User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MediaWiki version 1.26wmf16 (5601f08).

Wikipedia:Babel
ru Русскийродной язык этого участника.
en-4 This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages
Crystal Clear action run.svg
This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
Crystal Clear action run.svg
(contribs)
This user runs a bot, Acebot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (Russian).
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Chen Rong - Nine Dragons.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
Picture of the day
Nine Dragons

Nine Dragons
Painting: Chen Rong
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

The Signpost
29 July 2015

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wbar blue left.jpg
Wbar blue.jpg
Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
Lang-en.gif Lang-Sw.gif Lang-ge.gif Lang-nl.gif Lang-fr.gif Lang-war.gif Lang-ru.gif Lang-it.gif Vlag Fil Cebu.gif Lang-es.gif
English Svenska Deutsch Nederlands Français Winaray Русский Italiano Sinugboanon Español
4,934,575 1,972,899+ 1,840,931+ 1,830,962+ 1,648,641+ 1,259,218+ 1,242,578+ 1,215,543+ 1,211,360+ 1,190,899+
More than 35,686,630 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 5,071,302 articles.


Russia[edit]

Iar Elterrus[edit]

Iar Elterrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Iar Elterrus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Let's try this again. This was created back in 2008, and then nominated for deletion twice under the belief that the author could find reliable sources about the author. However, both the Lithuanian and Russian copies have now been deleted and I still can't find evidence that this individual is notable. I don't know what more we can add than the number of novels. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Isn't this the Russian version? Zerotalk 03:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is. The version listed here seems to have been deleted so I was mistaken on that front. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I think the fact that this is the third nomination, it is clear that this writer is not notable enough to qualify per WP:GNG. There's no sources given, save for a few external links, but one of them is an official site, two of them are catalouges for his books, and the fourth external link is a 404. Had this article been made after March 2010 this article would have been quickly deleted long ago under WP:BLPPROD. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Andrew Andersen[edit]

Andrew Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew Andersen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable person. Jaqeli 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Do NOT delete: I am 100% sure that Andrew Andersen MUST be on Wikipedia simply because he is one of those who enlightens this still dark world filled ignorance and insinuations. I think it is more than enough that almost all western on-line services and media are filled with Russian and pro-Russian propaganda poisoning the world with lies and twisting reality! WHat I have just said is already being confirmed by may intellectuals in the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, Malaisia... Now here somebody wants to silence down one more voice of truth? I am sorry but maybe those who want this article to be deleted are on Putin's payroll? Then let them create their own Putinist, and Kremlinist online encyclopedia and fill it with fake articles written by those who are already under quite fair sanctions imposed by the free world! All those good f riends of Putin - aggresors and invaders who are n ow destroying peaceful Ukrainian towns and shoot down passenger airplanes.


An article about Andrew Andersen MUST be on Wikipedia. Otherwise this encyclopedia can be viewed as prejudiced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergmann M (talkcontribs) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Do not delete! I wonder what are the criteria of "non-notability" here? That person is a well-known academic who wrote a number of books and articles published, not to mention that Wikipedia is litterally filled with his unique historical maps of the Caucasus. See absolutely no reason to delete this page. Wikipedia has pages devoted to way less "notable" persons that are not deleted. Alexanderkurov 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Alexanderkurov (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Alexanderkurov, the criteria is here: WP:N and here: WP:ACADEMIC. Please also read arguments to avoid. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment? Teimuraz Toumanishvili /GCSSI/: Probably some gentlemen, too used to delete all .. We delete and destroy the works and informations about each other and each other's works. Encyclopedia (including electronic) exists for the full replenishment of information baggage (we like it or not) and not to create a gap, - this is its (Encyclopedia) deeper meaning. Delete information the easiest. But that does not prove anything and does no credit honor to anyone. Such a step may be regarded (and probably will) as a clear weakness of the one who achieves this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.74.82.225 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet wp:academics or wp:GNG. The books listed as published by "Asteroid Publishing" cannot be found in Amazon or in libraries. One of the books only is listed on the publisher's page. The book "Abkhazia and Sochi: the Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921" is listed on Amazon as being self-published via CreateSpace. None of the articles appear to be in major journals. The majority are articles in newspapers, but that only attests to his being sometimes a journalist (e.g. "Mājas Viesis"). Nothing here elevates the subject to notability. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't delete it! Andrew Andersen is a well known specialist in the subjects he writes about. There is probably some personal or even corporate motivation from Mr. Jaqeli part to delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.214.106 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not delete! It is difficult to understand why there is an effort to delete this article on Doctor Andersen. Importantly, as an author and historian he concentrates on issues that are not very extensively covered in history works, yet. To put it mildly, that is. History of the Caucasus deserves to be told, and really too few historians make an effort to do so. Andrew Andersen is one of them. He has completed important works on the subject and is in the process of completing more. It is clear that he deserves an article here. Pirveli (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Pirveli, none of what you mention is a proper rationale for inclusion. Please read WP:N and WP:ACADEMIC for notability requirements.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a great deal of editors with few edits appearing here, all using "comment" with a question mark, and a few using similar language patterns. I would like to remind editors coming here that there are notability requirements for Wikipedia and an article needs to conform to those. Please also see arguments to avoid as there are some clear indicators that some editors are not familiar with this process. Also, please to not attack the nominator and please assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • not to delete In my opinion, Dr. Andersen's work is very important. He studies geopolitical conflicts and wars general public (and many academics and policy experts as well) is not familiar with. Frequently, the subject of his studies is very politicized and heavily influenced by propaganda from the conflicting sides in mass media. Sorting out and overcoming the mountains of propaganda and bias surrounding historical events in Transcaucasia is a Herculean task. Any future researcher on the subject would be wise to consult Dr. Andersen (even if to disagree with his conclusions). And this is exactly the reason to keep this article in the Wiki: to inform people interested in Transcaucasia about the very existence of Dr. Anderson, so they could benefit from his expertise. Before you decide to delete the article about Dr. Andersen, I dare you to name 3 researchers, who truly contributed more than him in the subject, and are less biased.Ikhulor (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ikhulor (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Notability on Wikipedia is defined by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, and not by unverified assertions that the guy's research is important in its field. If his work is really as important and influential as you claim, then it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources which verify that fact — but he doesn't get to keep an article just because you say he's important, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And why exactly is Revue historique des armées is not a good reliable source? It is "a quarterly academic journal and is the historical review of the French Defence ministry, as well as the communications vector of the Service historique de la Défense (SHD). Founded in 1945, it won prizes from the Académie française in 1954"... Can you explain why Wiki should contain an article on Drena De Niro, and not on Dr. Andersen? Why exactly a few roles in mostly 3rd rate movies are more important than the excellent review of the sovietization of Georgia? Because you said so? HAve you heard the story of Évariste Galois?Ikhulor (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Revue historique des armées seems to be a journal that published something Mr. Anderson wrote. What is required for notability on Wikipedia is that a reliable source publish something about Mr. Anderson. No one has yet shown that anyone has published anything about him rather than simply by him. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the Article! I do believe that an article in the reputable journal is reviewed by the editors and peers, and that constitutes the implied endorsement of the author as a notable figure. If it's not enough, then there is citation index - if other researchers cite your work - it's notable. The criteria that "somebody" has to wright "something" about the researcher to make him/her notable - are utter nonsense. How many times did even NY Times and Oprah endorse something that was completely bogus? The existing rule only appears reasonable, but in some cases (like this one) make notability criteria extremely subjective and can be used for manipulation and suppression of information. How many times have we observed recently the attempts to distort the information by the "independent" media? The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research.Ikhulor (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • While there's a possibility here that he might qualify for a Wikipedia article, this — completely unsourced, and tonally dancing right on the edge of a public relations advertisement — is not that article. The mere fact that a person exists does not give him a notability freebie; it's reliable sourcing or bust. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be properly written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again Revue historique des armées is a reliable source, fully fitting Wiki definition. Sometimes a few pages in the reputable journal are more important that the tons of garbage produced by propaganda machines (like it was in USSR, like it is in Russia now)Ikhulor (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WHy deleting?With all good faith and respect, the arguments by edotor LaMona seem to be both unfounded and maybe even prejudiced:
  1. The books listed as published by "Asteroid Publishing" can be found in Amazon or in libraries simply because they are sold through Amazon and are in a major libraries.
  2. The book "Abkhazia and Sochi: the Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921" was published by Asteroid as well.
  3. The articles of the person inquestion have been published in various journals including the major ones. E.g., la Revue historique des armées

