the page. Kellymoat (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is relevant whether or not I'm the sole contributor on such a new page. What is relevant is the contribution of the subject to the national discourse. We have a right to understand who the voices in our national conversation belong to - and their qualifications for being part of that conversation. Suburb 77 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, being major contributor to a new page isn't a bad thing. But admins like to know things like that. They also like to know that this one article is responsible for over 20% of your total edits. As well as the number of edits you've made adding this name to other pages. It could be due to a conflict of interest. They like to know these things.Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I'm not sure where you got that stat from, but I've been editing and contributing to Wiki for more than seven years, so it's unlikely that figure is correct. The only pages I have added his name to have been those required for categorisation, eg alumni, former pupil of etc. Suburb 77 (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: highly unreliable sources: I see oodles of links to the Sun, the Daily mail etc, making the bulk of the references. Note that those are nearly worthless as sources for encyclopaedic purposes. See for instance WP:PUS. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. References have been updated and include a wide variety of sources. However, I have to point out that - if you are going to make an issue of references that cite The Daily Mail and The Sun - a significant percentage of pages on UK subjects would have to be removed. Suburb 77 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect, exactly? There are oodles of links to those sources, and they aren't suitable sources, per policy, as pointed out -- it's not just me making an issue of it. Also note that WP:BLP requires especially reliable sources. As for the rest, I have not expressed an opinion regarding whether this article should be deleted. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less than half of the references on the page are to The Daily Mail and The Sun. As I mentioned, these support my case that this person is part of the national conversation. They also support the fact that he is notable. The relevant medical and scientific evidence is referenced using appropriate sources. Suburb 77 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]