Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 October	13 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Townsend

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

Not notable minor league baseball player. Retired due to injuries without reaching the majors or having any real success in the pros. College baseball career alone is not enough for notability and article is unsourced. Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly sourced, but said sources exist. Twice chosen in the top 10 after a stellar college career, he's a pretty high profile bust. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with Muboshgu.--Yankees10 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not a Brien Taylor, but he's notable. Alex (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His college career, arm issues, and sources from major papers dedicated to him push me towards a keep, which is difficult for a minor leaguer to do as we all know. To make it clearer I added some of Muboshgu's sources into the article. Wizardman 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets WP:GNG.I am One of Many (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Score Publishing

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are own refs. Very new company - too soon to have an article here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company is fairly new, but the iBooks Author Certification Program (www.ibooksauthor.guru) has gained enough notoriety to warrant at least a brief explanation of the company on Wikipedia. The description is factual, concise, and purposefully devoid of superlatives or other advertising-type language. I would appreciate some guidance if this is somehow not up to Wikipedia standards - I believe it adds value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWalker101 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly WP:TOOSOON. Work on generating actual third-party independent coverage of the company and its products rather than trying to generate a Wikipedia article and hoping that others take notice. Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. Companies are unlikely to inherit notability from their notable products. That said, you would first need to establish that the iBooks Author Certification Program is a notable product in the first place. That would need a lot more than a couple of references from the company's own site. Again, we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOT NOTABLE: this certainly seems to be much TOOSOON for this new company. Obviously we have a good faith attempt here but without any independent citations, and a search failed to bring up anything significant after excluding confounding signals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Score Publishing's in good company on the Tennessee AfD page - every single one of those other pages are valid and should be kept on Wikipedia, and yet, it appears like none of them will. If this company page is a problem for Wikipedia, then I will delete it this week and end the discussion, which shouldn't be allowed to drag out. What a huge, bizarre waste of time. SWalker101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a laughing matter; Wikipedia relies on verifiable information, and rightly insists that topics can be proven to be notable. We therefore need to check that articles meet these criteria. Very new companies are bound to find this difficult until they have been noticed by the world's media, which takes a little time. Clearly, too, Wikipedia must not allow itself to be used as a publicity engine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is complete nonsense. This has nothing to do with facts being verifiable. It instead has to do with some arbitrary standard of notoriety and whether a company has had a sufficient amount of press or third-party attention paid to it. I don't agree with the standard and I think it is completely bogus. You guys are doing what you think is right, which is fine, but like I said earlier, we're in good company with the other "questionable" Wikipedia pages listed on the Tennessee AfD discussion. I will check back here later in the week and delete the page if there isn't a clearly communicated acceptance to it remaining...nobody needs that. The page can just get re-posted again later, or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Verifiability and General notability guideline. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have now read both of those links in their entirety. There's no question this article is all verifiable - this centers around "general notability." I would make the argument that the Advisory Board, consisting of a global selection of the world's foremost iBooks Author experts, constitutes "reliable sources" needed for a stand-alone article. ("Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.") Please see http://www.iBooksAuthor.guru/board.

Delete per the nomination. The IP address 68.34.202.92 (talk · contribs) and certain registered accounts are using Wikipedia as a platform for self promotion. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stop calling "text I don't think should be on Wikipedia" the same as "self promotion." No one is self-promoting anything as far as we're concerned and failure to allow this information on this company which is producing third-party Apple certification programs would be omitting valuable, verifiable, valid information backed by the Wikipedia-validated "reliable sources" of the group's global Advisory Board (www.iBooksAuthor.guru/board). There is no longer any question about this now that we know the Advisory Board is a permissible third-party source per Wikipedia's own guidelines. As always, if there's a better way to phrase what has been written about the company or its programs within the context of Wikipedia acceptable use, those revisions should be discussed...not whether the content should be deleted, which it clearly shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.202.92 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, no need to !vote twice. Second, there is no consensus that the Advisory Board is a reliable source. You proposed it be considered as much and then unilaterally decided it was a comment later. An internal Advisory Board could not possibly be considered an independent secondary source for a product its company promotes, just as the company itself isn't an independent reliable source for information about its own product. What we need is coverage in independent reliable sources - that would typically be books, magazines, newspapers, academic publications and the like, published by people with no connection to the company or its products. You need to spend time trying to find those rather than continue to argue that which is completely at odds with Wikipedia policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange watching this unfold. I simply read the Wikipedia guidelines and realized the Advisory Board is truly the "reliable source(s)" required to support a standalone article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines. I did not "decide" this, but you're right, this realization did happen after the initial post where I floated this idea upon first thinking of it.

From the Wikipedia guidelines:

Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The implication by Stalwart above is that an Advisory Board is "internal," which is absurd, inherently false, and a bizarre type of circular argument made by someone with an axe to grind. An Advisory Board by definition is an external body that sits outside a company's operation and adds value through objectivity.

By Wikipedia's written guidelines above, each of these Advisory Board members is a "source." It could be debated whether these specific individuals are "reliable," but somehow, that's not what you're arguing. You're instead arguing that the Advisory Board is not a source, which seems in direct contradiction to the link you yourself just posted which contains Wikipedia's outlined specifications on what a source truly is.

You're also not arguing that the Advisory Board might be paid, and therefore, in that way, are biased or somehow not reliable. This isn't the case with these individuals. But you didn't make this argument in the first place.

These individuals are established as the best, foremost experts in iBooks Author IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. No argument has been made here (yet) that that is not the case. Their credentials are indeed verifiable, just like all facts posted about Score Publishing on this page in question.

Each one represents the equivalent of a mountain of objective press, making the case that what this company is doing is worth making available online - not in an advertising or blustery, self-promotional sense, but strictly factual and concise.

No one's trying to circumvent Wikipedia policy or protocol here. Hopefully the time taken to have this earnest debate will be recognized, and some sort of compromise can be reached so we can all move on, get that notice off the top of the company page, and reduce the risk we'll have to have this same, exact discussion at some subsequent point in the future. Thanks.

That wasn't at all the point of my comment. It's external from the company structure but isn't anywhere near independent enough with regard to either the company or the product for it to be considered a reliable source by our standards. Even if it were (and you seemed to have missed this point also) we still require significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y's Guys

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

Non-notable film, clear COI BOVINEBOY2008 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reviews online at all. Can be recreated if reliable sources are eventually located. Could also be redirected to Shane Brolly, but I don't think that's necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) SmileBlueJay97 talk 06:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Paul Emile Diou

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

I just don't find him notable. I don't find him anywhere near the qualification standards under WP:MILPEOPLE. This "Officer of Legion of Honour" doesn't seem like an award either. He was just appointed as an officer to one. Besides, most of the sources in this article are service records, something every soldier has. I've looked into him on Google and it hardly yields any results. The article is indeed informative, but I do not think it substantiates enough significance for a standalone article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have you actually read WP:MILPEOPLE and noticed this chap was a general officer? Given he therefore quite clearly meets criterion #3, how can you possibly say he isn't "anywhere near the qualification standards"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have been high-ranking. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a general he passes WP:MILPEOPLE. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOMINATION: I'm glad I have now heard what the community says. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was a particularly large AFD discussion with thoughtful input from editors on both sides; thanks to all participants for remaining civil and engaging in a fruitful debate of policy. At this time, I find a consensus to keep the article for a few reasons. First, those supporting keeping the article have successfully established that Duncan meets the general notability guideline as per his significant media coverage, both while living and after his death. Consequently, the burden shifts to those supporting other outcomes. I do not find convincing evidence that this is a case of BLP1E, insofar as several editors have aptly quoted the policy, which states, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles." Other commenters suggest redirection or merger, but many of those comments were based on a prior state of this article. Irrespective thereof, editors are reminded that an article's lack of perceived quality should have no bearing whatsoever on a discussion as to whether or not it should be deleted. Overall, there seems to be a consensus, albeit a rough one, to keep the article. Although notability is not temporary, posterity ultimately may deem that the Ebola outbreak in the U.S. or his role thereof are not sufficiently significant as to require a separate article, and at that time, there may be a more appropriate course of action for this article. However, for the time being, I find a consensus in favor of keeping it. Thank you again to all discussants for remaining civil and engaging in a fruitful debate of policy. Go Phightins! 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eric Duncan