In fact, it seems to me that this discussion itself is an indirect proof of the person's "notability" :) providing that there are thousands of way less "notable" persons included in Wikipedia and nobody bothers to delete them.
I am also surprised that editor Bearcat found the entry "unsourced". One should simply check the links to find out that it is "quite sourced" comment added by Baltvilks (talkBaltvilks (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment::It would be "quite sourced" where, exactly? There's not a single reference to a reliable source anywhere in the entire article — all it's got is a list of offsite external links to primary source profiles (e.g. his books' sales pages on Amazon and his staff profiles on the websites of organizations or institutions that he's directly involved with), which isn't even remotely the same thing as reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And are the links to his books sold on Amazon not reliable sources? Sorry, I do not get it. Baltvilks (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source is when a media outlet with which he is not affiliated gives him coverage. It cannot be met by his staff profile on the website of his own employer (if it could, we'd have to keep an article about almost every single person on the planet who has any job at all), or by a commercial/PR blurb on a product sales website (a writer does not, for example, get into Wikipedia just because their books are available on Amazon, nor does a band get into Wikipedia just because they have an album on iTunes, if independent sources haven't given them coverage.) Our notability and sourcing rules can be met only by newspaper or magazine articles about him, books (or book chapters) which are at least partially about him, and on and so forth: independent media applying independent editorial judgement in its decision to give him coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But it does not make any sense whatsoever! Publishing a few books and articles in reputable journals, having the research cited by others means less than an "independent" review in the "independent" media? What purpose does this approach serve? In my opinion, it helps to advance somebody's agenda masked by "independent" nature of the media.Ikhulor (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's inclusion rules are governed by the principle that we need to prevent this site from devolving into nothing more than a public relations database. If we didn't base our notability rules on reliable source coverage, then every person who exists at all would be able to demand that we keep a promotionally-toned repost of their own résumés, and then we'd just be LinkedIn and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with the existing notability rules are that they (rules) appoint a journalist/editor, whose motives for reviewing/not reviewing something are not transparent and may be heavily influenced by outsiders, as an ultimate arbiter of notability. If you had a threshold for researchers based on citation index, I would not have any problems. But "media judgement". Gimme a break.Ikhulor (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sorry, but that's just tough beans then. The rules are what they are, and they're not changing just because you don't like them. I sure hope you didn't think that "but my pet topic is special, and should be given a special exemption from the standard rules that apply to everybody else" was some kind of new and compelling argument that we've never seen around here before — because trust me, it's not. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The existence of the rules or laws does not make them right. Otherwise, slavery still would be legal in some parts, and gay couples would be lawfully discriminated. If nobody has pointed before that the existing rules are nonsense, that does not make the existing rules right either. I'd like to do what's right, but it seems to me you just want to defend the existing rules. Tough beans, indeed Ikhulor (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's rules are not discriminating against anybody, so slavery and LGBT rights have no validity as a metaphor for what's going on here. It's reliable source coverage or bust, for everybody, period. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wiki rules in the form they are now are discriminatory against independent researchers, whose topic of research are ignored or supressed by "independent" media and academia as they defined in Wiki rules. The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research. Don't you see that under YOUR rules Dr. Andersen is treated differently? IT IS PURE DISCRIMINATION.Ikhulor (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not only do our rules explicitly deprecate sources of the type you're claiming we allow, they actaully explicitly permit and in fact give strong preference to many, many sources — academic and political science and literary and diplomatic journals, serious magazines and newspapers like The Economist or Le Monde, and on and so forth — of the type that would be reasonably expected to cover a notable writer of political science and diplomacy books. Just one good article in a source of that class, in fact, would count for as much toward getting him over GNG as five articles in some "lesser" publications. So if Andrew Andersen doesn't have the coverage needed to reference the article properly, then whatever that fact reveals it most certainly isn't that there's anything wrong with our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, then explain me why Drena De Niro should be a part of WIKI? Based on what qualifications? If there are fair criteria for inclusion of Ms. De Niro and exclusion of Dr. Andersen, I will gladly support the deletion of the contested article.Ikhulor (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a competition. The fact that somebody else has an article has no bearing on whether Andrew Andersen qualifies for one or not — especially when you're trying to set up an apples and oranges comparison between a political scientist and an actress, because the reasons why either of them might or might not qualify for a Wikipedia article have nothing to do with each other. It doesn't matter, for our purposes, whether anybody likes or dislikes the reasons why a person might qualify for a Wikipedia article. Either reliable source coverage exists or it doesn't — if it does, they can get in here for playing tiddlywinks, and if it doesn't, they could actually be the Jewish messiah for all the difference that claim would make in the absence of reliable source verification. But the fact that some other completely unrelated article about some other completely unrelated person in some other completely unrelated field of human endeavour has an article, whether she should or not, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Andrew Andersen has the necessary level of reliable source coverage or not. Kindly also read our WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule if you need additional clarification. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You just confirmed my point: WIKI created a tilted field, favoring the certain groups of people. In my opinion, it amounts to discrimination. If you follow the letter of your law - it appears that deleting Dr. Anderson article is legit, but it will be based on the discriminatory rule nevertheless. Actually, I quite enjoyed our little discussion: where else one can get a free in depth lesson on how to create and enforce double standards and discriminatory rules? IKHULOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.135.156 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Favouring" people who have been covered in reliable sources which properly verify the accuracy of the information in our article, over people who have not been covered in reliable sources and are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for commercial promotion of their work, does not constitute "discrimination". It constitutes being an encyclopedia. It's not our role to make subjective judgements about who should be more important or famous than who else; our job and mandate is to reflect and summarize media coverage that already exists. No matter how unjustified you may think a person's lack of media coverage is, it is not our role to help create a media profile for them by hosting unsourced promotional profiles, because we are not a public relations database. If the media coverage needed to support an article on here does not already exist, then that simply isn't our problem. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • But of course your approach make WIKI a public relation database: scored a point for media coverage - Got an article, no matter how insignificant the coverage is. Just look at Ms. De Niro sources:))) It is much easier for an entertainer to get this sort of coverage, thus, researchers are discriminated by your policy, because it' much harder for them to meet your criteriaIkhulor (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the existence of media coverage is what prevents this from being a public relations database, because independent coverage which verifies the factual content of the article is the thing that prevents a person from simply being able to make stuff up (which plenty of people have tried, believe me), or to claim an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist. And no, researchers aren't "discriminated" against by our policy, because there are plenty of very solid sources out there which do cover political scientists and diplomatic affairs writers and such. The world does not lack for academic journals and diplomatic affairs magazines and serious intellectual newspapers and high-end newsmagazines and documentary films that cover writers of academic literature — there are thousands upon thousands of excellent sources out there covering academic writers and researchers.
    It's not an under-covered occupation which lacks for adequate sourcing as a matter of course; exactly like any other occupation, some people do have the necessary degree of source coverage and some don't. But that doesn't constitute discrimination against the occupation — many actors and actresses don't have the necessary level of coverage to get articles on here either, and many writers of political science books do have the necessary level of coverage. Neither occupation has any systemic advantage or disadvantage in the "getting into Wikipedia" sweepstakes compared to the other one, because neither occupation inherently lacks for coverage — but both occupations have some practitioners who get enough coverage to clear the bar and some practitioners who don't. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, you claims about fair rules, not offering any advantages to any groups of people for WIKI entry, are absolutely unsubstantiated and unverifiable. I offer you concrete example (Ms. Drena De Niro) and can find dozens if not hundreds more, you keep feeding the discussion with unproved "rebuttals". You got any factual counterarguments - I am willing to listen. Your claim that the researchers in obscure fields have thousands upon thousands of sources to cover them is laughable. Are you offering me to take your word on it or asking me to prove the negative? In both cases, it's a major blunder against common sense and rules of logic. Ikhulor (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, a source appeared in the disputed article. "Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli". IndraStra Global. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Is it a solid source or not? Ikhulor (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:Academic or WP:GNG. Reliable sources refers to articles about the subject - a publication by the subject in a journal (not matter how notable that journal is) does not confer notability. Claims of prejudice without any attempt to address the underlying notability issues does not impress.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If we follow this kind of logic, any episodic role in the 3rd rate Hollywood movie if mentioned in mass media confers notabilty. Drena de Niro obviously deserves a Wiki article, Dr. Andersen dose not. Smells of prejudice to me, given touchy subject of Dr. Andersen research.Ikhulor (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Dr. Andersen works were cited by many scholars in their articles: easily verifiable through Google scholar search.Ikhulor (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete What's with the coat of arms? This is the 21st century, not the 17th. The article does not cite any sources, even if some publications are listed. Are there any reliable sources about Andersen? It also needs help in basic grammar. Curiocurio 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why deleting?Wow!!! "Delete for having the coat of arms"?! :) :) :) My dear friend, coats of arms belong to our European culture, just like kimonos belong to the Japanese culture, etc.! Today, in the 21st century, people are still applying for coats of arms to be granted to them! Didn't you know that? Too bad... So sad... I am shocked to discover how incompetent are some of us here!

