Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 June	25 June >

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Novus (role-playing game)

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

Article is on a game whose only source is an entry at Goodreads, a non-RS user-generated review site.

A WP:BEFORE in the following fails to find any references: newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, JSTOR.

A general Google search turns-up a handful of additional sources all of which are non-RS and, even if they weren't, merely prove the game exists versus it being notable: rpg.net (citizen journalism site), drivethrurpg.com (retail ecommerce site), plus several blogs, web forums, and the usual. Chetsford (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chetsford has pretty much said everything I want to. As well as being unsourced, and no obvious sources turning up, the article looks completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article seems to be blatant advertisement. CabbagePower (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The author is probably notable (HARP author I believe), but all I can find is this [1], which isn't much. I'd suggest a redirect, but I'm not sure where to redirect to. Is there a good list article somewhere? Hobit (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above reasons: no sources (a Goodreads entry is similar a Facebook entry) and I cannot find any reliable sources (if anyone can find one, please let us know). William2001^(talk) 00:37, 1 July 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules

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

IAR is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. But is it notable enough for a stand-alone article? None of the sources included discuss IAR in depth, and most contain only a few passing mentions while presenting a critical view of Wikipedia. Some of the text may be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, but IAR as a topic fails the GNG. schetm (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly possible to find more external sources about this. For example, in the New York Review of Books, writer Nicholson Baker covered this as one of The Charms of Wikipedia, explaining that this was "the first Wikipedian rule". Also, there is lots of anarchist theory which may cover this as a general principle under some other heading. Anyway, the nomination invokes the rule WP:GNG but that's just a guideline which explicitly cites the policy itself: " and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew D. (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Charms of Wikipedia" mentions IAR merely in passing. It's not SIGCOV, and I see no reason why an "occasional exception" may apply here. schetm (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The coverage in that source is not a passing mention; it's a part and parcel of the overall piece. It certainly passes WP:SIGCOV as it tells us quite a bit about the rule, its authors, supporters and dissenters. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some sources do indeed critique the policy but others detail its origin, critically comment on the rule or even analyse how IAR is used in AfD discussions (ironically enough). There's plenty of coverage of the rule itself, and the topic is distinct enough from Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia or anything else in Category:Wikipedia that a merge would be unhelpful. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanger interview only discusses IAR in passing and Good Faith Collaboration only presents it within the broader context of Wikipedia policy. Only the third source you mention is SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. This is a relevant topic and it is distinct, and more generally, anarchist theory. The article is referenced well. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that any other extant sources are much like the ones I analyzed below. They aren't good enough. schetm (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is almost certainly mistitled; it wasn't actually about Wikipedia until it was rewritten by Bilorv last August, and if it were restored to its prior shaped There are no rules would almost certainly be a better title. GBooks returns around 162 times as many hits for the four-word title and GNews returns 197 times as many.

On a more humorous note: it should be noted that of the above three keep !votes, none are admins, all seem to want the article kept, and none have actually cited IAR as an argument, which might say something about the amount of stock they actually put in the reliable sources already cited in the article. :P

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited above and at first nomination. To be sure there are legal and equitable underpinnings, which can and should be researched more. But that is a content dispute,, and no reason to WP:AFD.

Indeed, article is well sourced already, and there is a blatant violation of WP:Before, which is supposed to both present and potential sourcing. Meets WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What in the first nomination presents a policy-based reason for keep? And what about this AfD describes a content dispute? And, for the record, my standard BEFORE check turned up a few more sources along much the same lines as those I've detailed below - sources that aren't good enough for a stand-alone article. schetm (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been accused of "a blatant violation of WP:Before. This is most certainly not the case and I invite the editor who made the accusation to withdraw it. Let's go through the sources to see if they meet as much muster as the keep !voters say they do.

1: A self-reference to Wikipedia, which this article does far too often. Most of the technical description of IAR comes from WP pipelinks. The result is rather severe OR in the article.

2: Used to source the launch date of Wikipedia; doesn't mention IAR at all.

3: IAR is mentioned twice in a chapter of this 445 page book. The chapter in question is written by Larry Sanger, who formulated IAR and isn't exactly independent of the subject. The first ref to IAR describes the rule in a broader discussion of "the origin of Wikipedia policies." The second is simply Sanger reminding the reader that he created IAR.

4: This New Yorker piece mentions IAR once and simply says that it was the first rule on Wikipedia. It doesn't mention it again.

5: Sanger is interviewed here. The questioner asks why IAR isn't a part of Citizendium and Sanger answers. Contrary to the clickbaity title, the interview isn't focused on IAR, but rather the launch of Citizendium (RIP).

6: Mentions IAR in one section, quotes the rule, and offers no more comment.

7: This one, (found most easily here) is better. It defines IAR and offers commentary within the context of WP policy. But it's still not significant coverage, and there's not enough for a full-fledged article here.

8: This one is also good. I don't have access beyond the abstract, but it appears to be actually about IAR. Chalk this one up as SIGCOV in RS.

9: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.

10: Like #7, this one also defines the policy and offers limited commentary within the context of WP policy. Still not SIGCOV.

11: Like 7 and 11, this one (full text here) defines IAR and offers limited commentary within the context of the governance of online communities. Still not SIGCOV.

12: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.

13: Like 7 and 10, this one (full text here) defines the policy and offers limited commentary within the context of WP policy. Again, still not SIGCOV.

14: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.

15: This one (full text here) mentions IAR in passing, but is really just talking about WP:GAMING

16: This one does much the same thing as 7, 10, and 13. Still not SIGCOV.

17: Mentioned in passing without definition or commentary

18: Mentioned in passing along with BLP, AGF, NOR.

Yes, there are a lot of sources here, but four of them are self-references to Wikipedia, 4, 5, 6, 17, and 18 only mention it in passing without commentary, merely acknowledging its existence, 3 isn't independent of the subject, 7, 10, 13, and 15 define the term and offer commentary, but only within a broader discussion of Wikipedia policy. 11 does the same but within the context of online governance, and 2 doesn't mention IAR at all. The only one of these 18 sources the remotely approaches SIGCOV of IAR is #8, but only one instance of SIGCOV in RS isn't sufficient.