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

This is an unnecessary content fork of a person notable only for one event. The content should be merged to 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak, as it basically duplicates that article. If there is eventually too much material for the main article, an article such as Timeline of the infection of Thomas Eric Duncan can be created. Xqxf (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Well, the content is exactly the same as the portion in 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak. Duncan as a person is non-notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also this thread. User:Sy9045 is probably against deletion. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be retained. His activities in Liberia are highly significant, and may best be discussed in an article dedicated to him. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What activities? Contracting Ebola? That's apparently all that this article is describing, as well as all of the media sources about him. His "activities" can be described in the article that this duplicates word-for-word; in fact, 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak is more comprehensive about the subject than this article is. WP:CONTENTFORK doesn't apply at this time, because everything that is notable about him is within, and important to the flow of, the "2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak" article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Monrovia specific issue is: "how plausible is the claim that Duncan did not know that Marthalene Williams died from Ebola?". This requires discussing events in Monrovia. In general, Duncan's significant issues spanned two continents, and do not seem to fit neatly into articles organized around events on only one continent. But that's just my opinion. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. cases article also gives a little context about his contraction of Ebola from Liberia. His ordeal started in Liberia, but mostly happened in the U.S. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is patient zero. He is the first person to contract and die from ebola in the United States. His case is being talked about throughout U.S. hospitals and his story is being reported throughout the world. He is causing a health scare throughout the United States. His article should not be deleted. It's ludicrous that this is even being considered. Bowe Bergdahl has his article from one event. Similarly, the 7/7 attackers each have their own articles from one event. Seung-Hui Cho has his own article from one event. Robert Rayford has his own article because of one event (his case is very similar to Duncan, being the first confirmed person to contract HIV/AIDS in the USA). There are several like those throughout Wikipedia. Why are their cases different from Duncan's? You can change some of the content if you want (Wikpedia editors often duplicate content for similar sections anyway), but Thomas Eric Duncan should have his own page if we are being consistent. Otherwise, we'll have to go on a massive deletion of articles because there are several people with their own pages who are known for one event. Sy9045 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one guy is notable for one event, and his article duplicates the article about the event. Do we have articles about the people who brought Ebola to Spain, or about the medevac cases to the US? No, we don't, because their Ebola diagnoses are duplicated in the articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we have one for the first confirmed AIDS/HIV case in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rayford. Second of all, please read Wikipedia's criteria again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). If we are following wiki guidelines, this article should stay. Third of all, there are several people with their own pages known for one event as I stated above. Wikipedia's criteria does not exclude people notable for one event from having their own pages. Please read its criteria page again because it seem like you haven't. Fourth of all, did you read I wrote above? In addition to the points I've already mentioned, I already responded to the duplicate issue in my previous post.Sy9045 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that the other page has copied content from what I added this morning for Thomas Eric Duncan's page. If you are going to complain about duplicate issues for this page, I expect you to do the same for the other page.Sy9045 (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That further shows that this page is a content fork, and that the information belongs on the main article. Simply because you are adding some information to this page first does not make the main article a duplicate. Xqxf (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The content I added described his background (how he worked as a driver, his old girlfriend, his estranged son, etc). One of the editors took what I added and added it to the main ebola page, which probably doesn't belong there.Sy9045 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abruptly quitting his job prior to travel and the reasons for his trip to the US are relevant to the primary article. Fleeing to Ivory Coast (not Puerto Rico, as it turns out) is minor enough that it can be included as background. Xqxf (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated in notability guidelines WP:1E: 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'. It remains to be seen exactly how the 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak will play out, but I suspect Thomas Eric Duncan will be one of many participants. The complexities of his case (such as possible false statements from hospital officials, possible improper treatment, etc.) are highly significant, interesting, and worthy of attention, warranting a separate article. Krubo (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I came here to say it should obviously be redirected, but Krubo has swayed me. I think it should stay for now. I suspect it will become clear over time that Duncan's case is a minor contribution to the overall narrative, at which point I would support a redirect - but we're not there yet. -Juansmith (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, so if you're not confident he will remain independently notable (taking a long-term view) that is an argument for making it a redirect for now. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per the nominator and Epicgenius, this should be redirected to the main 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak article. Stesmo (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.... tough one. The issues surrounding Duncan's ebola could fit into the Africa/Liberia articles, or the U.S. article, or both. Also, as Krubo notes, the U.S. ebola outbreak is still ongoing, and we don't know how things will go from here (although I suspect Duncan will receive a large amount of attention, as "patient zero" of the U.S. outbreak). Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 10:26, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines, the article should stay. See Krubo's link and text, and also this one, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Duncan is patient zero and has infected one other patient in the USA. He has played a very large role in a very significant event.Sy9045 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. and epicgenius. The person is not notable, the infection is. wrt. Duncan being patient zero, only one other has so far caught Ebola in the US from him. If he had not travelled to the US, he would have died in Liberia, and would not have made a footnote in the news. The story with him is taking Ebola to the US, hence the US Ebola article is the correct target for the redirect. Martin451 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia's guidelines, he is notable. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I don't see anyone on the opposing side refuting these points. Unless you can prove that this event is not highly significant and/or he did not play a large role, this article must stay according to Wikipedia's criteria.Sy9045 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an event that is in the news, but so far it has resulted in one death, another infection, and a bunch of scares (deaths and economic losses far less than something like influenza, which kills 25 - 50k people per year in the US); I would say it is significant, but not "highly significant". The guideline does not say an article must be created, and this current article is a redundant content fork. The only information in the current article that does not duplicate Ebola virus outbreak in the United States is that Duncan grew up in Puerto Rico and fled from war, which is minor background that can go in the main article. This article can always be recreated if there is significant additional information about Duncan that is notable, but not relevant to the primary article. A good example would be Mayinga N'Seka, for whom the type virus for the entire genus Ebolavirus is named, and who has coverage that does not fit in Yambuku#Ebola outbreak. Xqxf (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the headline news story on every major news network for more than the past week, including international news networks like the BBC, as well as being discussed frequently by the White House and hospitals across not only America, but across the world, I would say that qualifies as a significant story. You can remove content if you want or rearrange things to resolve the duplicate issues, but Duncan needs his own page if we are going to be consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. The person he infected is currently the major headline right now across major news networks. Duncan has played an extremely large role in a very significant story.Sy9045 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to "resolve" the duplicate issue would be to transclude the entire article (other than the first sentence and infobox) from Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but we have a better way to do that, which is with a redirect. Should we also have a separate Nina Pham article as another duplicate, since she was the first person to contract Ebola virus within the US? (I will also note that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to both individuals in creating these articles, since Duncan only recently died. In Pham's case, much more is known about her background and more of a case might be made for a separate article.) If the article can be significantly expanded to not be a duplicate, while still being within the BLP policy, then I could see arguments for keeping it. (But I still do not think Duncan has individual notability at this point.) Xqxf (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this anyways (which is really silly), and the article text is now 1.5 sentences plus an infobox. [9] Xqxf (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not the only way; see my !vote below. But while the AfD is running, I can live with it, though it makes it harder for the old article to shrink or the new article to be expanded organically . Again, my view is the content should move to the fork. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it causes some potential problems, but I have no issues if someone wants to un-transclude some of the material and expand/shrink it properly. My concern (and why I keep complaining about duplicates) is that the information was already getting out of sync between articles, which this will prevent for now at least. (Some relevant information was added in the process, too.) Xqxf (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion doesn't cause problems, for now. But if the Ebola case gets out of hand in the U.S., the articles can be split and un-transcluded.– Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - he could count as an index case. I would not mind a redirect, which would save the article's history. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He is a nobody. 178.128.140.0 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unless there is anything about him that is not related to his diagnosis, this page is un-noteworthy. 118.209.169.192 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sy9045. Stanleytux (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage of this deceased individual in numerous secondary sources all over the planet. — Cirt (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THIS PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.54.20 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC) — 124.13.54.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Will allow us to focus the article this is forked from (which is too long) elsewhere. Also, per notability guidelines WP:1E, per Krubo, and Sy9045. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Duncan" has already entered popular vernacular as a synonym for "patient zero".--Froglich (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The information in his article is a duplicate of the US article. He is notable due to transferring the virus to another country - how many individual articles will we have if we call each 'case zero' a notable occurrence? It is likely before this is out there will be other transmissions to the US causing local outbreaks, would they constitute notable case zero articles? The notable fact is the evolving epidemic which is covered in the US article. |→ Spaully ^τ 10:46, 15 October 2014 (GMT)