As for the "reliable sources" - feel free to google him. And as for the grammar... what language are you going to offer help with? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talkcontribs) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make every person's individual coat of arms appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the page that I think helps with the grammar issues, but it could still use some improvement Curiocurio 00:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Really??? My dear Bearcat, please do me a massive favor and please-please-please enlighten me whether there are any rules on Wikipedia about whose arms are appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia?? :) :) :) Baltvilks (talkBaltvilks (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Royalty. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Do not delete! What a mess! You guys fighting for the closure of this site are funny, do you know that? Do you know that Wiki contains thousands of pages about way less notable persons than that guy?! And nobody cares about launching closure campaigns! The fact that this ugly discussion is here has already amply proven that the person is at least worth attention. Also, the clearly biased comments of LL these 'deleters' give a clear impression of double standards. And you know what? I've been a regular financial contributor to Wiki for years, and from now on I will donate no single penny to this resource, NO MATTER whether you delete that little page or not. Hate saying that but I am now disgusted by the whole project. Please accept my apology for being honest here Normannsdottir (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Normannsdottir (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You've been a regular financial contributor for years, yet this comment is your first contribution as an editor, ever? Go ahead and just guess how much I don't believe you. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that dishonest people have problem with believing others. Maybe you do not know, my dear Bearcat, that you do not need to have an account with Wikipedia to contribute financially? Let me add to the above that I was also a regular financial contributor to this on-line "encyclopedia", and I will never give a single dime after having watched what is going on here. Nothing personal. Baltvilks(talk) 18:56, 3) July 2015
And I heard somewhere that people who engage in personal attacks, such as calling other editors "dishonest" without evidence, are at risk of getting editblocked. Thin ice ahead. Skate carefully. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the apparent sock party, we have no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. In particular Google scholar gives at best single-digit citation counts for any relevant publications by Andrew Andersen, nothing found by this Andreas Anderson (hard to tell because there are many pubs by other people with similar names but I looked through all the ones with nonzero citations without finding any), and single digits again for both А Андерсен and Э Андерсен, so he appears not to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As this page is becoming a mess, I think it's important to note that obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is occurring. In addition to similar arguments with similar uses of English being added, Baltvilks has changed other supposedly separate editors' comments to read as ""Do not delete!", changed from "Comment?". Since most of the "keep" comments are from single purpose accounts, there is clearly a campaign at work to flood this page with support. A sockpuppet investigation will need to started. Frankly, given the hostile comments being thrown around, trying to explain Wiki policy and guidelines appears to be futile. freshacconci talk to me 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Not to worry, the SPI is already in progress. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever As this discussions goes nowhere and a few "editors" are clearly biased I am unilaterally quitting this discussion. This small group of "experts" can delete whatever they wish. I am out of here. Cheers. comment added by Baltvilks (talk Baltvilks (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/leaning delete I am not sure I know which way to go here. I am just wondering if being "a national fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies of the University of Calgary" as stated on [1], which I am not sure is reliable enough to use, would fulfill the named endowed chair academic requirement. My gut feeling is that it would not, but I think that is the only angle that is likely to get him to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Possibly merely WP:TOOSOON, and I admit that I did not read the shouting going on above. What I did do was to search for his books, his name, even searched for him in smallwarsjournal.com, where a guy like this ought to be referenced if he's making much of a splash in this field.[2] He's just not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • why keeping??!? DO NOT KEEP!!!!. We can also play that game. A sock party sounds fun. Le petit fromage (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Apparently it's been upgraded to a meat party now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say "Do not delete!" but that would be useless I'm really enjoying this "intellectual discussion". Thanks to Wikipedia I know now that I am a sock-puppet (kept asking myself: "Who am I?"- now I know). Let me take the liberty in all my good faith to advise the respected "experts" and "professors" to straight-forward and use a simple and convincing argument:"Delete him! He should not be on Wiki because he is an a%%hole!" Alexanderkurov 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Alexanderkurov (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
What makes you a "sockpuppet" is the fact that you have no prior history of contributing to this site, but are a brand new editor who registered specifically because somebody asked you to come help overwhelm the discussion with arguments that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's established policies. That's not what saves an article that's up for deletion — improving the article is what might save it. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Diese Seite darf nicht geschlossen werden! (Do NOT delete!). Ph.D. in Geschichte Andrew Andersen verfasst Texte und Sachbücher, die sich mit bisher noch unbekannten Gebieten unserer Geschichte beschäftigen. Dabei greift Doctor Andersen auf sein umfangreiches Wissen als ausgebildeter Fachhistoriker. Schließlich gilt es zu sagen, dass seine Werke von höchster Qualität sind und dementsprechend sehr interessant sind. WaltherGeo (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC) WaltherGeo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep He was a national doctoral fellow at the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, so he passes #5 and 6 for WP:ACADEMIC. Meeting just one requirement justifies notability. --Steverci (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Serious?? The national Fellow is neither a Chair or the Highest elected position. According to the web site it is one step above postdoc and is not a faculty postition.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Notability rules are not satisfied by asserting that the subject passes them; they're satisfied by reliably sourcing that the subject has gotten coverage for passing them. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: all the talk about sock- and meat-parties is a load of bs. Obviously, everybody starts from the first time, nobody starts from ten edits on a hundred topics. And of course everybody starts from the topic one finds the most important to him/her at this time. Also, one might feel that one is not the expert enough to comment on the content of the article, but anybody can spot a discriminatory rule, preventing an entry from appearing in WIKI. At last, when English is your third or fourth language, one may feel reluctant to edit the body of the article, but confident enough to comment on it.Ikhulor (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation did find that Baltvilks and Normannsdottir were the same person (i.e. sockpuppets). I've struck out their comments, although you should still be able to read them through the strikeouts. [[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 01:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY DAVID EPPSTEIN IS AN EXAMPLE OF PURE LIE.Baltvilks (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Can't argue. This kind of policy is absolutely fair.Ikhulor (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


