Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 September	26 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. No deletion rationale has been provided by nominator or anyone since. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CubeSmart

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

Basket _Feudalist 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publicly traded company is notable, only problem is lack of reliable sources. Fitnr (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hey Basket, can you please complete the AFD process and provide your reason or rationale for the nomination? Not sure how we can address your concerns if they haven't actually been presented. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not because it's a publicly traded company, but because it's a NYSE listed publicly traded company. We've essentially always kept such articles, except when they;re hopelessly promotional--and this one is neutral & factual. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 6 October 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllida Beck

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

WP:NOTABILITY is an issue here. Basket _Feudalist 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coming third in the national championships in 1976 does not match up to the claim that she 'received the highest accolade in British figure skating' and I can find no other evidence that even approaches WP's notability requirements. PS - my wife's great aunt claimed to have taught Agatha Christie to dance; notability is not inherited. --AJHingston (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No dates; no categories. Even being UK champion in a minor sport should not confer notability. She then (apparently) retired from competition to teach. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (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 closed, wrong forum. Any requests to delete just the talk page of an article, without requesting the deletion of the article itself, should be directed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gregory Retallack

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

WP:BLP Basket _Feudalist 11:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep talk page. Revision of the article per outcome of AfD is still under discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2013 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NME covers

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

Not notable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate is an understatement. There is no inherent notability to this collection of information. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being covered in works such as New Statesman and The Guardian and book-length histories such as The History of the NME. Warden (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of the NME cover, with context, might be notable. A chronological list of whoever happened to appear on the cover each week is indiscriminate and is not notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not indiscriminate in a general sense because the format and content is quite tightly scoped. The list is long but I don't consider it sprawling because the chronological sequence makes it easy to locate periods of interest and the blue links to the artists are easy to browse and skim. The sources above indicate that this material is of interest to music journalists. For their field of popular music, this seems to be a significant marker of status and trends, and so is comparable with other pages such as List of covers of Time magazine. Warden (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your arguments seem to be along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL. If it was a discussion about trends, and why certain artists appear more than others, and appearances at peaks of their popularity, based on secondary coverage in reliable sources, then there is some encyclopedic value. As a chronological list it does not do this, and thus is not encyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL doesn't apply because Warden explains why it's useful: "Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless". Warden does that. Just throwing around policy names without explaining or understanding them isn't helpful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Moreover, WP:USEFUL isn't a policy; it's just an essay. If you want a relevant policy, that would be WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't show how this list meets notability guidelines, and how it isn't just an indiscriminate list of everyone who has ever appeared on the cover of the NME. Where's the context? How is this list "a significant marker of status and trends"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already produced adequate evidence. You're the nominator trying to make a case here and I am currently not persuaded. Firing off a lot of questions isn't helping as we shall not be bringing you another shrubbery. Warden (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD. This is not indiscriminate information, and it is a notable topic. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion discussion was not a "keep", but a "no consensus". You need to demonstrate how it is notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing shows this is a topic that is discussed in reliable third party sources. I understand the noms position and there are arguments either way but I think it does more harm than good to delete. Magazine covers can "define their era" as the Guardian says of some of these, covers show cultural trend, as some of the sources discuss, it makes perfect sense to give a complete chronological list. I think the list could be in 3 or 4 columns to make it more compact, but it's not excessive in length. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Peng Joon

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

Subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I did find a few interviews about him (including one from a website called The Maverick Paper), but they appear to be from unreliable sources. I'm willing to change my !vote however if at least one interview is deemed to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 6 October 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Raid (band)

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

Google search has no hits for RSes partially because the term has another meaning. Nothing at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources are mostly unreliable blogs. Nothing found on Google News when searching "Tokyo Raid" + various keywords. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH --Glaisher [talk] 09:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 20:00, 2 October 2013 (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 Fenton, Michigan~~ delete and salt. Consensus is that this should not be an individual article (through deletion, merging or redirecting); the chosen result is to Redirect to Fenton, Michigan and let editors merge out any relevant content from this title's history; it will also be salted for a year per request to avoid repeated recreation. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on my talk page convinced my to enforce the deletion consensus conventionally in order to avoid DRV; if anyone still feels there is deleted content that should be merged, let me know and I'll provide a copy of the deleted article for you to do as you see fit. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Lake Village (Michigan)