Note: Wikipedia is not news, which this article is, since it talks about Duncan – who is only notable in the news! Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage as the first Ebola case in the United States. Passes WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being the first person to develop Ebola outside of Africa is being notable, combined with the fact at last two other persons have been infected by him; basically, he is a Patient zero, much like Gaëtan Dugas.--Jean Po (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Maybe in a few months he will seem unimportant, but as of now he might have started a serious epidemic. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been significant secondary coverage of this man, and there will continue to be as the media digs into his past history. The policy WP:BLP1E is not applicable since this man is dead (and I would question a claim that this man is notable for only "one" event). And merges don't belong at AFD, which is what the nominator has said should happen, so this should be speedily closed. There is redundant information between this article and Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but only because Duncan has received significant coverage and most of that article focuses on him and his actions. Due to the nature of outbreaks, that article will only get larger, and the information on Duncan should be rightfully spunoff into a separate article. But his actions don't only concern Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but potentially other countries as well since while he was infected with Ebola he passed through 4 airports, and flew from Monrovia to Brussels to Virginia to Dallas (even though the CDC claims he was not contagious at that time). If it is an outbreak in the US, then information about him will continue to be added to the outbreak article, but which outbreak article? Ebola virus outbreak in the United States? Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia? Possibly even Ebola virus cases in Belgium? Duncan may be most notable for bringing Ebola to the US, but his actions potentially affect more than one country. There is an article for Gaëtan Dugas. Typhoid Mary has an article, it isn't simply merged into Typhoid fever in the United States. The question is how many cases of Ebola can be traced to him. Relegating all the information about him to one (or more) country-specific outbreak articles is not appropriate, and that's what would be redundant. --Redmitrow (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has recently became more notable, and could potentially be a huge impact on the United States with recent developing events. Furthermore, Thomas Eric Duncan could be as notable if not more than James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David Haines, and Alan Henning. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – And I would almost say "SNOW KEEP". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Patient zero anyone? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This could, unfortunately, very unfortunately, be a much bigger deal what this man did in the coming days, weeks and months. Thetalkingheads (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to Wikipedia today for one reason - to find information specifically about Thomas Eric Duncan. I wasn't looking for information on Ebola, but specific information on Thomas Eric Duncan. Such information will no doubt continue to come to light, and I believe this article is just the place for it to land. I agree with the wiki guidelines argument, and the patient zero argument.Sal Calypso (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this article needs to give time to grow, more developements are still being released. This just might be the tip of the iceberg. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: absolutely the same as Typhoid Mary. Duncan's ~~thuggish~~ irresponsibility and lying on the questionnaire which allowed him to enter the U.S. is more than notable. No political correctness, please. Quis separabit? 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section of the main article. This is Biog1E stuff. When all is said and done, one or two paragraphs regarding Mr Duncan's background, events around his death, and the controversy surrounding his treatment will suffice. However, clearly this discussion cannot be lucidly carried out at this time, when the AfD page is overwhelmed w/ a peanut gallery pushing regionalism and POV. (such as the comments made re: "thuggishness" by the editor above ^^^). —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Typhoid Mary precedent. This is patient zero for the most significant biological event to hit the USA since the Spanish Flu. Neukenjezelf (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I rv the objectionable adjective. I guess the "peanut gallery" comment is professional too. Or maybe if almost all the votes weren't "keep" maybe we wouldn't be a "peanut gallery" in the first place. Quis separabit? 00:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A couple of people with a disease in hospital, and no evidence of it spreading from them to anyone else (beyond the one in-hospital case), is more notable than the introduction of HIV? It's more important than the eradication of smallpox? It's more important than the introduction of West Nile virus? I think you may be overlooking most of the last century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article should be kept, as most here agree, except for one outspoken individual who must reply to every single opposing thought. As mentioned above, the event is significant, and the role of Duncan is significant. As US patient zero he deserves his own page. There will be more individual pages to come. Keep this article! User: Genomizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.197.72 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A detailed article on Mr. Duncan deserves its own page. If the issue is to avoid duplication, the main article's section on Mr. Duncan needs to be trimmed and summarized, with a link to the separate Mr. Duncan page for those readers who are seeking detailed information on him specifically. If a reader wants an overview of Ebola in the United States, they don't need detailed information on Mr. Duncan, outside of his role as the index patient. As time progresses, the Mr. Duncan article can be considered for deletion, but for now the details of his life may be of great interest to many readers. As others have noted, the article does not violate Wikipedia policy, and precedents for this type of article exist. Dweisber (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I do not consider the Ebola case in US as a major disease outbreak (at least not yet). The index cases in Nigeria (Patrick Sawyer), Liberia, Equ. Guinea and Siera-leone are major but not US or Spain. If this article is kept, what I interpret it to mean is that index cases should always have a Wiki article as long as references exist, which is not in-line with any Wiki policy (except you want to say he passes GNG, which I disagree with). Darreg (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The arguments to keep are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and crystal ball predictions about the long-term significance of ebola cases in the US. Meanwhile, WP:BLP1E will continue to apply here for about two years. This guy is only notable for having bad luck. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duh. "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefac (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which are unfounded assumptions. Geogene (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like others, I came here today to find information specific to Duncan, specifically regarding his culpability. That is more detail than belongs in the general article on the outbreak, but is still notable information. Warren Dew (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Thomas Eric Duncan needs to be redirected/merged with the page Ebola virus outbreak in the United States because Thomas Eric Duncan is only notable for contracting the Ebola virus, and is not notable for anything else other than Ebola, so Thomas Eric Duncan should not have an article about him, but a section in the article about the Ebola outbreak in the United States. Cookie Monster (talk), 04:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: Typhoid Mary is known for nothing but typhoid fever, and Gaëtan Dugas is known for nothing but HIV, Thomas Eric Duncan is known for nothing but EVD. BTW, voting on an AfD is not a minor edit, as you marked it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Unlike Patrick Sawyer, who was a Liberian Government official, this subject is not notable for any other thing apart from being a zero case of ebola in the united states. Ebola is yet to be an epidemic in the United States, so this article is not warranted - he is notable for just one event.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is already controversy over his medical treatment, with treats of a lawsuit by his family[11], which supports a separate article about Thomas Eric Duncan. Ward20 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was racial bias in Duncan's treatment, this is quite relevant to the initial spread of the outbreak and not just to Duncan. Xqxf (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current content of the page [12] is still just 2 summary sentences, an infobox, and transclusions. The non-transcluded article body is a total of 58 words. For all the cries of "We must keep Patient Zero!", little has been done to actually solve the issue of redundant articles. Xqxf (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AfDs are supposed to be argued on the basis of what the article could be, not its present state. Other articles on individuals with Ebola are probably not keeps. Abductive (reasoning) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable for one thing only and so should not have own article. well-covered already in other articles. Wikipedia not a tabloid. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as BLP1E. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's patient zero, and received a great deal of coverage in the press. ScienceApe (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States, per WP:ONEEVENT, for now. He is only notable for one event, first bringing an existing outbreak to the United States. He is neither the first patient with Ebola, nor even the first of this outbreak (that is apparently a boy named Emile who died in Guinea). He should be covered in the relevant articles, but I don't think that currently confers sufficient independent notability. Notability is not temporary, so we should be conservative for now. However, if more people in the U.S. develop Ebola they contracted (directly or indirectly) from him, that would make a better comparison to e.g. Arvid Noe. So redirect for now, but be open to develop into a new article if the outbreak is not contained. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If the virus spreads and Mr Duncan is still considered notable in a few weeks or months, he could get a page then. Onefireuser (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a big event in the US with long-term changes in hospital preparedness for possible future ebola patients. Thus, we already know it is lasting and he played a fundamental role in it. He therefore the article passes the John Hinckley test for WP:BLP1E. I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per I am One of Many and it is stated in notability guidelines WP:1E: 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dao's six point circle