The fact is that the sourcing available just isn't up to snuff. There's only one article entirely about IAR. Many of the sourcing gaps have to be filled in with self-references to Wikipedia in violation of WP:OR. I don't see how that could change. Sources 7, 10, 13, and 15 put this policy within the context of broader Wikipedia policy, not as a stand-alone section. As such, IAR is not independently notable. We should do the same as the sources do and present IAR with other WP topics, not as a stand-alone article. I suggested one merge topic, maybe there's another. That's why (the stand-alone article) Ignore all rules should not be kept - the sourcing doesn't allow for it to be kept. schetm (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered your request, and I find it improvident. I deline to take up your offer.

WP:Before make it clear that Deletion — the Wikipedia equivalent of capitol punishment — is last resort. There are lots of hurdles you should be jumping before you get to that finish line.

In any event, it was not an accusation.

It is a statement of fact. There is already plenty enough of sourcing, and the article can be developed. That you read WP:Before] differently than me doesn't make you immoral. Just wrong.

And you are wasting your and everybody's time Tilting at windmills. Surely we have better things to do. It's a big encyclopedia. A work in progress with real need for improvement. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped the hurdles and was still compelled to nominate it for deletion. The sourcing isn't good enough and, without better sourcing, the article cannot be further developed. And just because you don't like the outcome of a BEFORE check doesn't mean that there's a "blatant violation of WP:Before" going on. schetm (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sourcing gaps have to be filled in with self-references to Wikipedia in violation of WP:OR. This simply isn't true. Of the four self-references, two are to pages that are about IAR (namely, WP:IAR and WP:IAR?) and the other two (WP:5P, WP:GAME) are to augment commentary made by reliable sources which discuss critically those policies' relations to IAR. Can you please point out a violation of WP:OR or a sourcing gap in the article?

As for the thrust of your argument, we simply disagree on what constitutes SIGCOV. Most of the sources were never intended as arguments for notability; that isn't the only reason sources are included in articles. But of course some of them were, and in my opinion #7, #8, #11, #14 are SIGCOV which demonstrate notability. I guess we'll just have to get more opinions on whether they are or not. (Note that a source has since been added to the article; I'm using numbering as of this permalink.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to WP:IAR. Self-referential, doesn't need a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would you choose to merge? Additionally, given that WP:IAR is not a mainspace page, your !vote is essentially one to delete the article (like if I said Justin Knapp should be merged to User:Koavf), but you haven't commented on notability of the topic. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IAR page is very short, and I think it could use some more explanation. The sourcing's not great here, with lots of tangential coverage - I guess you could make the argument the academic paper that discusses IAR is sigcov, but I really don't understand why this is a stand-alone article, and not part of WP:IAR. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would require quite broad consensus at a forum like VPP, given that IAR is one of our oldest and most important policies. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to vehemently oppose any form of addition to the prose of WP:IAR. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage in enough places. Just because it isn't something you can write a lot of text about, doesn't make it less notable. You can't expect anyone to write an entire page in a newspaper about a one sentence rule. Dream Focus 13:51, 26 June 2019 (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 due to lack of independent notability. No objection to creation of a redirect at the same title, but the discussion here doesn't focus on a single clear target so I leave that to editorial discretion. RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daška McLean

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

Unsourced, does not really claim notability, could not find any online sources that would count towards WP:GNG. Most of the article's content is not about her, and notability doesn't rub off. GregorB (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTINHERITED. Even the article about her daughter kind of struggles with notability issues, but I really don't see any real independent WP:N claim for Daška. No such user (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. This appears to have been unsourced for 10 years, despite many editors contributing to it. Her husband, father and daughter are probably notable, but not herself. PamD 09:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look in The Times 2004 - no obituary, though a standard death notice, died 26 November, as "beloved wife of the late Billy McLean and adored mother of ...". Nothing to indicate notability. PamD 09:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to her husband? PamD 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best solution. GregorB (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Being with someone notable doesn't make her notable (which probably explains the lack of sources). Most of the article contents are about someone else. Redirect it to one of their articles. William2001^(talk) 00:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability,and I don't think Being with someone notable doesn't make her notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2019 (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 Weather satellite. Given the limited input on the choice of target, I would not consider that to be definitive if editors want to discuss alternative targets on the Talk page of the redirect. RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Cloud Image

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

No sources, and I'm wondering whether any exist. It's easy to find documents that use this phrase, but do reliable sources study these images distinctly from other kinds of images produced by satellites, or distinctly from cloud images produced by other means? It would be easy to find lots of reliable sources talking about red automobiles, but that alone would not make red car a good topic for an article; we'd need sources that talk about red cars separately from other red vehicles or other cars. Same here; a common phrase isn't necessarily a good article topic. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems indeed like a generic phrase - a description, not a term. There's nothing that couldn't be said in Weather satellite. GregorB (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; this seems quite superfluous. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather satellite. That article describes cloud systems among other things observed by such satellites. This title might be something people would search for, but doesn't seem independently notable beyond the system of satellites that produce the images. Cnilep (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a meteorology-related article. Instead of an article by itself, it should be written as a type of an image, which should be a part of a list of types of images (maybe in weather satellite like Cnilep mentioned?). William2001^(talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bren Vaneske

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

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

Non-notable musician, I can find no in depth coverage of this person in english or spanish (or any of the others I tried to search in.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For performers, it's usually necessary to search for both stage name and birth name. I found an article about her in a Turkish-language newspaper, Gazete Karınca, and added it as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that “paper” is a blog and the rest of the sources you’ve added don’t meet the depth or independent criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and it’s exactly the same as the aurora source which is not truly independent coverage.Praxidicae (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The aurora source is notable, because it is not a passing mention, but is focused on Brenda. In addition, Aurora has its own Wikipedia page: Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity. The source also mentions that she's part of Argentian band Attaque 77, which has its own article in es.wikipedia.org: [2]. Clovermoss (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2019 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Parasite Award

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

This is not a notable award, there is no coverage I can find in newspapers, magazines, books or journals.Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is from one of the two pre-eminent science journals:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830

This is from the other: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1005

It was started via an editorial in the pre-eminent medical journal: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMe1516564