  • I am not a sock puppet either! I left this discussion a few days ago but was informed by one of the participants personally known to me that someone here claimed that me and Normannsdottir are clones. Not true. The administration has my email, and I hereby volunteer for a phone or Skype session that can unequivocally confirm that I am not a clone. Those who would like to check whether I am a clone or not feel free to call me at 1-250-532-1063. This insinuation one more time confirms the absence of "good faith" and prejudice that dominates this discussion. Those who claimed that we are one person should be ashamed (if they know what that word means, of course).BaltvilksBaltvilks (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


  • That is pure lie! I am NOT a sockpuppet!! Whoever believes that I am a sock puppet please feel free to call my phone at +1 250 5891212 and talk to me. I can also graciously donate 2 minutes of my expensive time for a Skype session where you can see my face. This "investigation" is another example of incompetence and "good faith" of those who started this low-class mess!
    INormannsdottir ([User talk:Normannsdottir|talk]]) 11:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't delete it! Andrew Andersen is a well known scholar of the Caucasus region with numerous scholarly publications on the region. Iberieli (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
And the reliable sources covering him in that context would be...where? Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the raging and utterly unhelpful torrent of arguments in favor of keeping the article, he hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass our notability standards. North of Eden (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • NEWS: "Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli". IndraStra Global. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Is it a reliable source or not?Ikhulor (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ops-s! I have just received the below message from LaMona claiming that I am also a sockpuppet :)

--- LaMona mentioned you on Wikipedia [2:20:17 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: LaMona mentioned you on the Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86 talk page in "Comments by other users". [2:20:32 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marianwolfe86--- And what should I do to prove that I am not a camel? :) I love this comedy! It all amply proves how prejudiced are all those people are. That also means that Andrew Andersen is doing right things. Otherwise this disgusting "discussion" would not take place at all. And, BTW, what is the problem about that article? Does it occupy to much space?

Alexanderkurov — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Henessy[edit]

Henessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Henessy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails GNG & PORNBIO. Scene related awards don't count and she isn't the first if our article on Vicca is to be believed. The two sources don't pass muster. KP is an interview and therefore primary and the other (Lifenews) is an interview of her husband that lacks a byline and therefore appears dubious. Spartaz Humbug! 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - won - AVN Award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. And also - notable, in general. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Won award, meets WP:PORNBIO. removed per Snowsuit Wearer --Savonneux (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - http://www.kp.ru/daily/26341.4/3224253/ - interview, http://www.kp.ru/daily/26335.4/3217938/ - article covering award, http://www.sovsport.ru/gazeta/article-item/793778 - not super classy but coverage --Savonneux (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The daily mail is coverage too but we wouldn't rely on that as coverage for a BLP. KP is a tabloid and very much yellow press. I wouldn't give it more priority then the mail. Sovsport seems very tabloid too (and yes, I did read the sources (as best I can - my Russian is quite rusty) but they are not reliable sources for the GNG in my mind. WP:TABLOID#2 applies. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:TABLOID is about articles or article content that are about an event, as in "wikipedia is not a newspaper." This article is not about an event or an item of news coverage, it's a bio. I was just pointing to them as general notoriety.--Savonneux (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Notoriety is not what we judge a BLP by and I have actually examined the sources and commented about why they are not RS in my opinion. KP is a tabloid and we don't source BLPs from tabloids. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Im not denying that that they're fluff pieces but you seem to have a strange view of what constitutes WP:RS. It's published, it's been around since 1925 and it's used as a source on many other wikipedia articles. Indeed WP:BLP has no specific guidance on secondary sources.--Savonneux (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO since the AVN "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" which she won meets the criterium "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I forgot that I had written this article. This was stupid from me. Also, I don't want to contribute to English Wikipedia.--Waylesange (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per sources given by Savonneux along with [3][4][5][6][7]. I don't disqualify sources simply because they publish in the tabloid format nor if they choose to cover fluffier topics. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Vicca[edit]

Vicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vicca" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails GNG & PORNBIO. The AVN award is scene related in performing in a film that won awards does not confer notability. Other sources all appear primary Spartaz Humbug! 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable: Penthouse Pet, she also modeled for Playboy, won - AVN Award, Hot d'Or and other. Meets of WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and also - notable, in general. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • actually, she has only won a scene award van. The other awards are films she performed in that were added to puff out her article.Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, as she won the 1997 AVN Award for "Best Solo Sex Scene" (which is an individual award) and was a penthouse pet she passes WP:PORN. Plus she seems to have a parallel career in mainstream B movies. -- fdewaele, 29 July 2015, 11:22 CET.
  • 1) awards are not a criteria that satisfies WP:PORNBIO, as it plainly says at that link; rubbing one out by oneself is still la "scene". 2) Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable, they must still pass WP:N. 3) As for the parallel career in mainstream B movies, what in this rich filmography qualifies, exactly? Once we weed out the "Sodomania Slop Shots 3", "Cumback Pussy 2 " and so on, then we're left with Secret Agent 420, where "Ivanka" is billed in the "rest of cast listed alphabetically" section. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "Best Solo Sex Scene" award win is scene-related and does not count for passing WP:PORNBIO. Being a Penthouse Pet does not establish notability either. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Brief mentions in Adult Video News are not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as Gene93k said. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Scene awards are explicitly excluded from WP:PORNBIO. Subject's "movie career", such as it is, consists of all porn, softcore, and bit parts in 1-2 quasi-legit films. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Novorossia ruble[edit]

Novorossia ruble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Novorossia ruble" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

There is no any verifiable sources. Also the article looks like failing WP:CRYSTALBALL Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 18:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note There is a new note at the article talk page, which also clearly shows conflict of interest. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 08:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect article To Novorossiya's economic's page or subsection. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Donetsk People's Republic per Colapeninsula, this article may have a future, but it's too early to tell. It would probably do best to be a part of the country's article until more sources appear. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: Cola said to delete, I said to merge. You did mean merge, correct? МандичкаYO 😜 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Daß Wölf (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War II (Ice Hockey)

Russia Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Russia deletion review[edit]

Shortcuts:


Science[edit]

Vinod chohan[edit]

Vinod chohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vinod chohan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article copied from Draft space before being accepted. No suitable references and the only indication of notability is that he did his job (no serious accolades or academic positions), which is really more of a MILL situation. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I believe the article is relevant to the categories it belongs to. I am still working on it, so content and citation addition will soon be completed. I am more than happy to help with its improvement, but I think a deletion is too much. Just let me know what else to do. Thank you. Ellipapa (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University[edit]

ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ARO, the scientific journal of Koya University" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wilderness engineering[edit]