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

Listed as G4, but no admin seems to have been willing to speedy it for several days. Listed here for discussion. I have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao–Moses circle, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem. According to signatures he left on my talk page, the article creator is Dao himself, and this appears to be part of a pattern of promoting his own work. He has also created Dao's theorem, Dao's eight circles problem, Dao's six circumcenter theorem, Dao–Moses circle (deleted after AfD), and Dao six-point circle (deleted after AfD), as well as several other articles on related geometric constructions that he has not given his own name to. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the original motivation of Mr. Dao was a natural human trait, it is not relevant to the question of whether the articles should be retained; especially since Mr. Dao is now aware that Wikipedia discourages people from creating articles about one's own work (which, you must agree, is quite unlike the spirit of most other sites out there). And, as you note, he has contributed articles that are NOT about his own work, although they may be connected to it.
I have no connection to Mr. Dao, and did not know of his existence until he wrote to me asking to defend the article. I do not see what is wrong with that, since editors who could vote to retain those articles are unlikely see the deletion proposal otherwise. (On the other hand, listing an article in the AfD brings the proposal to the attention of editors who are biased towards deletion.)
I don't know whether there were prior versions of the articles Dao's eight circles problem and Dao's six circumcenter theorem; I created those myself over the last few days, from sections of Dao's theorem. (I had proposed doing so in its AfD entry, and no one objected.) I also created Dao's six point circle from the same source, unaware that Dao six-point circle (note the spelling) had been created and deleted previously.
About the deletion proposal, the first question that should be asked is: is Wikipedia better with those articles, or without them? To me that answer is obvious. It would have been preferable for us if Mr. Dao had spent the effort on some other "more notable" topic; but since the articles are already written, correct, timeless, sourced, and of world-wide interest, why delete them?
And then there is the question of what the over-zealous deletion of articles for "non-notability" is doing to Wikipedia. Sadly, while Wikipedia is painfully aware of the decline of its corps of editors, no one in charge seems willing to admit the causes -- which include its article deletion process.
On a lower level, some of the problems in those articles that were used to justify their prior deletion do not apply anymore. The list of references has been expanded and the style and grammar are hopefully closer to Wikipedia's standards. The community that is interested in those problems seems to have recognized Mr. Dao's contributions, and (as far as I know) is was them, not Mr. Dao, who began to refer to his theorems by his name. They do not seem to be less worthy of inclusion than Five circles theorem (which was created long ago). And, last but not least, I find those results nice indeed.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete still not notable, only a handful of months since its last deletion. Can't compare it to the previous version to see whether G4 is justified but the problem's not the quality of the article but the inherent non-notability of one of thousands of such constructions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. David Eppstein, I am Dao Thanh Oai, as You know why formerly Dao six-point circle be delete ? because It is not appear in a journal. But now Dao's six point circle appear in a journal, appear in Kimberling center, appear in Cut the knot, appear in some another web site, with three independent proofs and this is nice property of the centroid and median of a triangle. (Please) You should remember that I don't name a theorem after my name, but I name it from title of some paper and title of some another website. I don't know why Dr. David Eppstein want delete Dao six-point circle? because only reason I wrote this paper (Where I did not intentionally violate)? Note that, if I know that wiki don't want I write about my result. I will never wrote them, and I also never said to You that I am Đào Thanh Oai on your talk page and on deletion of Dao's theorem. Original I wrote Dao six-point circle, Dao–Moses circle and Dao's theorem because I want to share. Why I want share? because they are nice (as you know).

Dear Friends, I am Dao Thanh Oai, my English is not good, but I try wrote what I think to You.

1-About Dao six-point circle please click X(5569)= Center of the Dao six point circle_at Kimberling center and Dao's six point circle at cut the knot. Why I posted Dao six-point circle because my friend said to me that Kimberling center is cite source for another dictionary, so I posted. Why I posted with name: Dao's six point circle ? Because two web sites above (cut the knot, and Kimberling center) wrote this with title Dao's six point circle so I rewrote with the same title. And did you think I can wrote the page with another title? Similarly, why I wrote Dao–Moses circle? Because I see Parry circle and Lester circle, they are circles through triangle centers, where Parry circle is circle pass through 7 triangle centers, and Lester circle is circle pass through 4 triangle center. But Dao–Moses circle are pair circles through 10 triangle centers of Kimberling center please click X(5607) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE and Kimberling center please click X(5608) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE.(Note that that time X(5607), and X(5608) Dr. Kimberling name is Dao-Moses circle, but now he name Pohoata-Dao-Moses circle).

2-As You know, My english not good, so I don't read to know that Wiki don't want I wrote for my result, until to recently(now) I wrote Dao's theorem. I read the comment so I know that wiki don't want I wrote my result. So I am really not want promotion my result, but original I really want to share this result to everybody because I see it is nice and true. Why I said it is nice and true? because Dao six-point circle and Dao–Moses circle similarly Lester circle Parry circle and van Lamoen circle.

3-But now Dao's six point circle appear in a journal, appear in Kimberling center, appear in Cut the knot, appear in some another web sites, with three independent proofs and this is nice property of the centroid and median of a triangle and rewrote by Dr. Jorge Stolfi, now we should keep or delete with these reasons above?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Mr Dao I want to bring to your notice that Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. I can't see the significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability. The fact that it appears in one or two journals has not made it notable. Please kindly wait until your work is notable and a wikipedian with no WP:COI will write about it here. Big thanks to DGG for initiating this discussion Wikicology (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: There are 1097 triangle centers of Kimberling center part 4, there are 10 circles after name of person, in 10 circles have only Dao's six point circle have three independent proofs and appear in a journal and some web sites. Detail see talk page. The Dao's six point circle similarly van Lamoen circle. More important this result is nice propery of the centroid and medians of any triangle. So I Ok with you edit with another name, no name after Dao, but should keep.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Wikicology and Gene93k, could you please care to address my points? At least, (1) I don't have a COI here, I think the article should stay, and I am (and was) willing to invest some of my time to bring it up to Wikipedia standards of style. (2) Will this article make Wikipedia better or worse, and why? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Stolfi, I have no idea of why you feel that you have no WP:COI. Your comment above until he wrote to me asking to defend the article suggest a WP:COI. Also this your comment I don't know whether there were prior versions of the articles Dao's eight circles problem and Dao's six circumcenter theorem; I created those myself over the last few days, from sections of Dao's theorem is also an indication. However, the WP:COI is not even the point and I have no business with that. My major concern is on the notability of the subject. I want to believe that you are familiar with our policy and that wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. The subject of the article is yet to be notable enough to merit an article here.

On your question above from your comment, And then there is the question of what the over-zealous deletion of articles for "non-notability" is doing to Wikipedia; the answer to that is simple! Let me start with the fact that millions of readers read wikipedia daily and they often trust our informations. On this note, if wikipedia doesn't keep article on the basis of notability then it is very easy to mislead wikipedia readers because anyone can write about something that does not even exist for people to read which will invariably mislead them. Let me stop with the fact that Mr Dao need to be patient for his work to be notable and someone with no WP:COI will write about it here. Wikicology (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikicology, "conflict of interest" means having any personal involvement with the subject that would induce the editor to work against Wikipedia's goals. I certainly do not have that. Working on an article, or defending it against deletion, does not create a conflict of interest, any more than voting for its deletion does.
On the other hand, yes, I confess that I am not happy to see a hour of so of my work being thrown away, just because of a rule that I did not agree to and that I believe has been harming Wikpedia since 2006. But if that is "conflict of interest", then no editor is free from it...
I still would like to know what precisely is the harm that Dao's six point circle does to Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia must not have incorrect or poorly written articles. I understand that it should not have articles on original research or non-existent topics, or statements that cannot be verified, or topics that are of interest only to a small local community. I understand that it should not have biased articles that would amount to personal or corporate advertisement, religious proselitizing, political indoctrination, etc.. I even understand that editors should be encouraged to improve important articles, rather than writing articles on topics of minor importance (like 1938–39 Stoke City F.C. season). Yet none of those arguments applies to this article; and they do not imply that an article like it, once it has been written, is so harmful to Wikipedia that it must be deleted. Again, why? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely understand how you feel to see your work been thrown out but I still want you to understand that the notabilty criteria is quiet important as well. The problem is not about the work or mr. Dao but the notability of the subject. The work may seemed notable and important to mr Dao but the work has not gain enough significant coverages to WP:RS, needed to be encyclopedic. I wish we could keep it but certainly not yet time. In addition, am not happy to see your effort been wasted just like that but don't let it bothers you. Wikicology (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in sources that are both reliable (web pages and forums don't count) and secondary (independent of the creator of the topic). I don't think we should have articles on all 6000 or so centers in Kimberling's list, only the more important of them, and I don't see anything to distinguish this one from the others. In addition, the only source we have that looks reliably published is by Dao himself. And (although I believe Stolfi to be free of COI per the discussion above) the pattern of self-promotion by Dao is troubling to me, and I think not something to be encouraged. Finally, creating an article on a subject already deleted by AfD recently, with no new developments that would make it significantly more notable, is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, I agree that Wikipedia is not expected to carry articles on all the 6000 centers; just as it is not expected to have articles on all the millions of chemical compounds, genes, microorganisms, churches, streets, metro stations, football players, etc.. But if an editor wishes to write an article on any one of those topics, and its facts are all attested by independent sources, and the article contents passes all the criteria of style, timelessness, global interest, etc., what is the advantage of deleting it? (I hope it is not some vague desire to uniformize Wikipedia's depth of covereage. Such a goal is unobtainable, and all attempts to achieve it that I have witnessed, in various fields, have been much worse than fruitless.)
As for the Dao's six point circle article having been deleted before: as I explained, I was not aware of that fact (otherwise I would have appealed the deletion instead of recreating it), and the sources have grown since then.
As for the "self-promotion" issue, Mr. Dao is now aware of the COI issue and accepts the restriction.
Finally, as for the lack of references: indeed, the article does not strictly satisfy the numerical rules. Yet, the references given leave no doubt in my mind that (a) the claim is correct, and (b) the name is accepted by the community (and was not given by Mr. Dao himself). Those points place this article above a million or more other articles that are tolerated, and even satisfy the numerical criteria. I am sure that the article will probably satisfy those criteria itself in a couple of years. What is then the point of deleting it now, if it will be acceptable eventually -- without changing a comma in the text or title? Can't we just leave the article there for now, with a comment on the talk page that it needs more formal references?
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Dear Jorge Stolfi and Friends,