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

G4 declined for no reason. Blatant advertising for a non-notable strip mall. The only sources are the individual websites of the companies in it, a couple real estate listings on Loopnet, and a fansite about drive-in theaters. No secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reason was given for declining the WP:CSD#G4 which was "Completely different article". Because I cannot see the previous article I cannot tell which was appropriate—the speedy deletion request or its rejection. Could the nominator see the previous article? Thincat (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I do remember the previous version having virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing, so I felt that it met "substantially similar". If an admin could corroborate, please do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. G4 does not apply if the two versions are "not substantially identical". I have no idea whether the topic is notable (but it is certainly of no interest to me). Thincat (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to the nominator's WP:NPA-violating statement, the G4 tag was declined because it did not apply. Tagging articles for G4 just because they have "virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing" is an abuse of the process, since far more than "some similar phrasing" is required for G4. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell is "declined for no reason" an attack? Please don't be so oversensitive. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of declining things willy-nilly, and your WP:AN thread shows that this is something you wanted admin intervention on. Read WP:WIAPA #5 and start heeding it, and be aware that continued abuse of G4 will lead to a block as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could drop the threats and discuss the merits of keeping or deleting the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that while this may have been a very minor NPA issue, it was most certainly not an abuse of G4 in any way, Nyttend. Tagging editors do not have access to the deleted version of the page, so parsing the differences between them is impossible. This was a reasonable and good-faith, though ultimately incorrect, G4 tag. Holding that absurd standard would reserve G4 tagging only to admins, since they are the only ones who can investigate thoroughly enough to determine whether the article is truly identical. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having looked at the deleted version of the article, I'd say this is pretty damn close to the same article, perhaps even substantially identical, although admittedly not identical identical. Created by the same editor 3 months after the previous AFD ended, with the same basic scope, the same article organization, worse references, and no indication of notability - the reason for the previous deletion has not been addressed in any way. Not sure what the point of G4 is, if this doesn't qualify. All you have to do is re-word a few things and remove a few references and you get a new bite at the apple? BTW, I'm going to restore the article history while this AFD is going on, so non-admins can see it for themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: deleted history restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and yes, G4 does apply. Created by the same person about the same thing with none of the original defects corrected. Are we arguing that articles recreated by people with bad memories aren't eligible for G4?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the key bits to the Fenton, Michigan article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Merge what? The Flint Journal piece on Fenton from the old article is the best source. The Silver Lake Park page on the City of Fenton website might support a sentence about the park. The Flint Journal story in the current article is about the local Walmart and is unusable. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the history is visible it seems a stretch to me to say that this is not substantially identical in the spirit surely intended by G4. It certainly doesn't seem to address any of the previous deletion reasons, and the structure, style, content are peas in a pod. As mentioned above, if this isn't G4 worthy then what is the point to G4? May as well just give everyone a new AFD every time they want to recreate anything, so long as they make a few copyedits. Begoon ^talk 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' as obvious CSD:G4 Technical 13 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am utterly bemused by this. The previously deleted version[1] has 501 words "readable prose text" and four references. The version recently brought to AfD[2] has 694 words and seventeen references. Here is the diff. So far as I can see two references are common to both versions. Are some people here believing these are "substantially identical? Am I looking at the wrong versions for comparison? Of course, there are similarities between the versions and the same editor created both. Note: there is a parallel discussion at WP:AN#G4. Thincat (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (WP:SMERGE, really) with Fenton, Michigan as Candleabracadabra suggests. Although notability does not seem to be established and much of the material is promotional, some encyclopedic material relevant to Fenton is worth salvaging (WP:PRESERVE). Thincat (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...truly... we are indeed a cosmopolitan and broad encyclopedia... "the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions"... I stand in awe of our awesomeness... Begoon ^talk 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are new here! The glory days of shopping mall deletion discussions are long since over. Look at one of the DRVs of MacDade Mall here. And, for sheer quaintness, the closer's rejection of one of its AFD nominations here. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much... Not so much new, but young in this area of specialisation. Educated now though, through your grace, and suitably amused with your informative links. Did I thank you? Have another one anyway - thanks... Begoon ^talk 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent yet another recreation and unnecessary AfD. According to WP:Places of local interest (essay), the relevant guideline is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The sourcing is completely insufficient to support this article. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, the sourcing, though more thorough, is still incredibly suspect, being composed of promotional rather than informational sources. Suggest simply leaving a warning on the creating editor's user page that without solid sourcing for WP:Notability, this article should not be recreated, but SALTing seems like a step too far: this place could be leading an economic renaissance in Fenton, and it is entirely possible that independent media could cover it in that context. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fenton, Michigan, and salt the redirect (i.e., protect it so the article can't be recreated). This looks like a non-notable run-of-the-mill local shopping center that someone has documented unusually well. Some of the information is relevant in the context of Fenton, but the topic isn't worthy of a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged what I thought was worth including at Fenton, Michigan. I think leaving a redirect would be helpful and have no objetion to protecting it if recreation is a concern. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Candleabracadabra and revision deleted. Please don't do that until the AFD is closed. Merging that way forces a keep of the parent article due to licensing rules. An editor wound up banned for doing that over objections. If the AFD completes as "merge" or "redirect", then I can unhide your changes.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion does not prevent good faith edits from going forward. I included some material from this article in another article. It was not some spurrious attempt to preserve this article. You also oversighted edits that had nothing to do with this subject (about downtown redevelopment in Fenton, Michigan and the Old Firehouse) and those need to be restored.