Wilderness engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Wilderness engineering" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Appears to be a made up term verging on WP:NEO and self promotion. Can't find much about this on the web appears to beyond what the author has created - most of the 221 Google hits are for a company with the same name. Maybe redirecting to Rewilding would be appropriate. reddogsix (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - What you fail to address is the article lacks support and notability. Additionally, the article is self promotion for the author. reddogsix (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bhusana Premanode[edit]

Bhusana Premanode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bhusana Premanode" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. No indication that his research has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No depth of coverage in the listed sources. Passing mention isn't sufficient to establish notability. And obvious WP:AUTOBIO by the article creator. --Drm310 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Two PhDs is unusual. The normal course after a doctorate would be a post-doc fellowship, rather than a visiting professorship. Having one patent and writing a couple of theses is not enough for notability. However, the article also has a tag as an unsourced biography. My reaction is to let that process take its course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

1943 Skwentna earthquake[edit]

1943 Skwentna earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1943 Skwentna earthquake" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This one cannot be expanded into a meaningful, comprehensive, and encyclopedic article. The event's effects were minimal (intensity V) and don't align with articles that we keep and expand. This event was not studied (probably due to World War II and lack of damage/injuries). Dawnseeker2000 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – We don't keep articles about earthquakes where the only effects are "moved doors" and "rattled windows" (regardless of magnitude). The intensity on this one speaks volumes. It was a maximum of V (Moderate) on the Mercalli intensity scale. Unimpressive. There are also no scientific articles dedicated to it. World War II was taking place so I think that may have had some impact with the lack of write-ups on this event. If there were aspects of the event that seismologists wrote about, then yes, we would consider using their reports as sources for adding detail, but keeping this kind of article around in its current condition is a disservice to our readers. They don't want to click a link only to find that there's nothing known about this M7.4 shock except the minimal effects. I don't recommend redirecting either. This event does not qualify to be on our list articles because it's just not notable. I can tell you that there has been great effort (by non-WikiProject Earthquakes editors) put into our list articles, with entries for every ~M6 and above event that's known about (just like this one) but in the long run those list articles are going to be pared down (heavily) to include only notable events. Dawnseeker2000 21:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Exploration of the Sun[edit]

Exploration of the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Exploration of the Sun" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Without sources, this is simply an essay. ubiquity (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sun#Solar space missions covers this topic already, and does it much better too. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment these two topics are not equivalents though. Exploration of the Sun does not necessarily require spacecraft. We can and do explore the Sun with telescopes (usually optical and radio). -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopediac essay covering information better presented elsewhere. 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talkcontribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions. 2602:306:3653:8A10:B5C0:69FE:7856:8D8D (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this subject is notable and follows the naming convention of other astronomy articles on Wikipedia. E.g. Exploration of Mars, Exploration of Pluto, Exploration of Jupiter, Exploration of the Moon, etc. This article was recently created on July 29, 2015, so it has not had time to be properly written. Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions if the decision is to delete the article. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- unsourced, essayish article about a subject that's already covered properly elsewhere. Reyk YO! 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect nothing much more to add than the previous comments, though redirection is a good idea until the subsection in the Sun article can be properly forked. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the Sun without pointing to any particular section, since exploration is not the same as space missions, you can explore the Sun without any spacecraft at all. The redirect can be later converted into another article, per the examples of exploration articles of other Solar System bodies, if we have enough material to build such an article (or someone drafts a much larger article than what currently is sitting at this name) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions but please come back and write a better version of this article. If it is created again, it should be allowed time to develop.
This seems to be the editor's first article, so don't bite the newbies applies here.(My first article 9 years ago was distinctly essayish, and unsourced, yet it is still here as it was improved by others. I like to think that my contributions have improved since then.) Verifiability is required, but sources are often not required.
The article is a natural companion of the members of {{Planetary exploration}} (which, despite its name, is a template about solar system exploration). It makes one important point, which is enough to expect of a beginner: that observation by instruments in Earth's orbit of the Sun complements observation from other trajectories in a way that makes the concept of 'exploration' difficult to cover well. Though a subject is difficult to explain, it shouldn't stop Wikipedians trying.
I disagree with 67.70.32.190 that observation without a space mission counts as 'exploration': by distinction it is 'solar astronomy', which is a wider topic than 'solar exploration'.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dave Butcher[edit]

Dave Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dave Butcher" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Subject does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. Page created and majority of edits made by SPA/one-off editor with no other contributions. Formatting and content is poor/unencyclopaedic, too much irrelevant and unreferenced info and feels like a vanity page. Rayman60 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think FRSC is selective enough to count for WP:PROF#C3 (it appears to be open to anyone with five years' working experience and two friends to vouch for them, rather than being limited to a small percentage of membership as most highly selective "fellow" statuses are). His photography books don't seem to have attracted any independent reviews that would help him pass WP:CREATIVE. And I don't see anything else in the article that could indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Unless his patents for holograms are key ones in the field, I see nothing notable in the biography, which was apparently largely written by someone who has made no other contributiuon to WP in the 5 years sicne he wrote it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Colin Keay[edit]

Colin Keay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Colin Keay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non notable. No evidence he passes WP:PROF. His claim to maps of Jupiter is based on his own web page only, and would need evaluation by some third party source. Such work would be expected to be very highly cited, but I don't see that in Google Scholar, which shows his highest citations to be 62 and 42, on acoustics of meteors. h=7, which is below the standard in any subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fringe subjects need better mainstream sourcing than this one has (solely a letter to the editor?) in order to provide a neutral viewpoint on this subject. In addition the sources presented in the article aren't enough for WP:GNG, and he doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the author of this page, I agree that in hindsight, the subject of this page is not sufficiently notable. --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

List of semiaquatic organisms[edit]

