Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 3

3 May 2011

Boubaker polynomials

Boubaker polynomials (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As per the XFD, this page was criticised for Notability purposes and lack of sourcing. the proposed version [1]is now containing more than 25 third-party, verifiable and independent source (Encyclopedies, Books, Acadimic and peer reviewed Journals)i.e., in ref 8 [2], The authors, Eminent Professor Paul Barry et al. Website presents as Chapter 6: (p 23): The Boubaker Polynomials... In i.e. Reference 15 [3] , Professor A. Yildirim Homepage presents (page 40) the boubaker polynomials as a tool for solving nonlinear science problems... and so on ...

The Matter is hence mainly to verify sourcing patterns, not discussing the scientific level, exactness or so, and if done, restore the page. Rirunmot (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse . As it is, the new version seems to be enough sourced. The references 1-6, 8,9, 11-18 can be easily monitored. The reference to OEIS should be reformatted. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the closure was correct. However, I am not qualified to judge whether the draft article at User:Rirunmot/User:Rirunmot/sandbox is sufficient to warrant re-creation using that draft - it might be an idea to discuss this at WikiProjecy Mathematic's Talk Page and get a consensus on that issue. If the consensus is in agreement with you about the sourcing being adequate, reliable and independent, I'd have no objection to the draft version being moved to article space PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment As per [4], once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline..., so the closure was indeed correct, a long time ago. Now one has just to verify sourcing. --Rirunmot (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William_of_Wales_and_Kate_Middleton

List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William_of_Wales_and_Kate_Middleton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm calling for this to be reviewed, since as quite a few people clearly stated, the wedding itself was notable, the list of people going, not necessarily. Going to a Royal Wedding doesn't mean you become notable by attending or being invited, and I doubt many people will know half the names on the list of attendees. This afd was descended on by people purely interested in the celebrity of the people they knew, I'd imagine. I would ask for the keep result to be reviewed, since, just to be clear, notability is not inherited. Fish^Barking? 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that was hard to wade through and, given the quality of many of the arguments raised on both sides, not really worth it. Plenty of emphatically-worded opinion statements including the word "cruft", particularly towards the end. In policy terms both the "keep" side and the "delete" side are well-explained early on. On the "delete" side, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm unpersuaded by WP:NOTINHERITED because of citations like this one (ref #71 in the article) which is one of several examples of fairly major headlines about who wasn't invited. (Former Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were also not invited, and there was news coverage of that fact too.) I'm also unpersuaded by WP:NOTDIR—I don't see how the policy actually prohibits such a list, if reliably-sourced. Nobody was planning to add the guests' phone numbers or shoe sizes. But WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a strong and substantive argument for deletion.

  On the "keep" side, the arguments were that the material is well-sourced, indicating notability and a general interest in the topic (such that people might look it up in an encyclopaedia!), and that it is too lengthy to include in the main article.

  I'm not thrilled that it was closed early. Such a well-attended and disputed AfD should have continued to the end. I also believe the correct close was "no consensus". Overall, I can't endorse this. But there's no way to see a "delete" consensus in that AfD and I don't believe the extra few hours would have made a critical difference to the outcome, so I can't recommend overturning it. A relist will not be productive, I think, but I see it as the best of a bad set of options, so relist.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. Continuing the AFD would simply have been a waste of time and effort which wouldn't plausibly be expected to yield any result with a different effective outsome, since "no consensus" would of course default to keep. We ought to have a WP:QUAGMIRE standard to rapidly shut off overpopulated, overheated discussions without any hope of reaching resolution, when the likelihood of improving the encyclopedia is so low and the waste involved so high. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. For the same reason as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, no consensus would surely default to keep. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Endorse - the close was correct following the discussion presented. Personally, I would say that any non-notable individuals (i.e. those without a Wikipedia article) should be removed, but that is for another discussion and venue! The close was correct for the AfD as it stood at the time of closure. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)