An editor above asked what I would include from this article so I went ahead and did the additions I deemed warranted. There is nothing untoward about my actions and nothing that should have been oversighted. In fact I support the deletion of this article in favor of simply leaving a protected redirect (since there is a history of recreation against consensus).

Whether the history needs to be preserved per policy is a separate issue, but I see no problem with doing that. If you have substantive arguments against noting this development area in the Fenton, Michigan article or arguments against redirecting this title to the parent subject you should present those. You have made it impossible for editors to judge whether the content edits I made were constructive and that is inappropriate. Please go back and undo your oversighting. You are disrupting the discussion and content improvements being attempted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra, we understand that you didn't do anything to the content of this article. What you did was to use bits of it in another article, and that creates licensing problems if this article is deleted. Please do not merge material from articles at AFD until the AFD is closed. If we keep the history, that means that you have singlehandedly forced the article to be kept. That's unacceptable. Note the text in the Guide to deletion: "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes".—Kww(talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing an article being deleted with an article's history being preserved. Do you have any substantive arguments against any of the content additions I made to the Fenton, Michigan? Do you prefer a history merge or a protected redirect? Do you prefer another outcome? Let's stay focused on the disuccion and the best outcome. Also, you need to go back and restore the edits so they can be judged on their merits and because several of them had nothing to do with this article subject. It is not constructive to obstruct this discussion. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying focused on the discussion. I'm not confused. To delete an article means to remove its history. They are synonymous terms. I've told you not to do what you did. I left you a polite message about it. I pointed you at the guideline that explicitly tells you not to do it. I've undone it for you. I do not care whether you improved the article, I care only that if the edits you made were allowed to stand, they would have undermined this AFD. Do not merge material from articles at AFD again.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge articles currently at AfD, per the fifth/last item under WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Since there are few substantial contributors, WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history is a valid fix, and deletion is still possible, even without Kww's revision deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything to this article. I simply included some bits that seemed worth noting in the parent subject. There is no policy against that. If it makes it necessary to preserve the history that does not prevent the article content here from being deleted. As you noted, it doesn't even have to be kept as a redirect, it can simply be history merged. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked you what should be merged, I meant that I would like to see a description of the merger, sources in particular. Kww has explained the problem here and at your talk page. A history merge is not appropriate due to parallel versions. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~specially after Candleabracadabra merged whatever was usable into a more relevant article, there's no need to keep this around. Also clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY.~~ Merge by Candleabracadabra was reverted, so delete as per failing WP:NOTABILITY. Gaba ^(talk) 03:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology (USA band)

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

Sources do not support notability. Searched and did not find any on first five Google pages. One problem is that there are two bands with this name and the 1960s band is notable. The other problem is that the term is general and I'm getting completely unrelated hits when searching for Mythology (band). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Searching "Mythology" + the band members' names revealed no reputable results. Only sources on the article are blogs and YouTube, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've nominated for speedy. Not a bad call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent Theft Auto

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

The page seems to be promotion, possibly self-promotion (breaking WP:COI and WP:SPAM). The main editor to the page has only contributed to this article. It's a mod that is unreleased and currently unpopular. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Glaisher [talk] 09:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an unreleased, un-notable mod. When the time comes, (if it does), someone will write the article themselves and the topic will therefore become notable. Also voted delete per the nomination.MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find reliable sources covering the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. recreated content. Rs chen 7754 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (LadyDelay)

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

Adrian Visby, Adrian Visby (musician), Adrian.Visby, Adrian Visby (artist), Adrian Visby (activist), Adrian Visby (producer/musician/engineer), Adrian Visby (producer/musician), Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Boyd, Adrian Voyd, Cabalaza Music, Cabalaza Republic, The Fragile v4, Heavenade, Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby), LadyDelay, Civilexit? and more. Not notable. Delete, salt, scorch, ban. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2013 (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 The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edenism

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

This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this unreferenced in-universe article about a non-notable fictional element per Piotrus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. I could find no independent reliable sources for Edenism as it relates to the novels. Edenism gets a few hits in GScholar, but these are unrelated to the novels. --Mark viking (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The Night's Dawn Trilogy. I've notified a Wikia project, if they want to save the content by copying it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2013 (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 The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adamism

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

This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Good books, but I could find no independent sources discussing this fictional faction. I could see this as a search term, so a redirect seems reasonable. There is a concept of pre-adamism in Pre-Adamite, but I don't think the redirect will cause confusion. --Mark viking (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The Night's Dawn Trilogy. I've notified a Wikia project, if they want to save the content by copying it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Trees Grow

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

I am a big fan of Hamiltion, but unlike his books, which are likely all notable, his short stories do not seem to be. Not unless they won an award or otherwise generated coverage, and this one does not seem to provide any indication of this, clearly failing WP:N. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's all plot. This kind of fan effort would be better at a Wikia project. I've notified a Wikia project, though it looks pretty slow over there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 3 October 2013 (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 The Web (series). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightstorm

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

I am a big fan of Hamiltion, but unlike his books, which are likely all notable, his short stories do not seem to be. Not unless they won an award or otherwise generated coverage, and this one does not seem to provide any indication of this, clearly failing WP:N. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge to The Web (series) per below. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Web (series). That article merely has a list of stories, which could usefully be expanded by adding soemthing about their content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Web (series). Lightstorm is a reasonable search term so a redirect to The Web (series) is warranted. Merging the one short sentence of story description will not unbalance the target article, and will perhaps encourage short descriptions for the other stories. The sources [3], [4] could serve as verifications of the description. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only question is whether to redirect. I don;t think we usually redirect short story titles unless it's a very famous author, or the story itself is so well known as to be almost notable. I don;t see evidence for this. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mark viking (talk). It's an ideal solution. scope_creep talk 19:11, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G12 as unambigous copyright infringement. --みんな空の下 (トーク) (non-admin closure) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

91.9 Fresh FM

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

Non-notable community radio station lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I (creator) have added references to information and coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Apologies for no references originally given. Subject is very well know though has had a name change. Simon McClintock (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Philosophy Alliance

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

Previous article on the subject was deleted and this one was recreated out-of-process. Seems to me to fail WP:CORP with apologies for the WP:FRINGE issues involved where WP:ONEEVENT coverage seems to have happened as a part of various "News of the Weird" segments. It is clear that this organization has not yet received the prominent notice necessary for it to be covered in Wikipedia. It's just a club for cranks and there are a few webpages and off-handed mentions of it in obscure outfits. jps (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is nothing but an alliance of deranged cranks, but it is a notable alliance of deranged cranks. The significant coverage by Wertheim, Farrell and Horgan in reliable sources demonstrates that this group is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article, even if most of its members are demented. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by fringe proponents like Wertheim does not contribute to notability, coverage "that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers" is required. Did you read what Farrell wrote? Because he does not mention the NPA. What coverage does Horgan give? He gives one paragraph [5] in a blog at SA where he gives only one paragraph; that is trivial coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim's coverage counts. She is an expert on outsider physics and has attended NPA events but she is not a supporter of the organisation's beliefs - she is a science writer who also writes widely on mainstream physics and applies a skeptical eye to both sides[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim is not a physicist. As such, there is no way she can be counted as an expert on physics, outsider or otherwise. The idea that she applies a skeptical eye to both "sides" is itself a rather precious position to take, as though there are two "sides" to the question of, for example, whether or not CERN will destroy the world. There is, after all, a 50% chance it will destroy the world, don't you know. jps (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim has a degree in physics. [7] LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim is a listed member of the NPA: [8], IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implying what? A great many people of all stripes are "listed members of the NPA." Just because someone is a "listed member" does not necessarily mean that they agree with anything that a given member or even the prevailing majority hold true. Perhaps the individual merely supports the notion of free and open dialogue on science, or merely "joined" as part of attending a conference with journalistic intent (honestly can't recall whether membership was required in order to attend; probably not, but can't recall). Others have noted the individual covers a wide variety of "alternative physics" topics (in a "blogger" or "citizen journalist" capacity). Anyway, speculation on motives or meaning of "membership" is merely that, "speculation." Mgmirkin (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read her article The edge of reason and judge for yourself. She is hardly a proponent (and this description of NPA was published in New Scientist, a mainstream publication).

I would say that she is a supporter of the NPA even though she doesn't agree with everything every other member advocates. 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This should not affect notability. Most supporters of free speech do not agree with everything that all others say.LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of NPA she is not a reliable source about the NPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not always the case, i.e. Snowden is a reliable source on NSA even though an employee. I think the correct statement is that "A supporter of X is not a reliable source about X". But you can be a member without being a supporter, as is Wertheim (and Snowden). Also each editor that chooses to review her work, and mentions NPA in the review, is a reliable source that the topic is notable, as the editor is choosing to make a public statement about the organization. Remember, we are discussing whether the organization is notable, not what people think about it. LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC), comment modified LouScheffer (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not what they are proposing is "true" is not relevant here. What is relevant is that they are a widely known clearing house for unorthodox theories. There are more than 300 references in 'books.google.com' and more than 250 in 'scholar.google.com'. In the academic world they serve a useful purpose - you are expected to provide a reference for each theory you mention, even if your next sentence is to dismiss it as wacky. NPA provides a source of such references, and is notable for this in the academic community. LouScheffer (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that the truth-content of the NPA's presentations and members' positions are not relevant, what is relevant is the fact that they are a fringe organization that is set upon self-promotion. The NPA is a good source for people looking for really weird and out-there ideas, but we're talking about an article on the organization. For that, we need to establish that the association is notable independent of the promotions that are done by its members and comrades-in-arms. This is where we fall short on sources. It may be that this is an excellent resource for people who study pseudoscience, but it's not mentioned enough in the independent sources on the subject to be recognized as such. jps (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Google searches is that it does not show the significance of the coverage in those sources. For example, there are plenty of routine individual papers with over 500 citations, so claiming that this shows notability sets the criteria rather low (i.e pretty much every minor institute in the world). For example, here is a paper which seems to be about funny shaped sperm in fertilisation which has nearly 900 citations [9]. I doubt anyone will claim the individual article is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ORG and WP:FRINGE#Notability fail, no significant coverage/"major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other independent/mainstream references to the NPA, with neutral or derogatory descriptions of what it is and what it does. Many of these references are short, so the question becomes if they are enough to cause someone to turn to Wikipedia to find out about the organization.