List of semiaquatic organisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of semiaquatic organisms" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This page mostly serves as the target of a redirect from Semiaquatic and Semi-aquatic. There is no clear criteria for inclusion in the list and if there were to be a list of creatures who meet the Wiktionary definition for semi-aquatic, it would be exceedingly long and unhelpful. I propose that the links above be changed to a {{soft redirect}} to the Wiktionary definition and the few links directly to this page changed to that soft redirect.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete List is woefully incomplete, and the concept of "semiaquatic organisms" has fuzzy boundaries. Dictionary definition will serve readers better than a shoddy list. Plantdrew (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, any list is better than none for someone searching for semi-aquatic organisms. Siuenti (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Some consideration should be given to restricting the list to a more manageable taxonomic category, such as "List of semiaquatic vertebrates" or "List of semiaquatic mammals". WolfmanSF (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that Aquatic animal and Terrestrial animal are both article subjects, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an article on semiaquatic lifestyles is also merited. Perhaps this would be better handled by an article with more description, rather than simply a list of examples. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and start article Semiaquatic and/or Semiaquatic animal and Semiaquatic plant) so that the concept is explained. Any list could include millions of species, potentially.Borock (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Your logic is "there are a lot of these things, so we won't help you find any of them"? Siuenti (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NOCH[edit]

NOCH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "NOCH" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable, no secondary sources exist (as far as I could find). Did not submit for speedy deletion since there are multiple editors that have touched it. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fernando Pérez (software developer)[edit]

Fernando Pérez (software developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fernando Pérez (software developer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Sources either are directly related to the subject or only mention him in passing. The only article that directly deals with him is the Infoworld article, but that's basically a interview transcript. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Free Software Foundation Announcement is the most relevant article establishing notability of the subject. Until the addition of the page being discussed, the subject was the only historical recipient of the Free Software Award who did not already have a Wikipedia page. In light of this article and the additional secondary sources included, I feel the subject has been shown to meet the WP:NRVE and WP:GNG criteria. Jakevdp (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's always surprising how poorly Wikipedia deals with "notability" issues related to open-source software. The arguments for deletion always seem to relate to lack of "independent" sources and never seem to have much familiarity with how these communities work. Pérez works in academia and develops software widely used there; I think it makes more sense to think in the spirit of WP:PROF. What matters is that his work is widely discussed and highly influential - multiple features in Nature, even! - not that the articles aren't specifically about his life or that they contain interview material. Being worth interviewing is a sign of notability, after all. The Free Software Award really ought to clinch it. But I dunno, I use IPython literally every day and am arguably not "neutral" with regard to scientific computation (that is, I actually know something about it). Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Berkeley source is in-depth, yes he is part of the institution but they are an organization who can be relied upon to not print fluff. Also here's a Colombian article from his early student days when he won a national award, El Tiempo is the newspaper of reference in Colombia. Vrac (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
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. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnson K. Gao[edit]

Johnson K. Gao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Johnson K. Gao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This was proposed for deletion (PRODded) by User:AndyTheGrump with rationale "Abysmal auto-hagiography. If an article is justified for this individual, it needs to be written from, scratch, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as proper encyclopaedic content. There is nothing here worth saving." It was deprodded earlier today by its main author, User:Jkxgao. I think the prod rationale was spot on - if there's any notability here WP:TNT applies. Michig (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've tried asking the author/subject to provide references to demonstrate notability according to our criteria, but had no sensible reply. The only real claim to notability is as an academic, and I haven't been able to locate anything which suggests that he meets the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. It is possible that he meets it, but the article entirely fails to provide anything to demonstrate this amongst all the invalid Wikipedia citations, links to Amazon, Scribe, YouTube etc. This isn't the first AfD either - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Gao which likewise closed as delete as lacking evidence of notability. If someone ever locates evidence that Gao does meet our notability criteria, an article would need writing from scratch, by an uninvolved contributor who understands Wikipedia policy, and what the purpose of an encyclopaedic biography is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I've worked on the article but needs more time to clean up.Sofiamar (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia notability policy - making a few trivial edits to an article does nothing to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: Sofiamar has been blocked as a sockpuppet created to !vote in an unrelated AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh God I read all of it. Ladies and gents, we are here to ascertain the subject's notability. I can understand someone writing a stub on someone marginally notable. However, I cannot imagine anyone writing a long in-depth piece unless (1) the person is really very notable or (2) they are so stuck up their own backsides that they think themselves important to be in an encyclopedia and that they are the only suitable author. Given the claims made about the subject are transparently hollow, I assume it is the latter. I really hope China isn't following India in terms of producing people who will pen their autobiography, using flowery hagriographic prose that would get them thrown out of a introductory creative writing class for being nearly unreadable. So Delete please. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete I can't believe you read it all! Bravo! It is very hard to figure out if this person meets WP:ACADEMICS due to the problems in the article, but I'm not seeing evidence of academic notability. It's a shame to remove this article based on all of the work that went into it. However, it has a serious number of problems. First, it uses WP in references, which is not appropriate. All other references are to the subject's own articles. Then, it goes way beyond the topic at hand with information about the person's interest in music, etc., which don't apply to notability as a scientist. I don't see any third-party references, but if we're looking at this with academic notability in mind that is not the key problem. However, I don't see anything here that would lead to notability as an academic, either. Also, note that the creator of the article is JKGAO. sigh LaMona (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's so much puffery here that it makes it very difficult to find any actual notability. At best it's a case for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the name of the editor who created the article it looks like it is an autobiography. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that we can take that as read: though the fact that a caption to a photograph in the article (now removed) stated that was taken "in front of our house" would appear to be the clincher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Land cover of Nepal[edit]

Land cover of Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Land cover of Nepal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Redirect to Geography of Nepal#Land cover - identical content Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete this doesn't seem like a standalone encyclopedia entry and should be merged with other content, Nepal? Much of the content is plagarised from [9].--Lucas559 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Celestial Patrol[edit]

Celestial Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Celestial Patrol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Looks like a promotional article, so I considered speedying, but the foreign language sources gave me pause for thought. However, they seem only to be evidencing elements that don't build notability claims for this website. Dweller (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Antares Astronomical Observatory[edit]

Antares Astronomical Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Antares Astronomical Observatory" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The observatory exists, but I cannot find anything to denote its notability or significance. A small-time observatory by a small-time university. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions[edit]