Notable or not notable, nice or not nice in your idea. I am Thank to dear Jorge Stolfi very much for his works and his helping. I only want keep this becasaus it is nice property of the centroid and median lines. I don't want keep because the result is my result, or after my name. So we should delete this result as a independent pages. I think should add this result as property of the centroid and median line as a remark, don't write with name Dao's six point circle. Could you write direct at median or the centroid of a triangle pages that:

Let Ab be the center of the circle through A and tangent at the centroid G to AG. Define cyclically Ac, Bc, Ba, Ca, Cb. The six points Ab, Ac, Bc, Ba, Ca, Cb are concyclic. 1 2 3

Dear all Friend, what do you think about last comment above?--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has not address the concerns. It has not solve the problem of notability in anyway because WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Wikicology, Maybe I think you note to the notability but You don't note to the result. But I think you shouldn't note to notability and You should note to this result. You should only known the result. if you want to know who is the first person proposed this result, who prove this result? If you want to know that you should click: Advanced Plane Geometry with signature of the author proposed is Dao Thanh Oai; ETC Dr. Clark Kimberling comfirm for Dao Thanh Oai ; ijgeometry journal with signature of the author of the paper is Dao Thanh Oai. Now who is Dao Thanh Oai? I think detail don't important, only need know there a person propose and proof this problem with the same signature is Dao Thanh Oai, and Kimberling center confirm Dao Thanh Oai. You need more anything? Please let me kown what you think about this comment.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein and per Wikicology. Dr David Eppstein said that delete because WP can not publish all ETC(Kimberling center) 6000 points. Yes OK. but keep because:

*First reason- The article is not wrote base only Kimberling center. This circle publish in a journal, and ETC and some another websites with three independent proofs, this circles is nice property of median and the centroid of a triangle, and similar with van Lamoen circle

*Secon reason- This circle appear in part 4 of Kimberling center. Now Kimberling have about 1100 triangle centers of part 4 but only this circles publish in a journal with three independent proofs(so may this circle dissimilar with 1100 another triangle centers of Kimberling center). More than 1000 triangle center no appear in a journal, and no have synthetic proof.

*Third reason-Subject of the article is not fail WP:GNG, I show that above.

*WP write every thing. And Keep rather than delete.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Secret ^account 03:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Funke

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and her suicide, while tragic, fails WP:EVENT because it has not led to any other long term effects or consequences. No one has been charged with any crime (unlike the suicide of Amanda Todd), there is no major court case (Unlike the suicides of Tyler Clementi and Megan Meier), her family has not filed any lawsuits or demand for changes in suicidal prevention, etc., her school has not done a thing about it either, nothing has been made in her memory, and this case has not been featured in a major documentary or news story (unlike Rehtaeh Parsons and Dawn-Marie Wesley). She also doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO since she didn't appear in any mainstream or major porn films before her death. I hate to say this, but suicide of teens and young adults are not that uncommon these days, but we are not going to have articles on every single one of them, are we? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stillwater Area High School. There there is a paragraph about the tragic event. That is more than enough coverage. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stillwater Area High School per above suggestion. No need to merge, enough informations there. Cavarrone 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I agree with much of the reasoning by the nominator (eg Wikipedia not a memorial etc) and yes this is a WP:ONEEVENT but what isn't a ONEEVENT is the major thread of this story which is Cyberbullying -- so if there are any redirects it should go to this topic which is ongoing and important, of which the Alyssa Funke episode is an unfortunate example. But simply redirecting to Cyberbullying doesn't seem right either, because the story has a coherent whole, notable as such, with specific parts (pretty teenager; straight-A student; porn video; cyberbullying; suicide) unlike other teenaged suicides, and such details could get lost in a bigger article such as Cyberbullying or Teenaged Suicide or maybe even depression. The Alyssa Funke story got plenty of media coverage easily meeting the WP:GNG, not only in the US but internationally such as in Britain, where it strikes a chord of concern among parents, teenagers, Internet users (practically everybody these days). That is, it has reverberated, and will continue to do so, in the media. The issue of teenaged suicide is ongoing, claims many lives, and yes most of these suicides are not notable, but this report here in the Daily Beast suggests why the Alyssa Funke story is notable, since it hints at a mystery underneath it all, not easily explained by a pressure of porn angle, or a cyberbullying angle either, along with an additional angle, namely, media criticizing other media for getting the story wrong.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Foreign Language Center (Sibiu)

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

Please see the first nomination. I have nothing to add. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with original nomination Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Abraham

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

Promotional bio. No significant positions. We do not normally consider chairman of a state party notable, and she';s just been vice-Chairman. I find it curious that the photo selected here shows her presenting an award to someone who is notable, not receiving an award. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The news item at ref 1 begins the text with “wife of”. Seems like her political power comes from the hubby. Therefore “notability is not inherited” could be an argument for deletion here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing claimed here gets her past WP:NPOL (nominator is completely correct that we don't confer an automatic presumption of notability on even the chair of a state political party, let alone a vice-chair), and the sourcing (which is mostly to blogs and primary sources, with only two real news articles for reliable source coverage) is not substantive enough to claim WP:GNG. And being married to someone who is notable doesn't boost her notability either. It's also worth noting that the first nomination hinged on the flawed reasoning that merely being mentioned in a couple of news blurbs speculating about possible candidates in an election she didn't actually run in was somehow enough to get her over GNG — but it isn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Patel (politician)

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

Unsuccessful and not notable politician. Looks like he had already been speedied under the name Pankaj Kumar Patel. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL as only candidate and WP:GNG as no significant coverage of a non-notable individual. Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he ran once and lost. Lots of people including me have done that. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, and for the record what is there contains such poor grammar I couldn't possibly rescue it without changing it completely. BritainD (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely being a candidate doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Weston Williamson. → Call me Hahc21 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Williamson (architect)

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

One of a number of articles about partners and directors of the barely notable Weston Williamson Architects, but because he gives his name to the company a speedy deletion request was declined. The biographical info is unsourced. The 'notable project' is attributed to the company, not the individual. This would probably be best served by a redirect to the company article. Sionk (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weston Williamson would seem to be the obvious course of action. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I couldn't find either any reference that would confer him individual notability. --ELEKHH^T 02:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Biographical info available on web is vague in places (e.g. membership level in RTPI) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marc McDonald . j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MIDAS (operating system)

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

Unreleased operating system by Microsoft which appears to be non-notable. For a while this article was thought to be a hoax. Only two sources appear to discuss this topic:

Duncan, Ray (1988). The MS-DOS Encyclopedia - version 1.0 through 3.2. Microsoft Press. ISBN 1-55615-049-0.
Manes, Stephen; Andrews, Paul (1993). Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry—and Made Himself the Richest Man in America. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42075-7.

Both appear to contain bare passing mentions. The article also lists some technical manuals by Microsoft as references, but without any information as to where they were published (if at all) and no ISBN numbers, so I think we should consider them broken (or even fabricated) citations. A merger into MS-DOS#History has been explicitly rejected at Talk:MS-DOS. — Keφr 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by people that are supposed to know what is going on; either historians, researchers or people intimetaly involved with the subjects. MDOS was a real written OS; I contain some of the only surviving documents (mentioned in the column) from the time when I worked at DRI's European office and inherited all the documentation, computers, S-100 boards, development software etc etc, and as such, the entry for MDOS is for completeness. And encyclopedia is supposed to be a correct reference. It seems to me that the people that decided to have this entry up for deletion obviously were not involved in the beginning of microcomputers. When I get a chance, I will upload images of the documentation concerned. This documentation should be in the Archives of Microsoft. -- 2014-10-13T09:25:25‎ Petervee

You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by literally anyone who can figure out how to do it. And those people may have good intent or evil intent, they may have a clue, or be completely misguided, they may be careful, cautious and stick to reliable information, or they may be gullible, jump to conclusions, and add rumours. Which means we should apply some scepticism to their additions.

The world is full of hoaxes, and the DOS world is not any different. On the Internet, I can find an ISO image of "MS-DOS 7.1". Here is how the installer looks like: it tells me that MS-DOS 7.1 has been released by Microsoft under the GNU GPL. Should I add it to the article? You can say any idiot can upload a video to YouTube, but then any idiot can upload scanned pictures to Wikipedia. Why should I assume User:MarcMcd is actually Marc MacDonald? Why should I believe some random "Petervee", someone impersonating the developer of this OS, and some guy whose name coincides with a DR-DOS developer's? How can I be justified in assuming the scans you upload are not fake? (Never mind they would be deleted in short order because of copyright issues.) For all I know, you might be a dog. There is nothing that convinces me otherwise.