Are here are a bunch of press releases or other topics, that are just coming from a quick skim of the results of a google search for "research parasite". I didn't take the time to figure out which are associated with recipients:

https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/7/11/giy129/5160134 https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

In addition, NSF, NIH, DOE, and other funding agencies are going to great lengths to promote data, sharing, research parasitism, and data reuse. Would you like links on those too? This also links to a plethora of existing Wikipedia pages on the topic.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment links above aren't about the award, just the term "research parasite", similarly ISCB's comment on the NEJM editorial. IMO, "research parasite" might be worth an article, but not (yet) this award. Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Giving references bolstering any claims of notability that are not behind paywalls would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be an article from all these sources on "Research parasites" or "Data sharing" but the award itself is non-notable. None of the cited references go into depth on the award and, actually, the award is not mentioned at all in any of the references that I was able to check. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

The first article listed above, from one of the top science journals in the world, describes the awarding of the first awards and the names of the recipients://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830.

And this is a press release on that paper, and the awards: https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

Again, this is just the first page of results from google. There are many more.

If I specifically search the news page of google with "research parasite award", I can also get: https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/05/dirt-award-cleaning-scientific-literature/

With respect to paywalls--that would be great--but even most newspapers are behind paywalls these days. But you can find a public version of the Nature one at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/, with all the nuances intricacies of what PubMedCentral does and does not house related to journal copyright.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADP85xzVcQD Press releases are absolutely worthless for establishing notability, they are not independent or coverage of a subject as required. STAT doesn't provide much coverage either and it's questionable as far as notability goes with regard to this subject. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)ADP85xzVcQD I am assuming your removal of my Delete post above was inadvertent. Please do not remove other editors' comments on this page, it goes against WP:TPO which states "do not alter others' comments," etc.

Press releases are not considered to be reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think I deleted it. I saw your comment, started making edits, couldn't save my edits because someone else was editing, so I copied my edits, closed everything, opened it again, your comment was gone, and I pasted my edits at a blinking cursor. That said, this is a horrible interface, so who knows, and I apologize if I was the cause.

As for notability, you can argue about the press releases, but ultimately, I gave you a paper in one of the world's top science journals discussing the award and its recipients, and I provided an open access version of the journal article. Let's focus. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in a magazine about the award: https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/the-open-data-explosion-65248. You may have to register to see it, but I think everyone can register "for free". ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one from STAT news is not a press release (nor is the one above, for clarity) https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're providing a bunch of sources but failing to understand that it needs to be in depth coverage of the awards, not the term, as Shareonink stated above, the term is likely notable but the awards are not. Lastly, for the final time, please sign your edits, as you've been repeatedly warned. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above this with the article from StatNews on 2016/05/05 was my first edit. How does one sign the edits? Four tildes? Did you read the article at https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/. It's primarily about the award.2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientist article passes muster. The May 2016 Stat News also looks reliable. The NCBI opinion column/article seems like it might ok (is it mainly an opinion piece? - I'll need to re-read it when I have time)... Just an aside but have either of the interested editors thought about giving the Data sharing article some heavy editing? It's had an "improvements needed" Notice on it since 2016... Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, I was looking at the data sharing page, and was considering edit it. The one on secondary data does not have a banner but also needs significant improvements. However, I am currently reluctant to even visit Wikipedia again when this is done. While I have edited pages for over a decade anonymously, my experiences on Wikipedia over the past year with non-anonymous changes have almost solely been negative (for instance, an editor who rolled back every change I made today without the courtesy of a single comment on any rollback or my page, or the editor who literally insulted me less than a week ago. And that is just this week. There are many times the same has happened in the past. I will fully admit they leave me feeling harassed and often in tears, not what a grown woman with an advanced degree, young children, and a profession needs from this "hobby". The culture on Wikipedia of late seems to be to warn and threaten first and it really makes it unbearable. Much of my response isn't related to the intended content on this page, but it is important for you to understand my answer and the veracity of that answer. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - that is its salvation and its curse. You run into nice folks and come across jerks, kind of like going to the mail and trying to park your car...there might be a jerk who cuts you off and maybe someone who is nice and maybe someone who is yelling a couple of spaces over. But you don't let them stop you, you get in to the stores and you buy what you came for, the items you need and want. The other thing is that we can't hear people's tone of voice online - sometimes typed words or actions can seem harsh but - and maybe I am being a Pollyanna about this - I think that is rarely their actual intent around here. For anyone who has been around for a while (let's say a couple years) the sheer onslaught of vandalism, the Point of view/Conflict of interest/spamming, the numerous trolls whose only reason to exist is to tear down the content...it gets wearing and sometimes long-timers might think a bad thing about a good person. That doesn't make it right but maintaining an assume good faith attitude can be tremendously difficult. I hope you stick around - if I can make it here anyone (seriously anyone) can. I started out editing a little article that was full of errors and needed serious improvements. Usually editing an existing article that one knows something about is a good way to start out. Good luck. I am swamped this week, don't have the time or frankly the inclination to even see if it is possible to fully/completely ascertain its notability but I've changed my opinion on Deletion to "Neutral". Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I try to maintain your perspective on "good faith"; it is the fourth pillar if I remember correctly. But your analogy doesn't hold because when I go to the mall parking lot, almost everyone I meet doesn't threaten to take my car away, or delete me. Most people just don't care that I'm at the mall, and some are even happy to see me spending money--helping them keep their job and contributing to services by paying taxes. If I said the things that get said to me on Wikipedia, I wouldn't have a job and I would have been worried about a harassment lawsuit. My experience is that the first response from editors always seems to be to threaten something--delete the page, delete me--or revert, deleting hours of work with a single word and no real explanation. And often I can't argue with them, because they give me nothing. And it feels like, even if it isn't the case, that they have crony that has their back who follows up with yet another threat. Something like the following has been said to me too many time: "if you spent this much time on it, it must be a COI". Really? Isn't the whole goal to have people spend time? Particularly folks who know the content well? I have yet to see the first instinct be fine tuned editing, or "thanks!". And it won't improve if existing folks don't require it, because no one will want to be an editor, or maybe already no one wants to be an editor. Ultimately, if it doesn't change, Wikipedia will die, it is just a matter of time. And my God, in this day and age, forgive me but I don't sign anything. So yelling at me because I don't sign my posts is just mean. Really, the interface just needs to be updated and brought into this decade before it is over. But I digressed, again... Thanks for lending an ear Shearonink, I do appreciate it. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your experience/s. Content that is removed from public view is always salvageable. You can usually always go into the edit history and at least cut&paste/save all your work to your personal sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

• It seem verifiable given the Nature Genetics article ^[1] in a premier scientific journal, the article in science magazine “The Scientist” ^[2], and at least two author-signed articles written on a statnews web page^[3]^[4]. All these links have been added to the main article; none of these links are press releases. As an aside, all the content is verifiable because the primary source is the award's own web page. I don't understand why a secondary source would be preferred over a primary source; usually the opposite is true when writing content. It seems that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is itself a secondary source, and really should be relying on primary sources of data to every extent possible.