List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of ornithologists and their proper name contributions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

First, this is arguably of interest to some people (just as a list of things owned by Elvis is of interest to some people), but essentially trivia and difficult to ever complete, and fails WP:LISTN. All taxonomists name taxa, and this seems like simply trivial detail for the sake of listing: while individual biographies may list taxa named, I don't think "scientists and the taxa they've named" is commonly discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are thousands of ornithologists in history and over 10,000 named bird species (not to mention countless subspecies, taxonomic synonyms, genus names, and other named ranks). --Animalparty! (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This info should be on the individuals' pages, and I don't see much point in reproducing it in lots of little tables here. If this page was converted into a list of ornithologists who have named taxa, with links to their articles, that might merit a keep (although is that information elsewhere?). I'm reluctant to argue delete if there's a reasonable possibility of transforming the page into something useful (WP:AfD says a page shouldn't even be nominated if that possibility exists). But as it stands, there's only the germ of an useful page here. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Irish Skeptics Society[edit]

Irish Skeptics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Irish Skeptics Society" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Has received independent coverage in independent sources:

Autarch (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    • None of those sources writes about the Irish Skeptics Society. They just let somebody from the Irish Skeptics Society tell his story. The Banner talk 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That you did not spot the false link, shows that you did not even bother to read the sources, The Banner. Kraxler (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I love the fact that you immediately assume bad faith instead of assuming that I perhaps had looked at the sources given in the article. The Banner talk 00:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to presume anything that is proven. The above intended, and now below correctly given, link is not in the article. You didn't bother to read any additional evidence, especially presented here at the AfD discussion. That's a fact. Not a presumption. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The struck out link was a mistake - it should have been this link: Skeptics alarmed by facile beliefs. It was probably due to a mistake in copying the URL and lack of proofreading on my part. My apologies to all.Autarch (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought that it was a mistake, and striking it was intended to call your attention to it. Thanks for adding the correct link. It is probably the most in-depth peice on the society, by the way, and goes a long way towards establishing notability. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Does not have a lot of great coverage out there but has enough to fly for now. Added 2 of the above refs to the article in a quick way. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Empathy in chickens[edit]

Empathy in chickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Empathy in chickens" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

There's no cohesive article here. The vast majority of it isn't about the topic purported by the article's title, "Empathy in chickens". Breaking it down:

  • "The ability of chickens to experience and share empathy is recognized; empathy is not a uniquely human trait. This ability is a form of emotional intelligence and is demonstrated in a hen’s apparent signs of anxiety when they observed their chicks in distressful situations; they have been said to “feel their chicks’ pain” and to “be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another.” OK, though it's kind of trivial that in many species mothers protect their young, hardly worth an encyclopedia article for just one species where that's true.
  • "Hens have been observed to play; they are considered smart and emotional." This isn't about empathy.
  • "Chickens have the capacity to form “close friendships.”" This is about friendship, not empathy.
  • "A hen is keenly aware of the courting behavior of a rooster, and responds to his vocalizing." This is about mating rituals, not empathy.
  • Then there's an entire quotation that's about chickens being intelligent, having fun, being capable of facial recognition, and having the faculty of object permanence, not about them being empathetic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into emotion in animals as a broad treatment seems the best place to start. Splitting to particular species and types of emotion can then happen in due course when appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the author of this article I was surprised to see some of the content that has been added since my last edit. I'm not really understanding some of what is written at this point and will need to go back and try to evaluate the sources.
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More comment - I have added a few more sources. I thought newspaper articles were considered reliable secondary sources showing that the topic of the article was notable.
  Bfpage |leave a message  11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into emotion in animals or chicken. I don't see the need for this, and I'm normally the one defending small obscure articles. Really, 'chickens understand mating behavior and can make friends' doesn't need its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talkedits) 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

VP (nerve agent)[edit]

VP (nerve agent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "VP (nerve agent)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

A search of SciFinder turns up only one report of this chemical compund in the scientific and patent literature. This is the most comprehensive chemical database in existence, and if this is the only hit that turns up, then there is nothing else publicly reported about it. The one hit is US patent 3903098 in which this chemical is just one of many related chemical compounds reported. There is nothing special about it. As the article itself says, "Little is known about it other than its chemical formula." Per WP:N (all chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia) and WP:V, this article should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep "Little is known about it" is a problem for us, but I don't think it's insurmountable. It's a V agent, with a recognised member name as VP. That is notable. Can we source this to meet WP:V, whilst still limited to the public sources? Well it's in the rubber-suit bible, which is probably the most authoritative public source for such things. I think this is thin, but given the domain, it's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to CB military symbol. Covered sufficiently there, and not much sourcing or other information to be found about it. Having a stand alone article doesn't really add any information. I'd suggest redirecting it to Nerve agent, but it's not covered there, it is covered at CB military symbol.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to CB military symbol#Nerve AgentsDoes not appear anywhere else than in a reliable database, and there is little information about it. Not enough for an article, enough to mention it somewhere in a list or something like that.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nerve_agent#V-series. Like others have said, I could not find any extra information beyond that which is already in the stub. "CB military symbol" seems to be more like a list article. It does not mention that VP is related to VX. (I am prepared to accept that the reference Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents supports the statement about the relationship.) I don't think that information about this relationship should be added to the "CB military symbol" list article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Nerve_agent#V-series per Axl. Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative[edit]

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

primary website down, and project almost unreferenced in literature. no usable information exists and article is vague. Ysangkok (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the program was later absorbed into another one called GNEP, it didn't take me long to find sources about the AFCI version of the program. I've added one to the page. PianoDan (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@PianoDan: according to IFNEC, that program was previously the GNEP. So why not just merge AFCI into IFNEC? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. That said, in this case, I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect. PianoDan (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@PianoDan:. I do not think there are any signs that IFNEC did anything else when using the previous names. We do not have an article for the National Cash Register Corporation, we just have the article on the current company, called NCR Corporation. I also advocate for the redirect. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as per PianoDan. Merge/redirect can be discussed on relevant talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]