The whole point of using previously published sources is that it does not matter whether you are a dog or not; claims in articles are justified by citations, not by editors claiming authority on the topic. If the Essjay controversy taught us anything, it is that we should not rely on an individual editor's claims of authority.

(Apologies for approaching User:Matthiaspaul levels of verbosity.) — Keφr 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge into Marc McDonald). While I agree that little is known about Microsoft's MDOS aka MIDAS, it clearly is no hoax. The fact that some obviously uninformed readers confused it with MS-DOS and assumed it to be a hoax in the past is hardly a valid argument against it - after all we are here to preserve and provide knowledge to those interested. We can't do that by deleting relevant information. MIDAS might not have been a great OS in itself (I really don't know), but it is notable historically for two reasons:

a) After Standalone Disk BASIC-80, which hardly can be called an operating system in itself, it was the first operating system utilizing the FAT file system. Marc McDonald, the developer of MIDAS, is also the inventor of the FAT file system.

b) MIDAS is also an interesting stepping-stone in the history of Microsoft operating systems for microcomputers. This becomes particularly apparent in the context of 86-DOS, MS-DOS and MSX-DOS. Tim Paterson's 86-DOS was a clone of Digital Research's CP/M-80 ported to 8086 16-bit processors with FAT file system support added (after Standalone Disk BASIC and MIDAS). 86-DOS later became MS-DOS. And while Digital Research added an MS-DOS emulator to its CP/M-86 port for 16-bit processors in DOS Plus (and later DR DOS), Microsoft for some time went the other direction when they (Paterson, actually) developed MSX-DOS, a sort of MS-DOS clone for 8080 8-bit processors. In this view, MIDAS is important as it can be seen as one of the origins for the technology. Marc McDonald also once mentioned that MIDAS (or technology derived from it) was used in some Japanese computers.

While we already discuss some of these aspects in various related articles, it makes sense to also have a "central" article about MIDAS itself in order to avoid too much redundancy in other articles and to properly establish logical connections between pieces of information.

Regarding notability, I think, the fact that MIDAS is mentioned in several books is enough to meet our notability criteria per WP:N. Given enough time, I might be able to locate a few more WP:RS. According to the article, Microsoft even had several volumes of reference documentation for this operating system (I cannot verify this, since I do not own these documents, but I also do not have reasons to doubt they existed - the fact that they can't be found via Google is hardly relevant as the majority of docs pre-dating Google cannot be found this way). The fact, that these documents don't carry ISBNs is hardly relevant either, as most printed product documentation does not carry ISBNs - actually, only a small fraction of documents from the pool qualifying as RS carries ISBNs in general. Some while back Marc McDonald himself also offered to provide copies of MIDAS reference documentation from his archive. So, we have at least two sources (one internal, and one external of Microsoft) indicating that a full set of documentation existed for this operating system - sooner or later it might pop up in someone's archive and/or put online, so it is premature to call them "broken" or "fabricated". WP:V does require verifiability, not personal access to the sources to verify the information by oneself.

To sum it up, while I think that it may take another couple of years before the article will have become more than a stub, I think, MIDAS is important and notable enough to deserve an article of its own and meet our basic notability criteria - so give it the necessary time to grow. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Wikipedia still has many years (decades?) to grow and mature. (Alternatively, the information should be moved into the Marc McDonald article.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without accessible references there is not enough information about MDOS to keep this article. Assuming it existed, it should be documented as part of Microsoft's history, then a WP article can be justified. Many companies have internal developments that may be documented on internal documents, but unless information is published and notable then these are inappropriate topics. 81.129.132.171 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If MIADS was the first operating system to use FAT, then at least some of the article should be merged into FAT filesystem. Otherwise, this may be a Delete. It would however be a shame to lose the content as it may have some historical value in 200 years time. Is there somewhere we can submit this data to? TheDragonFire (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about being "the first operating system to use FAT" is unreferenced. The only thing that seems to be verifiable is "it existed, and it was some sort of influence on MS-DOS". — Keφr 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary of what Kephir is trying to make believe, this is well referenced in several sources. Let me cite a few sentences from Ray Duncan's "MS-DOS encyclopedia":

"[...] During this same period, Marc McDonald also worked on developing an 8-bit operating system called M-DOS (usually pronounced "Midas" or "My DOS"). [...]"

or

"[...] M-DOS was a true multitasking operating system modeled after the DEC TOPS-10 operating system. M-DOS provided good performance and, with a more flexible FAT than that built into BASIC, had a better file-handling structure than the up-and-coming CP/M operating system. At about 30 KB, however, M-DOS was unfortunately too big for an 8-bit environment and so ended up being relegated to the back room. [...]"

or

"[...] At that meeting, Paterson was introduced to Microsoft's M-DOS, which he found interesting because it used a system for keeping track of disk files - the FAT developed for Stand-alone Disk BASIC - that was different from anything he had encountered. [...]"

or

"[...] So for fast, efficient file handling [in 86-DOS], he [Paterson] used a file allocation table, as Microsoft had done with Stand-alone Disk BASIC and M-DOS. [...]"

It's a pity that some individuals seem to be more obsessed with getting stuff they obviously don't like deleted by all means (including making false claims or attacking and trying to discredit constructive editors) than to actually help building an encyclopedia. The project is going to fail if we allow this kind of destruction to happen on a broader scale. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragon: That's somewhat in line with the points I made as well, although I came to somewhat different conclusions. Microsoft's MIDAS is notable for the context it existed in and for being the first operating system to implement FAT (excluding Stand-alone Disk BASIC, which wasn't a true operating system)) even before the advent of 86-DOS and MS-DOS. Some of that information is already discussed in the FAT article, as you suggest, but there are considerable differences between the FAT implementations of Stand-alone Disk BASIC (8-bit), MIDAS (8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, 16-bit), 86-DOS (12-bit) and MS-DOS (12-bit originally). These differences are important to know for historians and technicians to better understand how and why FAT was developed the way it was - including some otherwise unexplainable peculiarities. That's too much information to add this all to the FAT article, so the implementation-specific aspects should ideally be discussed in the context of their respective implementations (as it already happens for 86-DOS, MS-DOS and MSX-DOS). I plan to add similar information to Stand-alone Disk BASIC (for which I have collected enough reliable sources to go for it when time allows - but it took me several years actively searching for sources to find them) and MIDAS (for which I do have the information, but not yet the desired sources), so that we'd have a carefully rounded out discussion of the various related topics in the end, on which technical historians can reliably base their research on in the future. If we delete the MIDAS article, there is no place to put the information any more - and it is unlikely that it will be recreated given that the people in the know on such already historical topics are slowly dying out.

While the MIDAS article is still a stub and lacking, it has already grown over the years. And it already has five references, and from what I know about MIDAS does not contain wrong information. This makes me confident, that we'll have enough information for a neat article on this piece in a couple of years if we continue to develop it. If we delete it, we get nothing, and the net outcome for Wikipedia is negative. We cannot develop something by deleting it for being immature while still being developed, as some deletionists seem to believe. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an area where wp has and should continue to have comprehensive coverage. The practical aspects of computer science were our earliest strength, and w remain perhaps the best current reference. Articles on topics of possible historic importance should be kept, even though they may have relatively weak documentation. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting Unreleased article or O/S is nott policy of WP AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already publicly readable. Its topic being an unreleased OS is not a problem in itself. The real problem is the scarcity of reliable sources. — Keφr 10:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kephir:Then we must search for reliable source,help it for expanding and if necessary mark it as stub rather then deleting.AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 12:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We searched, we failed. The only two sources found are the two listed above: for all we know, there are no others. You will be struggling to write a paragraph based on that. Keeping it marked as "stub" indefinitely is out of the question. What else? Merge maybe? Where? — Keφr 12:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadline (WP:DEADLINE and WP:TIAD) - since developing articles is an incremental process and sometimes those knowledgable enough to further develop an article are few and far between and they may stop by here only by accident, I would have absolutely no problems to keep it as stub for a decade or longer, for as long as it can at least provide a little bit of useful and reliable information on a topic - and, I think, it already does that even in its currently very basic form - most people don't know anything about it, so having an entry for MIDAS explaining what it was (and that it's not the same as MS-DOS) is already much better than not discussing it at all. It's normal for an encyclopedia to have short as well as long entries - not every article needs to become a great or featured article in the end.