It seems there is some sort of voting; unfortunately none of the links supplied describe how to do that. But I clear vote to keep it. I don't see how it could rightfully be deleted given the stated criteria. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment I have downgraded this subsection because it would affect the log. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036.
^ Viviane Callier. "The Open Data Explosion". Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Congratulations, you're a parasite!". Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Incentives Science". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

Keep The reporting in The Scientist and STAT is enough to establish notability. The content could potentially be merged somewhere, and the prose needs a bit more going-over than I have time for today, but that's for ordinary editing to resolve, not a deletion discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Letters to the Editor emphatically do not rank with research articles or mainstream article coverage. However, in the aggregate the sources noted above are just about sufficient, I think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have noticed some coverage on the University of Pennsylvania Health System [3] which should be reliable but it is WP:PRIMARY since the subject's creator is a professor there. Besides that, I was not able to find much that wasn't mentioned here (there is a thing on RealScientist, but that seems like an unreliable website). The STAT's coverage is nice and there is a bit in The Scientist, but I think it's not really enough to keep this afloat. Most of the references offered here are mentioning a completely different subject (which seems very well notable). This? Not so much. In my opinion, this should be merged with Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, but seeing XOR'easter and Elmidae's votes, it's highly unlikely that will happen, at least in this AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2019 (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.

Comment scotted400 There have been additional articles about the awards in GigaScience, and I've just added a reference to an announcement about the award in the journal Biocomputing (Biocomputing 2017, pp. vii (2017) https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813207813_fmatter). With the stat news and Nature Genetics coverage is that enough "appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources" to resolve this? 04:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Insufficient indication that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF at this time. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Cooper Olivieri

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

This cardiologist does not appear to meet the notability requirements for researchers (WP:NPROF). There's one mini write-up in the New Scientist [4] which I'd argue does not suffice on its own; the other main source is the alumni magazine of her alma mater, which has a natural selection bias [5]. Cites for the main showcase paper are in the nineties, which is good but not on the "substantial impact on discipline" level. Don't think we are there yet :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with Elmidae's assessment of the sources. I also have an additional concern about the papers, because they are attributed to a Laura J Olivieri as opposed to Laura C Olivieri, without any indication in cited sources that she goes by this name. If Laura J is a pseudonym of the subject, the notability would appear to be borderline: based on a Google Scholar search, Olivieri has 3 papers above 90 citations, four more above 30, but then the number of citations per paper quickly trails off resulting in an h-index of only 9 if I counted correctly. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this author affiliation look convincing? Perhaps she had a second given name like "Jane"? Certainly doesn't seem to have published as "LC", just as "L" or "LJ". PamD 09:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Forgot to ping. PamD 09:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, honestly, based on the rather detailed list of achievements and organizational affiliations accorded to Olivieri, I would guess that it's likely the same person. I'm still on the fence as to overall notability, though. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think WP:NPROF #1 ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") is met, and there are no claims of notability per other NPROF criteria. GregorB (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Being a cardiologist does not mean she meets notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is pretty much nothing in the article stating why she is notable (perhaps because she isn't). What makes her special from other cardiologists? William2001^(talk) 01:28, 1 July 2019 (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 Godsmack discography. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It On (Godsmack song)

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

Barely notable, little coverage, no charts or awards. No suitable redirect target except maybe Madden NFL 06, but I don't know if it's worth it or not. My point is that this shouldn't be an article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Godsmack or Godsmack discography. Not independently notable, but worth mentioning somewhere in their career. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of those two I'd opt for the discography. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, I just feel like it’s more closely associated to the band than the game. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that's what I usually do, I don't know why I didn't think of that before. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Godsmack discography. The song should be listed at their discography because it was used in a video game and not released anywhere else, but it is not notable enough for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to, like above editors said, Godsmack discography. Not every song/album by a notable artist is notable. See Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. William2001^(talk) 01:31, 1 July 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Laurence

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

This is nothing more then a self promotional vanity article likely written by the subject. He has received no in depth coverage that I can find and is not notable as a writer. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable person. Citations are just general links to top websites, heavily insufficient and inadequate. Reads like a personal advert to sell books. --Treycurs (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC) restored from deleted history of malformed AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Self-promo article. Geoffroi (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The possible COI isn't even the biggest problem here. The person seems to have not enough notability (the "notable" work links to an article that doesn't exist...). No good references (at least nothing that goes in detail about the writer). William2001^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St.John Church of God in Christ

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I looked through Google and couldn't find significant discussion of it in reliable sources, just notifications of events.