Here is description and discussion about NPA in "Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia", edited by Sal P. Restivo, Oxford University Press, in the chapter on Grassroots Science.
- This is clearly not enough to write a single sentence about the group. It is not anything more than a passing mention. jps (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Challenging dominant physics paradigms, a "conventional science" article by by Campanario and Martin that describes how scientists attempt to go against conventional wisdom.
- The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a fringe journal. The two authors are members of the NPA: [10], [11]
  - Sure, but did you 'read' the article? It seems about as neutral and well-referenced as you could expect, given that any article on opposing the status quo will likely be written from that perspective.
In The Big Bang - A Hot Issue in Science Communication, by Griffiths and Oliveira, refers to NPA as an organization started by Van Flandern "to propound his unscientific viewpoints". Definitely not a supporter or proponent.

This is clearly only passing mention. You quote the entirety of what the article says on the subject.
This passage is quoted in the book "Cambridge Academic English: An Integrated Skills Course for EAP", by Martin Hewings, Craig Thaine. This might well be the most "mainstream" of mentions, in the sense that it could be run across by someone who has no idea what NPA is.

They are mentioned several times in Skeptical Inquirer, for example Volume 24, and as you might imagine in a not particularly favorable light.
- Seems to be no more than a passing mention and doesn't allow for any article writing based on that source, I find.
- From the snippets shown by google it seemed like a more serious discussion, but I do not have access to the full articles. If someone who does have access could quote the relevant passages, that would be great.
The article In Physics, Telling Cranks from Experts Ain't Easy by John Horgen of Scientific American talks about NPA.
Slate saw fit to reprint Wertheim's 'New Scientist' article as Other Theories of Physics, showing that they, at least, think the subject is of general interest.

Delete I've gone through every source in the article and those linked on this page. They either go back to Wertheim's piece, which is an unreliable source for determining independent notability, or are passing mentions that don't provide any knowledge to write an article, other than the organization's existence and purpose. I'd actually like to see an article on this topic, Wikipedia is the perfect forum to write about True Believers, but there doesn't seem to be sourcing with "significant coverage" to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor that reviews Wertheim's books, and articles, and then descibes NPA in the review, is making an independent decision that the *topic* is notable. In terms of whether the group is composed of cranks or geniuses, they are relying on Wertheim. But not whether it's of interest to them or their readers. They decide this for themselves.

More examples:

Article A Varied Group from TheScientist.
And another but by the same author: AAAS Gives Dissident Group A Chance To Challenge Physics Theory. LouScheffer (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article Physicists on the outside looking in, a review of Wertheim's book from a newspaper in Australia. They define NPA and what it does, as well.
Article Science on the Rampage by Freeman Dyson, a very mainstream physicist, in The New York Review of Books, a very mainstream journal. Nominally a review of Wertheim's book, it also includes considerable personal reminiscences about alternative science theories. Includes discussion of what NPA is, who its members are, and why fringe science may be interesting even if not true.
Article On the Margins of Science, in the Wall Street Journal (you can't get more mainstream than that..). Again nominally a review of Wertheim, but also explains what NPA is and what it does. Also includes considerable personal experience, in addition to reviewing the book.

There are a number of blogs with neutral or skeptical takes on NPA. These are of course not reliable sources, but can serve of evidence of notability.

Best of the Blog: Is Special Relativity Wrong?
A profound misunderstanding of the significance of cranks in science
Cranks and Physics does not discuss NPA by name, but does discuss it as an organization.
Physics Paradoxers and Outsiders.
Why you shouldn't sing praises to a crank.

Here is a press release from NPA. I could certainly imagine someone would like to look NPA up on Wikipedia after seeing this, since Wikipedia has a much better record of neutrality than press releases.

Scientists to Receive Lifetime Awards

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs)

(You can sign posts using 4 tildes such as ~~~~, or with initials, it's difficult to follow where one thread ends and another begins. Thanks Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

From WP:NOTE. See WP:GNG footnote #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." That is exactly the case here with different sources covering the same Wertheim sources and even using the same quotes from it. At best they count as a single source.