Regarding sources, in addition to the two sources mentioned above we do already have at least three more published sources (and have at least two independent Wikipedians (User:MarcMcd and User:Petervee), who claim to own copies of them and offered to make them available):

Microsoft Disk Operating System (MDOS), Copyright 1979 Microsoft, Bellevue, WA
Microsoft Disk Operating System Technical Manual (MDOS), Copyright 1979, Microsoft, Bellevue, WA
Microsoft Interrupt Driven Asynchronous System, User's manual, Copyright 1980 Microsoft

While these are primary sources and may not be written from a neutral point of view, we can at least derive undisputable basic technical information from them like a description of the operating system's architecture or its command set, information you just deleted from the article claiming they were unferenced and broken ([13]) although they weren't ([14]). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deadline, and it is expiring as we speak. Those are published sources? Point me to a library where I can read them. Or a book store. Please. — Keφr 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marc McDonald. Did multiple runs of several main databases (PQ/LN/JSTOR) and historical databases (Historical Abstracts, EBSCO History of Science, Technology, Medicine). Other than the two books mentioned above, the only other real hit is:

"TECHNOLOGY; Back to the Fold for a Former Microsoft Employee." The New York Times. January 12, 2001 Friday . Date Accessed: 2014/10/25. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

which is to say that we don't have much on this topic, and the stuff that we do have is centered around McDonald. Theoretically, more content may exist in a box somewhere, but as it stands, this topic doesn't meet the significant coverage part of the GNG and would be best displayed in McDonald's article (perhaps as its own section). This merge would not preclude later expansion (or subsequent summary style spin-out) but is more about giving a home for this content proportional to the information available about it. (After the merge, I also recommend redirecting M-DOS and My DOS to MDOS (disambiguation) to save the hatnote confusion.) Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

relatedly interesting but likely unhelpful

William C Dwyer, The IBM PC: Standards as marketing strategy, Computers and Standards, Volume 1, Issues 2–3, September 1982, Pages 137-144, ISSN 0167-8051, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8051(82)90023-7. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167805182900237) – mentions Microsoft's MDOS briefly, but I think they meant MS-DOS.
In the area of operating systems, IBM seemed to offer one proprietary system, PC:DOS, and one standard system CP/M-86. ... Secondly, PC:I)OS turns out to be MDOS, a proprietary system developed by MICROSOFT available on several other machines. MDOS has an attractive base of software of its own.
Gandal, Neil. Greenstein, Shane. Salant, David. 1999. "Adoptions and Orphans in the Early Microcomputer Market" The Journal of Industrial Economics 47 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00091 – no mentions, but useful for those writing on this era

czar ♔ 15:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marc McDonald per Czar - sourcing is thin and centered around McDonald, but exists.Dialectric (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marc McDonald per Czar. Thin sourcing for this article, but it is important that we keep it as it is very interesting relevant and accurate information. Maybe add a redirect incase anyone is looking for it. --Obsidi (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hession: Boer War Soldiers

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

I simply cannot see that this is a useful subject for an encyclopedia article. TheLongTone (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research with a "book title" name. I suppose there might be some value in an article titled Hession involvement in the Boer War or a separate section at Boer War#Hessios but I'm not convinced either is necessary. This is littered with primary sources and extrapolated conclusions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear genealogical cruft. Just a list of people with a given surname who took part in a given war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Necrothesp Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The two albums were released on an obscure independent label and therefore don't come close to satisfying Criteria 1 of WP:BAND. A handful of trivial reviews in non major sources. Absolutely nothing that establishes musical notability. Safiel (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - four nominations? It should've been marked as speedy delete. Does not meet notability Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evidently the band's "fanclub" canvassed the three previous AfD's. Fortunately its been seven years since the third AfD and the fanclub won't be riding over the hill to save the article this time. Safiel (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see any reliable material that would indicate in any way that they meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hervé Stevenin

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Insufficient sources to confirm notability on this biography. The sources listed are standard bios published by employers. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs improvement, some excessive details should be removed, as well as some self-published sources like Facebook which are not valid as RS, but the subject is notable. I could debate that the information sourced by NASA and ESA is not just a standard bio, but in any case, just a quick search uncovered multiple reliable sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources pointed out by Crystallizedcarbon. Although not an astronaut, this highly experienced person involved in astronaut training for decades is notable enough for a biography in this encyclopedia with 4.6 million articles, including many about far less accomplished and important people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed that this person is notable enough for a biography in this encyclopedia. Just a reminder that all NEEMO Aquanauts have got so far their bio published by Wikipedia, even if they are not astronauts. Here are some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Reagan ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Abercromby ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chappell ; There are very few persons in the world eligible to the Aquanaut title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aquanauts . All of them are known for being Aquanauts and that's is the reason why we posted this bio on Wikipedia. NEEMOXIX (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and early close per WP:SNOW He's French, so not all sources are English language. See here [15]. I can help with the article. Also, a handful of google news references. here [16] —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. The fact that sources are not in english does not mean that a subject is non-notable. On this note as well as the above arguments, I recommend anearly close per WP:SNOW. Wikicology (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men. I completely stand by my nomination. User:Crystallizedcarbon attached no less than five "reliable sources", and of those, only the first source discussed this person in any detail; the other four merely mentioned his name. I too went looking for sources before nominating this biography, and it was slim pickins. Near all of this article is sourced by his employer or personal Facebook page. He seems like a nice guy, and certainly has an important job, but if he was notable (by Wiki standards) there would be less sizzle and more steak published about him. The article reads like an impressive resume. Anyway, I look forward to an improvement to this article, and thank you for your time. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Keep - Since the call for article deletion, all sources have been reviewed and updated to meet WP:GNG. Self-published sources like Facebook were deleted. The ESA and NASA published biographies of Stevenin (which, by the way, are not "standard bios published by employers", but rare bios exceptionally published in the public domain by these space agencies to inform about notable persons, like astronauts; Stevenin is not employed by NASA and got anyway a bio reference by NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/content/meet-the-neemo-18-and-19-crews/ ) are removed from references and just kept as external links. The article was also reworked and streamlined by removing excessive details featured in the initial version and highlighting important information related to the notability of this individual. Thanks for helping us to improve this article. NEEMOXIX (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charumati Vihara

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

No claim of significance, no sign of notability Owais khursheed (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not establish notability, the cited source does little more than mentioning the temple, and I could not find any notable RS on the subject.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The weight of consensus is clear, though the reasoning is thin.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos H. Amado

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

BLP with only references ripped from non-independent website. Similar general authorities to this have been deleted. GNG the primary relevant policy here, as there is no policy or guideline granting notability to LDS authorities p b p 03:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that members of the General Authority of the LDS (Mormon) church should be presumed notable. There are only 106 of them, they have ecclesiastical power, and I believe that they are comparable to bishops in other major Christian denominations. Personal disclosure - I am not a Mormon; I am a Jew. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet notability for his role in the LDS church, as suggested by Cullen328 above. I can't see how it would benefit Wikipedia to remove this, given that it is also clearly linked to a number of other similar subjects via the General Authority table at the bottom of the article and therefore provides background on key members of a notable religious denomination. No doubt references could be improved, but in this case it's not a reason to lose the article. Libby norman (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: and @Libby norman:, notability isn't determined by holding a particular office, it's determined by the existence of reliable third-party sources. In most of the cases where we allow every article on a particular topic to be kept, it is because there are believed to be reliable sources in existence for each article in that topic. For almost every general authority, this isn't the case: the only information on them comes from the LDS websites, and of course you'd need something more independent than that to pass GNG. FWIW, the assertion that an article passes GNG simply because of holding a particular office is incorrect. p b p 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position on LDS/Mormonism other than Wikipedia needs information about it, in common with other organised religions. He appears to be notable to me in the sense that I would very possibly want to look him and other members of the General Authority up if I were researching the governance and authority of the church and that means I would hope to find a Wikipedia article. And where do you stop counting LDS influence in Utah – does it mean Brigham Young University and Deseret News (both of which mention him) have no value as sources? What about Ensign? As a comparison, if I were looking up a Catholic bishop I might find a source in The Catholic Herald – would I discount that as being biased...what about the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle as a source about a rabbi? I think you are opening up a can of worms here and it's certainly an interesting debate! However, sources I've found that don't appear to have a clear LDS connection are: [17] and ~~[18]~~. Sources that do are multiple, but include [19] and [20] and [21]. Libby norman (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One cannot claim, as with members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, that Amado's notability is for a limited time only. Even as an emeritus general authority, he is still recognized as a general authority: he has just been released from active service but his tenure still remains, and he may still fill assignments, such as temple president, etc. All other nominations of previous emeritus GAs have failed, and this one will too. I applaud all those who have voted Keep who are not tied to the LDS faith. This shows that the Wikipedia community at large wants such articles to be kept. I admit that I cannot argue with the policies involved. This article may fail GNG. But surely not to the same extent that members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy do. This man is still serving, hence he is still notable. Again, I appreciate the other viewpoints that have been offered in support of keeping this article. This will likely be my only post on this issue. I leave it to those more familiar with the policies involved to object along those lines. Whatever your position may be, I urge civility and agreeableness as we strive to form a consensus opinion on this issue. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, there are two things wrong with your comment:

"This article may fail GNG. But surely not to the same extent that members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy do." There's no "extent" involved in GNG. It's black-and-white: you either pass it or fail it. This article fails it.