Versions have been sent to draft space several times but it continues to be placed in article space. Prod tag was removed by author. ... discospinster _talk 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even speedily as a blatant advertisement. I also see no evidence of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this person is not the author of this page. i am. i have added links to this page. it ties in with another page in which it is referenced. i cannot add detailed history because of copyright claims but i added the link to the website pertaining to the history. i have also added links to the district related to the page and the organization. this is a legit place and the websites are legit. there is no reason to believe otherwise. i have also added facebook and youtube links. i have asked others not to bother this page as people have used it as a means to attack me personally. i have never had any issues with any pages i have contributed to that have been this extensive until now. i really am unappreciative of the way certain wikipedia contributors have handled this situation. it is fine if you delete a page but don't make it personal or use it as a means to attack a user for contributing and trying to assist you as you are the ones without the information and clearly in need of it. behavior like that makes users not want to assist. also please stop removing my edits and updates as you falsely accuse me when i remove yours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terricam (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what even is this page? I see literally nothing about it online. Almost certainly fails WP:GNG. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "inspires blah blah blah" doesn't inspire any confidence in you that it's notable??!?!?!?!?! Praxidicae (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see! How could I have been so blind? (sarcasm) TheAwesome Hwyh 20:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely fails WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to agree. This does not meet the notability guidelines, particularly the "Significant coverage", "Sources", and "Independent of the subject" guidelines.WP:GNG -- Courtc22 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not have significant coverage for a stand-alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - easily fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing in the article to show that this church is more notable than a host of other NN local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Academy

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

A non-notable, now-defunct cooking school. Of the four sources present in the article, two were from the school's own website, and the other two are not about this particular organization and do not mention it at all. Searching for additional sources brought up nothing substantial. There were plenty of results from other organizations over the years that have called themselves the "Kitchen Academy". For this particular school, though, the only sources I found outside of directory listings were a few articles about Jeff Mauro winning a show on Food Network, where they briefly mention that he attended it. And as this coverage amounts to nothing more than "Jeff Mauro went to the Kitchen Academy", this does not constitute the significant coverage needed to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP as there are insufficient sources to establish notability. As per the nominator, there are directory listings and two citations to the defunct school's former website, plus a few very passing mentions. But I was unable to find any in-depth published references on the school. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Law Group

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

unable to verify. it list all these org but there were no report. there is one report on federal website, which mentioned it as a scam, which... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-world-law-group-for-charging-illegal-fees-and-making-false-promises-in-debt-relief-scheme/ Viztor (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some member firms maybe be notable, that's not INHERITED. Best sourcing I could find was this brief mention in the New York Times from 1989 - which initially was promising give the age of the consortium. However I could find little else that wasn't self-published and nothing that comes close to the standard of multiple reliable independent secondary sources with substantial coverage as per NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Law firm network lists the WLG as the globally 4th largest network with the numbers of lawyers obviously being outdated - the network article lists 10000, legal 500 mentions over 18000. WP has articles about other similar - even smaller - networks (Alliott Group, Lex Mundi, ALFA International, WSG - World Services Group, Meritas (law), Multilaw, Pacific Rim Advisory Council. It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility when it marshals such a number of professionals. By their very nature, law firms and thus their associations might just act a little more seclusively than other, more flashy industries. The power of transnationality cannot be underestimated, especially when it comes to resolving legal cases in the globalized industry, thus, networks of global players are more than the sum of their parts. At best, such a deletion proposal could serve as a reason to believe that someone tries to guard their secrecy, at worst we would have an example of an "it appears beyond us, so let's not bother to mention it" attitude. -- Kku (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:GNG. Kku writes "It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility"; but "relatively small visibility" here means that it's not gotten any coverage to support a claim of notability. Wikipedia should not be the place that provides that coverage; that's not its role.

As an aside, the lawsuit and settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appears to be with a entirely different entity. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Captain Raju, Barkeeper49, and TJRC make excellent points.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra

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

Provided sources do not meet WP:GNG, as they comprise a single review of a book by the subject and some informational pages about organizations that the subject is affiliated with. I was unable to find anything more substantial searching for her name in English online. A Google Scholar search would seem to indicate that her publications have not been sufficiently cited to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The citation provided for the claim that the subject is affiliated with Indian Institute of Advanced Study does not mention the subject, and she is not listed on their list of fellows. It's further unclear whether being a fellow of the organization would establish notability. While Scholar is not the be-all end-all of measurements of academic impact (especially for the humanities), based on this University of Delhi website, it appears that the subject is an assistant professor, and her publications are all relatively recent––it may simply be WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article clearly needs some work, but GNG and NPROF is met, at least minimally. But needs the WP:HEY squad to improve quality quite a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, could you clarify what exactly leads you to believe that GNG and/or NPROF are met? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't meet the notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent resources. Edwige9 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This academic do not meet NPROF, she is a fellow of a research institute, that is not the same as being a fellow of a national academy. I also can not find press coverage, I did a google search and there is only routine coverage by the institutions she worked at. Viztor (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra page has been revised, the objection raised that the subject was not the member of the said institute is untenable. In the recent edit, User:Parchahimanshuphil has edited and provided the reference for that point. Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla is one of the most prestigious research institutes for the humanities in India. This shows that the subject is one of the reputed philosophers among the philosophers' community of India. All the objections raised against this page are based on the simple quantitative method (like how many publications the subject has etc). It seems that User:Rosguill is not aware of the subject's works and especially the quality of the work. In philosophical works number and pages doesn't count, but what counts is the quality of the idea. I propose that Wikipedia shouldn't remove this page, this page will help the current and future students to know more about a hard working and genius philosopher who is not in the limelight. I propose that the entry shouldn't be removed. —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Being a member of a research institute is not cause for notability by itself, and nothing in the article rises to the level of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criterion. I did find one published review of her 2017 book [6] but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SenesTech