The Scientist is a solid source as far as I can tell. The book reviews are about the book not the organization. Complicated by the fact the book author is a member of the organization (in terms of using these sources for the org's notability vs. the book's notability). The Blogs don't count towards notability. Basically we have one source from 1995 The Scientist, then Wertheim and everything that originates from Wertheim, which I think at best counts as a single source - so two good sources total. Beyond that, there is apparently now enough sourcing to support an article for Physics on the Fringe [current redirect] by Margaret Wertheim, since multiple book reviews in very high quality sources make the book notable under WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can people please sign their contributions? Very hard to follow who is who, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that reviews have no bearing on notability. The author of a review cannot include all of the book, and out of the hundreds of pages of material, must decide what is most interesting to their readers, and what they wish to comment on themselves. This is the exact definition of notability. Of course, this is very different from relying on a fact stated in the book, where the number of references is irrelevant. If they were using Wertheim to show the existence of NPA, then it would be just one reference. But instead they are showing which portion of the book they found interesting, which they are doing independently.LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment above "The book reviews are about the book not the organization.". The Wikipedia guideline is: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (Italics mine) In this case the main topic is the review of the book, but many of the reviews address the subject in detail (in the sense than anyone who read the review, but not the underlying book, would know what the NPA is, who its members are, and what it does).LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these 'reviews' are more personal essays on crank science than reviews. For example, more than half of the Freeman Dyson article is his personal experiences with Eddington and Velikovsky. It's certainly possible to write articles on crank science without reference to NPA (see How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations or The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist for examples) but these writers have chosen to include and define NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best those reviews might in aggregate count as a single source about the organization, since they all point back to the same book, and WP:GNG says when that happens they are treated as a single source when determining notability. That means there are two sources total: the reviews + The Scientist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim's book counts towards notability, despite the fact she is a member of NPA. When a member of a group writes about that group, notability depends very much on the extent that the goals of the person and the group are aligned. So when the president of a group writes about the group, it's presumably aligned and not notable. But when Edward Snowden wrote about the NSA's PRISM program, it was extremely notable, even though he was a member/employee of the NSA. In fact it was much more notable, and would not have been believed had he not been a member. Likewise criticism of a political party is much more notable if it comes from a party member, claims of unethical behavior by a company are more notable if made by an employee, and so on. So membership in a group is not a ban on notability; it also depends (strongly) on the content of the work. Reading Wertheim's material, she is sympathetic to the NPA but her goal is to describe the organization, not promote it. Despite her membership, she herself does not believe the primary tenet of NPA, namely that modern physics is wrong. The reviews reinforce this view; even the ones that think she is too charitable towards the NPA do not believe she holds this belief because she thinks the NPA is right - she thinks it is valuable even though it is founded on an incorrect premise. So her book (and articles) definitely count as notable references to NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really I don't see where you are going with this straw man of the situation. Edward Snowden is not notable based on his own writings he is notable based on the very substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of him. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here is that PRISM was notable, even when it was only described in one source, and that source was a member of organization involved. So Snowden's revelations were solid evidence of the notability of PRISM, even though he was a member of NSA. This is a counter to the assertions made above, that Werthiem's book cannot be used as evidence that NPA is notable, since she is a member of NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the difference is that with Snowden's revelations, the investigative work of other researchers went into overdrive and now there are thousands of independent sources on the subject of PRISM. If Werthiem's book had produced a similar level of interest, then we wouldn't be having this discussion of the problem that the article can only be written from the point-of-view of Werthiem because that's the only source that's used (all the other ones are derivative of Wertheim as well). The argument is that because independent sources have not (yet) noticed the NPA, it becomes impossible to write an article on them. jps (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not arguing whether PRISM is notable now. I explicitly stated even when it was only described in one source. And this was true for the first several weeks, when all the many newspaper reports were based on Snowden's documents. It was not until, under duress, the administration opened up on PRISM that there was another independent source of notability.LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are dealing with problematic comparisons, then. If NPA was notable then there would be a scenario by which other independent sources would develop on this subject. Imagine that the whole Snowden thing was somehow kept under wraps and there was only one source on the subject. We'd be having this very discussion. But counterfactuals are not good points on which to base an argument. The point is that until there are others who notice the NPA who are dispassionately disconnected from the subject, we cannot write an article that both adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That's why we have notability guidelines in the first place. jps (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that if the administration clammed up, and Snowden remained the only source on PRISM, that we'd be debating whether PRISM was notable? Good luck with that argument - it differs completely from the view of the major media of the world, who thought it was exceedingly notable while there was only one source, and that one a member. Anyway, the argument here is that the Wertheim book is perfectly good evidence of notability. It's published by the mainstream press, it's reviewed by mainstream sources, etc. The only question is whether it is sufficiently objective and independent. This *cannot* be settled by simply noting that Werthiem is a member of NPA, as the Snowden case shows - this has to be determined by content. (If another previously unknown NSA administrator smuggles out materials stating that the NSA is law-abiding, it's not going to be notable. If it claims violations of the constitution, it will be.) And Wertheim disagrees with the fundamental tenet of NPA, that modern physics is wrong. That alone makes it plenty independent. LouScheffer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing what the media and the outside world considers "notable" for what Wikipedia considers notable. One source, no matter how fantastic or exquisite, is not enough to build an article on. jps (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community appears to disagree with you. The PRISM article appeared the day of the Guardian disclosure, while there was only one source, not later after the administration admitted to it. The article history shows no voices on the talk page expressing concern about notability, nor any requests for deletion as not notable. LouScheffer (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the day of the publication of Werthiem's book, so it's odd you'd be trying to compare to the day the Snowden leaks went live. I'm telling you, if PRISM had been based only on Greenwald's piece and there was no corroboration, such an article would have to withstand a deletion discussion. These are simply not comparable situations. jps (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you honestly believe there would be a deletion discussion on PRISM had the government clammed up? That mentions/analyses in the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on, would not count, since they were all based on one source, himself a member of NSA? I think the opposite, that the article would stand, because Snowden, although he was member of the NSA, is not a supporter. Likewise, Wertheim, though a member of the NPA, is not a supported, and her book counts as a notable reference. LouScheffer (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Wertheim's writings do seem to be objective enough to count as independent sources, so may indeed establish notability. -- 101.119.15.233 (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — 101.119.15.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wertheim writes in New Scientist (24 December 2011) "For the past 18 years I have been collecting the works of what I have come to call 'outsider physicists'.... NPA members insist that they can commune with [the natural world] directly and describe its patterns in accessible terms. Regardless of the credibility of this claim, it is sociologically significant." That's the attitude of a journalist studying them and finding them interesting, not the attitude of a supporter. -- 101.119.15.169 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per Cullen. I'm kinda surprised to see how much sturm und drang appears below such a concise and obvious explanation. Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability. Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable whether the thing is the United Nations or the Flat Earth Society, Masterpiece Theater or Hee-Haw, Interpol or the Justice Society of America.
The near-palpable intensity of the comments supporting deletion, especially the contortions of logic necessary to argue away the plain truth of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources bespeaks a level of zeal to banish notable nuttiness that ill-serves the encyclopedia. Multiple reviews aren't multiple because they trace back to a disfavored source. Multiple mentions in multiple reliable periodicals aren't enough because they're all, every last one, passing mentions. Freeman Dyson is writing about a crank, so it doesn't count. The Wall Street Journal and the New Scientist don't count because, um, because, well, it's FRINGE dammit. FRINGE is bad. FRINGE must be eradicated. It's not enough to put FRINGE in context. It must be ridiculed until it can be made to disappear. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. David in DC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please keep your pseudo-intellectual diatripe to yourself thanks. It is a straw man to suggest anyone is suggesting deleting this because it is fringe. Rather people are suggesting it should be deleted because it is non-notable. Instead of making any actual argument for keeping this article you have merely attacked those you disagree with by making vague accusations. Focus on actually addressing the concerns, rather than dismissing it with your overt hostility. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) Separating out the parts that are policy-based:

"Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability."

"Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable."

Multiple reviews are multiple coverage in independent sources. This is agreement with Scheffer above and disagreement with others.

The Freeman Dyson essay cited above is a seperate reliable source. Again agreeing with a prior point of another editor.

The WSJ and New Scientist references count as separate sources. Again, agreeing with others above and disagreeing with others.

B) I mean this next statement literally and not as criticism: "pseudo-intellectual diatripe" is a wonderful rhetorical flourish that made the corners of my mouth turn upward, and "diatripe" in particular ought to become a neologism. With the single change of a "b" to a "p" you've turned a common deprecation into a memorable and funny one. Props to you. David in DC (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wertheim On the question of Wertheim's independence, it may be worth noticing that, in addition to writing an admiring biography of Jim Carter (the circlon guy and early NPA member who thought up the name of the organization) as the centerpiece of her book, Wertheim has also curated Jim Carter's circlon illustrations for an art gallery, has made a documentary film about him, and has appeared side-by-side with him at joint public speaking engagements, often introducing him as "the Leonardo of outsider physics". According to a New Scientist article

"Wertheim really likes Carter [and] thinks it is wrong that men like Carter are frozen out of mainstream science. Wouldn’t the world be better if... we let “a hundred flowers blossom” and granted these men some recognition? In order to show that Carter’s theory of “circlons”... is worth scientists’ regard, she narrates the theory of vortex atoms... Wertheim argues that if string theorists can spin theories of “sheer bizarreness” and still call themselves scientists, why not Carter?"

In addition, Wertheim tells us that Jim Carter introduced her to the NPA, of which she then became a member, and the two of them have attended annual NPA meetings together, beginning over 15 years ago, taking walks together in the evening to talk over the day's presentations ("with a spectular sunset as our backdrop"). Is this independence? Granted, both she and Carter regard many of the other NPA members as nuts, but that is true of every member of the NPA, i.e., each of them thinks the others are all crazy (as Wertheim herself has noted).