"He may still fill assignments, such as temple president, etc." He doesn't gain notability until he actually get those assignments, AND getting those assignments gives him reliable third-party coverage. The fact that he may or might is something called crystal balling, something that should be avoided in AfD discussions.p b p 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you failed to find fault with the argument that he is recognized as still serving and is thus still notable. Can't believe you let that one slide by you. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye." (Luke 6:41-42) --Jgstokes (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the biblical quotes, @Jgstokes:, I'm a good Methodist and don't need anyone to quote the Good Word to me. You want me to find fault with the still-serving argument? Fine, I will: notability doesn't go away when you stop serving. If sources exist for both a current official and a former official, both pass GNG equally. As usual, you have yet to grasp how notability works. I can't believe that I've explained notability to you at least five times, and some other people have as well, yet you fail to understand how it works. p b p 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Methodist, eh? That certainly explains your propensity for nominating LDS articles for deletion. Any good Methodist wouldn't do otherwise. If that's the case, one could surmise that you have an anti-LDS bias. Sure, as far as policy goes, it would seem to be on your side. But then, policy linked with prejudice often creates an impenetrable argument. You advised me to not employ the same argument I have used on previous deletion discussions until I understood the relevant policies. Very well. I won't do that. I will, however, point to possible bias on your part. If it was an LDS editor raising these issues, I'd be more inclined to believe their credibility. But where we have a clear possible bias, may I suggest that you, Purplebackpack89 not nominate or participate in deletion discussion of LDS-related articles unless and until it can be proven that you are truly unbiased in regards to the LDS faith. Throughout the ages, Methodists and LDS members have not always seen eye to eye. So unless you can prove your neutrality, your argument in favor of deletion doesn't hold water because you may be acting out of bias. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to stop participating in these discussions, @Jgstokes:? I will do nothing of the sort, and it is ridiculous that you ask me to do so. You seem to be intimating that people who are avowed non-Mormons shouldn't participate in these discussions. Neither being an avowed non-Mormon or disagreeing with Mormonism disqualifies you from editing Mormon articles, no more than being a Mormon disqualifies you from editing Mormon articles. You can ask another editor to tell me to stop, or even complain about it on a community noticeboard, but I guarantee you it will go nowhere. If you want to talk about this on a community noticeboard, instead of complaining about me and my approach, why not try and institute your line of thinking as policy? (obviously, I'd oppose this, but it looks like Cullen would support it). p b p 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that he has an article in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History a publication that although published by an LDS-Church owned press, was not in any way created under the control of the LDS Church, shows that he has received wider coverage than other people we have before discussed. The sources here expand beyond what we have seen in previous discussions. Not all those who had been general authorities were included in the Encyclopedia of LDS Church History, so Amado's inclusion indicates notability beyond merely being a general authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly fails notability guidelines. Previous AfD was improperly withdrawn, out of process, with many delete votes/arguments present. So here we are again and this time this AfD WILL go all the way to conclusion and decision by an Administrator. Safiel (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought was, "Of course this is notable." Unfortunately, I can't find a single reliable source that discusses it. WP:CMC/REF has a list of sources vetted by WikiProject Comics, which is a good place to start any search. If anyone can suggest a place to merge or redirect, I'm up for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narasimha karumanchi

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

Fails WP:author —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stub written by an SPA. I wonder why the surname is beginning with a small letter. I don't know how to check this but have a feeling this could be the revival of a deleted Narasimha Karumanchi. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common mistake made in article creation (best not corrected until and if the article survives this process as I think name changes during AfD cause problems). I'm not seeing any past deletions of the capitalised name. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have capitalized the spelling the creator requested it on my talkpage.Sorry did not note your comment before I capitalized it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is author of various self-published primers. There is mention of them on social media such as Goodreads but multiple searches are not turning up evidence of WP:AUTHOR notability, nor does the subject's working life in organisations meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
request when article is deleted, can admin please tag the image file for deletion? Source info is lacking. If you prefer/have time, please leave instructions for how to tag on my talk page, so I can do it in the future... thanks —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content in the page. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of content in the page is irrelevant to notability of topic. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced with marketing intentions Athachil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Lunar Republic

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

Non-notable fictional group, not mentioned on articles related to the subject. Online hits appear to be fan-based without reliable source mentions. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unremarkable part of the brony fandom that fails WP:GNG. Jinkinson talk to me 14:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a source to mention within the fandom article (though well aware of the "importance" within it). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Subject fails notability guidelines. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Billinghurst. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 02:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kazm Khezri

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

Notability. No evidence that this person is notable, and this article xwiki seems to have elements of personal interest — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, I have found that it related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diyako kazm — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Operating System

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

Non-notable future software release. The only source in the article is a placeholder website set up by the developer. Further, the editor who created the page is also the developer of the software (although the page is not blatant advertising). —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

qqwe2:I am going to release soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqwe2 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with C.Fred. An article about this OS should not be created until it has received significant coverage by multiple sources. ȸ (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of attained notability. (That is unsurprising at this point in its development cycle, but WP doesn't include on the basis of hopes for the future.) AllyD (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there were a speedy deletion criterion for this. — Keφr 14:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially unreferenced software article of unclear notability, lacking any coverage in independent reliable sources. A search turned up no RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Inter-Process Communication

AfDs for this article:

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

Is this linux software notable? Frankly, I am not sure. It was the subject of edit warring and a bad faith AfD nomination years past. I will nominate it and hopefully a few people not involved in this article's sordid past will chime in. Safiel (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & Paste from the Talk page (unregistered users cannot create the nomination page):

I'm nominating this article for deletion.

Technically, this is the second nomination (not by me): The first was never really considered (speedy keep, because of an edit war). You can find it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Distributed_Inter-Process_Communication

The reasons I am nominating this are:

The latest version is from 2008 (3.0-alpha10). A long time in Linux kernel development, 6.5 years, with Sourceforge counting less than 500 downloads total (+150 on the 2.x beta).
It was never considered for inclusion in Linux. The article sounds as if this was part of Linux, but it isn't. In fact, I could only find less than a dozen DIPC messages in 15 years on the LKML; most of which e.g. dealing with its (ab-)use of the VH_SHM flag. It doesn't seem to have received any interest on the LKML...
It might not even support current 3.x Linux kernels.
The references (Scholar) are essentially uncited articles. 10 citations in 17 years, probably including some self-citations.

All in all, this project IMHO fails the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines in every possible way. 94.216.192.225 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.88.132 (talk) [reply]

How often is this article read?

Safiel, DIPC was developed in mid-90s to early 2000s, and was among the first transparent distributed programming tools for Linux. It makes System V IPC work over a network while maintaining backward compatibility. Like any other design, it has pros and cons and one may wish to concentrate on the good or the bad. I think an objective way to approach this is to see how often the article is visited. If very few people read it, it can be removed. Otherwise keep it. That said, I was amused by the above anonymous author's reasons for removing this article. Unfortunately DIPC seems to attract hostility from certain people over the years, so my first reaction was to ignore them. But out of respect for Wikipedia's named moderators and readers, here are my short answers, in the same order as above:

Should the article for any tool that isn't downloaded frequently be deleted? How many people have downloaded Algol recently?
The use of the VH_SHM flag has a valid technical reason, as explained in DIPC's documentation. The flag was removed in later kernel versions so there was a need to find a remedy for DIPC to continue working. The fact that the word "(ab-)use" is employed to discuss a technical issue hints that the above anonymous author is not of good faith.
It does not support recent kernels. Again, not a good reason to delete an article.
???. Please count again.Kkarimi (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, Algol 68g version 2.8 was downloaded 600+ times from sourceforge. It has 26 downloads per week, whereas DIPC is at minimum (<=1 per week). And of course, Algol does have historic significance. --188.104.88.132 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm not seeing much in the way of independent, non-primary sources. There is a Linux Journal article, which is good, but it was written by the creators of the topic. There are several articles in the primary literature also authored by the creators, but the citation counts aren't high enough to support an argument for notability on their own. Not seeing anything in gbook, either. Looks like a likely delete. A note to Kkarimi: please read WP:NSOFT and WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is a term of art here with a very specific meaning. The short version: if people other than the creators have written in depth on a topic, then the topic is likely notable. This looks like a cool piece of research, but most cool pieces of research don't get their own wikipedia articles because other people don't write about them. If you're aware of a book chapter or magazine article that focuses on DIPC, please let us know. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability; this appears to have never been used or discussed by anybody but the authors; to little to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia IMHO. Please don't take this personally! --Chire (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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