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

not notable. most of the ref are from prnewswire which is just a company blog site, and others are financial reports or government repo for companies. Viztor (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disregarding the press releases, the references from reliable sources are enough to establish notability. I had heard that the New York subway was using a contraceptive to control rats, but I didn't know that this company was supplying the contraceptive product. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eastmain which references? They're all press releases and churnalism from what I can see. Can you point to the references you believe meet the criteria for notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Eastman. There is enough coverage to be notable. MB 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ I see two non-press releases both from the AZ Daily sun [7] [8]. That might be enough for notability - maybe. But this article as written is promotional enough to qualify for G11 especially as its creator seems to be a SPA with a COI if not a UPE. A reminder that G11 can be applied regardless of the notability of its subject. So let's speedy delete this piece of promotionalism (or worse) to let someone endeavor to fundamentally rewrite the article in a policy compliant manner, using RS like the AZ Daily Sun. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I talked myself into being a Keep below. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the keep is on the notability basis noted by Eastmain. The Weak is on the basis of excessive promotionalism indicated by Barkeep. I do not believe it reached G11 levels, but it did reach the standard that an AfD could have deleted it on. I've removed some of the clearer cut promo content - not enough to stop it being promo, but I believe enough to move it into "improve" rather than "delete" territory. Follow-up work would, as always, be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and it also overlaps greatly with the ContraPest article (not sure that topic meets notability guidelines either). Some references, like the one from the Guardian newspaper are churnalism where the article is really a poorly disguised promo piece. Others are simply based on company announcements. None contain independent content that meets the criteria as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe my thoughts are already covered in above comments. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 02:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company's Wikipedia article includes articles from The Guardian and The Arizona Daily Sun that provide significant coverage of the subject. According to this article^archive.is in The Fly, Craig-Hallum, a research, trading, and investment banking firm, covers the company. The article notes:
Craig-Hallum analyst Kevin Ellich reiterated a Buy rating and $2 price target on SenesTech after the California Department of Pesticide Regulation officially registered ContraPest for use in California. While he views the registration as a positive and is encouraged by the approval, Ellich says it is not unexpected as he thought the 30-day comment period would prove to be "more of a formality." Ellich notes that his estimates already contemplate a sharp acceleration in revenue based on regulatory approvals and commercial success.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations notes: "... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such [public] companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Craig-Hallum publishes analyst reports about the company. There is enough non-interview coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not an analyst report so it doesn't count towards notability. If you find an analyst report, then fine but that's not one. The Guardian reference is churnalism as I've commented on above, as is The Arizona Sun reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, What evidence do you have that the Guardian, which RSN has considered generally reliable, is engaging in churnalism with that piece? That to me looks like a fully reported piece that has chosen to focus on SensTech. It is to me highly indicative of a notable company. I'm delete because of the writing on the article but I think it's crazy to suggest that the Guardian (and to a lesser extent Arizona Sun) should be discounted because it goes against your contention. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 This type of debate is very common at AfD. Yes, the Guardian is considered generally reliable but this is only one factor in examining sources to determine notability. In terms of evidence, first the obvious - this is a growing trend. From the churnalism article, it says (rather surprisingly in my opinion): In his book Flat Earth News, the British journalist Nick Davies reported a study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers which found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original. In my opinion, churnalism tends to follow a particular formula. It starts with a discussion of the problem, then the Aha! moment, then founder backgrounds, then why they're different, then funding, then the "future is bright" and finishing with a rosy outlook. Then we look at the reference in question. It is essentially a promo piece for the company albeit long and drawn out. The first 6 paragraphs discuss rats and nothing about the company but sets up "the problem". The seventh paragraph starts with our first link to the company and it is a quote from the CEO which sets up "the problem". The Aha! moment is next - "birth control of rats". Then the discussion on why they're different. Then a promo piece on the CEO complete with obligatory photo. More quotes from the interview with the CEO and her bio. Then the pieces about why they're different, comparing with the problems of traditional rat poison. Then the discussion about their success and the rosy outlook. The article then switches to quotes from IPM and a NY health department official. Back the article comes to the company where they discuss a celebration for staff and investors and the good news on the EPA registration. Then the future-looking paragraphs with "considerable work left to do" and the "SenesTech product is a breakthrough", etc. For me, sure it is a long read, but it is still churnalism. Another aspect of this article is that it is clear that all of the facts and information was gleaned from company sources or sources that are connected to the company. As per ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In my opinion the journalist received all of the information with no independent opinion/analysis/investigation or fact checking that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you see that I suggested that this kind of debate is unusual for AfD. What I think is unusual (I shouldn't have written crazy) is the contention that an article like the Guardian's isn't RS. People don't read past the first paragraph. If it was churnalism it would not spend six paragraphs settting up the issue before mentioning the topic of the supposed churnalism. Six paragraphs could be an entire story - in fact one of the AZ Sun articles is about the length of the Guardian piece before it mentions the company. I think you're suggesting there is no such thing as a reliable British new source and that is not our current consensus. I think the most likely thing is that the Guardian decided to cover this topic and then found that SensTech was an important player exactly the sort of reporting that would indicate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I think there might be a crossed wire. Nowhere have I argued that those publications are not reliable sources and neither have I even suggested that there is no such thing as a reliable British source. I am a regular contributor to AfD, focused almost exclusively on Organizations/Companies. I would regard myself as being very familiar with the guidelines for assessing whether references meet the criteria for notability. Those guidelines are contained in WP:NCORP and in my experience, references such the ones you've pointed to fail to meet the criteria of "independence" as detailed in WP:ORGIND. I've provided the precise quotation and its relevance in my previous response. Again, from my experience, churnalism follows a particular formula which I've described in broad brushstrokes in my previous response and this article hardly deviates. Yes, it is a long article and it provides a lot of information on "the problem" and is detailed ... but it is still churnalism and it still fails to demonstrate any independent (relevant) content clearly attributable to an unaffiliated source. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have worked in this area. We are both experienced editors who understand policy. I maintain my comments - I think that Guardian piece more than satisfies the requirement of being an independent reliable source discussing the organization in significant detail. You maintain yours - the Guardian is not independent. Fair enough. Good faith editors can disagree about sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just to be ultra-mega-clear. The requirement of The Guardian newspaper being an independent reliable source is not in dispute. As you are an experienced editor who understands policy, you are also no doubt aware that being "an independent reliable source" is one half of the "independent" criteria for establishing notability (contained in WP:ORGIND), with the other half of that requirement being that the *content* is independent. As I've referred to multiple times above, the requirement is as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, to recap my position, so that there is no misunderstanding, in my opinion, this article fails to provide any *original and independent* opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking that are *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In addition, in my opinion, it follows the well-established format of articles that have, in the past, been flagged as churnalism. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I just did a little digging because while I'm generally willing to admit I could easily be the guy wrong on the Internet this particular contention about the Guardian still doesn't sit well with me after having read it now at least 4 times. Taking International Journalists Network (which I know nothing about) at face value this could easily be an example of Churnalism in the Guardian (from 2011). Notice that the promoted company is right there in the first paragraph. And headline. Where people read. Not 776 words later (enough words that if it were a standalone article it could easily qualify as significant coverage of the topic on its own). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, couldn't ask for any more. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is still actively being discussed so relisting to provide the opportunity for consensus to be obtained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Preston