So, taking all this into account, I don't think Wertheim is an independent source, either on Jim Carter or on the NPA. She is clearly an unapologetic friend, supporter, and promoter of Jim Carter and his brand of "outsider science", which she associates with the NPA, of which she herself is a member. Although she acknowledges that NPA members like Carter are not doing what is considered to be mainstream science, she argues that what these "outsiders" are doing is not so different from mainstream science, and we should accord them some measure of respect and acceptance. She is definitely a promoter of the idea that "outsiders" should be accepted into the scientific community - more broadly defined as anyone who thinks of things that “make them feel at home in the universe” - which is what its members crave. (Wertheim herself notes how paradoxical this is, since the NPA members simultaneously despise mainstream scientists and crave their acceptance.)

I think what Wertheim's book, and the reviews of it, represent is really her advocacy of the thesis that science should be more like art, in the sense that anyone can pick up a brush create a "work of art" that is just as worthy of respect as a Vermeer. She talks about this at length in an audio podcast, and in some web videos. The NPA is just an example of "outsiders" that she cites to support her thesis. Since the NPA has no notability outside of Wertheim's thesis, I suggest that this topic be re-directed to the article on Wertheim, where it can be mentioned that she refers to that group.Fiddlefofum (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2013 (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-deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeltailor

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

This article has been speedily deleted four times, most recently today, on the grounds of promotion or non-notability. Can we get a final declaration of this finding, and perhaps salt the article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - the same content has been pasted onto the user page of the article's creator - User:Slinna87 - which I will tag for speedy deletion. Stalwart111 03:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. It looks like this has been an attempt by a user to constantly re-add the article. I've deleted the userpage version and nominated the mainspace copy, so putting that out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there have been other account names so I'll be opening a SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 25 September 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meritous

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

Fails notability; no independent reliable sources are cited in the article, and Google Books turns up no relevant results. I couldn't find any significant third-party coverage from Google web search, either. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find some mention in various blogs and the like, but nothing that would show that this game is ultimately notable enough for its own article. I admire that someone was clever enough to make their own game, but the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find reliable sources covering the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2013 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ross King (singer-songwriter)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sourcing found, fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BAND. There were also no sources found. MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2013 (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. While participation is low in this twenty day old AfD the consensus around the lack of referencing is clear. —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Melanie

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

Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional in tone, no secondary sources, works aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Meals

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

Minor actress that fails WP:NACTORS. She had a small role in 2 Rocky movies as Apollo Creed's wife that doesn't really get her past notability, a single appearence on a Cosby show episode and a minor supporting role in a film that nobody saw. Hasn't been in anything else since 2007, so I'm not thinking she's going to get notable anytime soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Although not a reliable, IMDB doesn't list much in the way of acting credits. this would explain the lack of coverage. All I could find were credit listings for Rocky in movie guides. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People who just had a minor role in a series of films don't come close to passing the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (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 Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenclass model

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

This article is an orgy of original research.

"Eigenclass" is a term used among Ruby developers to describe the shim class created internally to support per-instance methods. Even within Ruby, it's not a core concept that's essential to grasp in order to be able to use or reason about the language. The Ruby article mentions the pattern in passing by its pragmatic, unfancy name: singleton methods.

This article gives the false impression that this language-specific feature (AFAICT, even Smalltalk has no built-in support for it) is an established topic in computer science.

The vast bulk of the article is unreferenced. Those references that do exist fall into three categories a) links to Ruby documentation b) links to articles that don't mention "eigenclass" or "eigenclass model" in any way and c) links to a single non-notable site that appears to contain the same material as the article.

chocolateboy (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Eignenclass is a real concept in the Ruby language community, it is a reasonable search term and we should have something on it at WP. But this article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a massive expansion of the concept beyond what is found in reliable sources. A complete cutdown of this article to just the shim class idea could work, although making it more than a definition may prove a challenge given the meager sources I found. Merging just the definition to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics and redirecting seems the best solution at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (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. No prejudice towards merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black flight

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

Non-notable neologism, seemingly coined to facilitate original research and synthesis boiling down to a tu quoque argument; also used to house arguments which pretend that white flight was done for benign reasons and did not have a racist component. Orange Mike | Talk 23:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a very strong recommendation of a rewrite. Although I agree with Orangemike's analysis of this article, the term is attested back to at least 1975, according to Google News, and the term seems to have notability independent of the POV/OR/NEO use in this article. These systemic issues will require this article to be rewritten from scratch, but I think a credible article could be written on this topic. Incubation is also acceptable, as it might result in more attention than slapping half a dozen cleanup templates on a mainspace article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a neologism as there are no new words here (unlike the recent FA throffer). The topic is the subject of several books and so is notable. Warden (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "White Flight" is a bit of journalistic doggerel to describe the same phenomenon here — the outmigration of jobs and middle- to upper-income families from American urban centers. I suspect that the correct answer here is a retitling of White Flight and a merge of Black Flight, with redirects left from each of those neologisms. Now, what's the "correct" title for this socioeconomic phenomenon? That I don't know. I suggest that if this puzzle can't be solved, leaving this "Black Flight" information intact is a far preferable solution than deletion. But I think that's a second, lesser option to solving the puzzle. Is there a sociologist in the house? Carrite (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2013 (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.