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify anything. Trillfendi (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ST47 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Donovan

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Frederic

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. A biography in auction house brochure does not establish notability nor do any of the other sources provided in the article. I cannot find any better source. Fails WP:GNG. Whpq (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search turns up nothing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject of this article does not appear to meet notability requirements via reliable sources. Searched Google, but only found Obits, and an auction record. Fails WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radmila Lolly

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

Sourced to press releases and unreliable sources. My own searches turn up passing ,mentions, but no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Whpq (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG. Article is essentially just a lot of non-notable information peppered with name-dropping. Likely just WP:TOOSOON. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2019 (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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Sandstein 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Malone

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

Minor baseball player, no statement in the article which would be notable, even if accurately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASEBALL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players.. as the team's first round pick he should be included somewhere as people will be searching for him. This is the best place to put him for now as he doesn't have enough for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Not enough yet in terms of coverage to merit an independent article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol.-- Yankees10 22:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Article looks like the best option. I watched the Article and have also rod the other user comment. I think the Article could merge with Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players as other user said.Forest90 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG based on non-trivial coverage (ESPN, Charlotte Observer etc.) Subject is notable per WP:NEXIST. Subject does not have to pass WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Only one or the other:

Major League Baseball first round draft pick
Multi-million dollar contract
Non-trivial secondary references Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references, and will continue. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a first round draft pick and signing a contract are not relevant in this discussion.. baseball draft picks dont get the wide coverage that football and basketball ones do and sourcing looks pretty much routine to me. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG based on significant non-trivial coverage. No pretended compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol. Malmmf (talk) 24:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this article passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 13:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator statement) Merge. Still fails WP:GNG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see anything that shows he meets any WP notability criteria. Coverage is typical sports reporting, but a merge seems reasonable to me. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uptowncharlybrown

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

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:NHORSERACING. The horse's noted win was in the Pasco Stakes, which is not a Grade I stakes race, and no indication of meeting other listed criteria. General coverage of the horse does not appear to be significant for WP:GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the ESPN article in the article is significant coverage and the press coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NHORSERACING fail. The press coverage is not sufficient for WP:GNG in my opinion, because the coverage is largely in the context of the Belmont Stakes and appears routine and not anything more than the average Belmont contender. I would point to WP:NOTWHOSWHO here. Aspening (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article for two reason. First, it's not notable itself and second, the article weak sources and coverage categorized it under WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

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

lots of pr, but not yet notable according to WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Coverage is either in-depth or in form of rewritten press releses about business-as-usual/invest-in-us. Some refs are broken, [9] claims to be from Business Weakly but takes us to a broken 404 page at some is a commercial business networking organisation, which I guess means spam-distributor, and I guess they didn't pay their fee to have their spam sources up? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To address the concerns of broken links, they have been updated (since the links were originally accessed months ago, and website URLs have apparently moved around since then), specifically link 1 as you mentioned above. Furthermore, I contend for the notability of Healthera as the sources articles show a large amount of coverage involving speculation about the company's plans, direction, and technological outlook. A source has also been added talking about recent controversies about Healthera in its working with the NHS. Piotrus, please try not to use such a patronizing tone as I don't believe it helps in any sort of discussion. Sliu.3110 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ref 1is a notice of funding

ref 2 is to its listing on an apps site

ref 3 is a notice of funding

ref 4 is an announcement with quotes from the founder,written as pr

ref 5 is a notice of funding

ref 6 is an announcement from the firm sponsoring the system

ref 7 is a notice of funding

ref 8 is a notice of funding

ref 9 is anannouncement it won a contract, with quotes from the founder , written as pr

ref 10 is a listing on a very nonselective "companies to watch"

ref 11, however, is an actual news item . It was added after I nominated the article.

one RS is not enough for an article. And from the history of the article, a draft for it it was properly rejected at AfC, and the contributor then made the same item outside AfC, The pattern is typical of a coi editor trying to evade the system provided for coi editors DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, the guidelines state that multiple references are required to meet the criteria for establishing notability (unless we're talking about an obscure topic - the example provided for only one reference in WP:NCORP is a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, right, though I interpret this as depending on the source as well as the subject. As a particularly clear example, a NYT full obit by itself has almost always been acepted as proving notability--so would one official source demonstrating a major national prize, or participation in the recognized presumptive notability levels of athletics, or for many geographical features. For companies, it would be very rare, just as you say. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The volume of references, however, does suggest significant interest on the company. Calling refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 merely all notices of funding is an understatement, especially as they provide significant depth and insight towards the company beyond funding, especially references 1 and 3, though it is true that some of the other references are less in depth and do focus on funding, which is again not on its own a disqualification of a source as independent, significant, and thorough coverage. Sliu.3110 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read WP:NCORP: From section 2. 2 Significant coverage: "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant" and from section 2.2.1: Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ...of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,; of a capital transaction, such as raised capital; ....inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists," DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are rather 'trivial' in the sense that there is no journalistic coverage and they focus on funding, or the "best of"/"top 100" lists you mentioned. These sources alone do not qualify an article for notability, however these are not the only sources provided. The inclusion of these sources do not therefore disqualify an article for notability. Please direct your attention to the four significant articles below:

Source [10] is titled "Healthera set for further growth after £3m Series A", thus talking about the company's plans after the funding round. It discusses Healthera's impact on the platform partnering with NHS clinical commissioning groups: "As of September 3, the new approach by Healthera and DGS CCG will replace traditional methods of ordering through the pharmacy or GP... Together Healthera and the DGS CCG aim to help the NHS reduce medicine wastage, eliminate congestion in the prescriptions hotline, and empower community pharmacies to play a more active role in the patient’s healthcare while reducing manual workload." This whole section is discussing a shift in the healthcare industry, and is not related to funding at all.

Source [11] is not a funding article, as the title "Healthera in £1 million digital healthcare coup" refers to a partnership linking traditional Health IT and the growing Digital Health sector. For example, the article discusses Healthera's patent-pending "Prescription Processing Engine" in depth, and how it will be used in conjunction with pharmacy IT services.

Source [12] is a blog post by a former NHS official, Associate Director of Medicines Optimisation Diar Fattah, talking about Healthera's likely impact in their locality. Fattah is a known authority in his own industry, so his blog post on an official NHS website confers legitimacy and reliability of the information provided.

Source [13], which you have already mentioned briefly, is an article talking about the controversy brought by Healthera's introduction into the Dartford, Gravesham, and Swanley CCG's ordering system. Sliu.3110 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I acknowledge the careful analysis of both DGG and Sliu.3110 here and thank both for their work, but I am more persuaded by the latter. For example, DGG describes reference 2 as "listing on an apps site", but the NHS Apps library (so far) is highly selective and listing achieved only after a complex review process. Likewise, I agree with Sliu.3310 that the nhsconfed.org post, while called a blog, constitutes significant coverage that will have been through an editorial process. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Chemist and Druggist reference is not in-depth and there is no evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as is required as per WP:ORGIND. The reasoning provided by Siliu.3310 and supported by Bondegezou is not based on policies or guidelines and, in fact, is contrary to WP:NCORP guidelines. References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article (so long as they are from reliable sources, etc) but are not counted towards meeting the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources and shouldn't be used for any reason. A listing on an apps site does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria for notability is fairly strict for companies/organizations. This topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As per WP:ORGIND, there are "two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author… [and] independence of the content…" The author of the Chemist and Druggist reference is clearly independent of the source. For the independence of content, the content is not produced by interested parties. There is original and independent investigation and fact-checking, as demonstrated by the in-depth and journalistic interviews conducted on Mike Keen and Luke Tate, two separate sources, both unrelated to Healthera. The author makes an analysis through balancing facts and opinions from multiple parties using direct quotes from the previously mentioned impartial interview sources, to maintain journalistic integrity and for the publisher to maintain a neutral stance on the issue.

HighKing mentions that “References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article,” which is true and something that has already been addressed. HighKing ignores the fact that the articles used to establish notability, such as the Business Weekly reference only mention funding as a part of an overall journalistic report on the company, which are also not from company announcements (i.e. they have obtained sources about the funding of their own accord). These articles also have significant amounts of their own input and analysis involved.

According to WP:NEWSBLOG, [blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")” The writer in question, Diar Fattah, is a professional, and the information is attributed to the writer in the article. It’s worth mentioning that the blog is sourced from NHS Confederation which is curated and authoritative, not a freestyle blog. Feel free to read more about the source here: NHS Confederation

Regarding the listing on the NHS apps site, that was never a central argument key to proving the notability of Healthera, but rather a supporting source confirming the verifiability and legitimacy of its app. As mentioned previously by Bondegezou, the NHS apps library does have a strict vetting process. Sliu.3110 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: duplicate !vote struck. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Response I agree with Sliu.3110 that the Chemist and Druggist reference has been written by independent journalists but that's as far as it goes. I disagree that there is any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company - which is key for considering sources for the purposes of establishing notability since is the company that is the topic of this article. This article is simply a short report on a disagreement between the NHS's decision to allow clients to use the Healthera app and the CEO of Kent LPC. For that matter, the reference also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

The article in Business Weekly has not been "ignored" by me. These types of articles are commonplace after a company announces funding (yes, that article is based on a company announcement) and WP:NCORP classifies these types of "articles" as "dependent coverage" and they are not sufficient to establish notability. For example, here are several others, all dated around the same date, using similar company descriptions, quotations, even the same photo, etc, as the Business Weekly article. The subsequent company post is a permanent dead link. Does not count towards establishing notability.

The Blog on the nhsconfed site is a great example of why blog posts should always be treated with the utmost suspicion and should only be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability in the rarest of cases (almost never). In this case, the NHS and Diar Fattah has a vested interest in Healthera and neither are a neutral third party. In effect, they are customers/clients of the company with a vested interest in the success of the company. The blog post is nothing more than marketing for the "first ever app-based POD scheme in the UK" launched using the Healthera app. Similarly, the listing on the NHS apps site does nothing to establish the notability of the company - it is simply to promote the POD (Prescription Ordering Direct) service of which the NHS are partners. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response It is wrong of you to suggest the Chemist and Druggist, a very respected source in British healthcare, does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. Being published on this site is a sign that an article has been thoroughly researched and considered.

The original article by Business Weekly appears to be the original, as the other sources you posted are apparently shorter and probably taken from the source material of Business Weekly, Again, there is nothing that clearly shows it as a “press release” type of publication. Also, not sure why you are even mentioning the company blog post, as a self-publication is clearly irrelevant to notability.

The NHS is the government-organized health service in the United Kingdom. The NHS is simply not a business, thus it would have no interest in promoting any sort of company for economic motivations. Furthermore, the POD is not working in partnership with the NHS, rather the POD is a service offered by the NHS, for which Healthera is used as a tool of operations. Therefore, the blog was not promoting the product, but rather an innovation in operating healthcare, i.e. the POD system, with Healthera simply being one of the tools they would be deploying.Sliu.3110 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Response Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say or suggest that Chemist and Druggist does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. I note you didn't respond to my point about the article lacking any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company. I also note you didn't respond to the point that the article has no in-depth reporting on the company. These are required for references that may be used to establish notability as per the guidelines. Your point about the Business Weekly being the "original" and therefore all the other articles being copied from that source is a real stretch and just sounds desperate. Not only is it tantamount to saying that all of those other publications are not reliable sources because they rip off other publications without crediting the original but the fact is, it appears this article was published at 08:28, a good 44 minutes before the Business Weekly article. Finally, your point about the NHS and the POD system doesn't take away from the fact that it shows they are not neutral third parties but are client/customers/partners in delivering a service which the blog post was promoting. If you can locate any other references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here and we will provide our comments and perhaps change our mind but until that happens, the references to date fail the criteria and the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 1 July 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel González (racing driver)

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

This was previously deleted at AFD, and has then subsequently been recreated and speedied G4. I am bringing it back to AFD on this occasion rather than going for another CSD G4 because the creator has stated 'This should have an article now because he raced at Iowa today', so I guess that is a claim that the facts have changed and should be reconsidered.

In my view, the subject fails WP:GNG as not the subject of any reliable, independent, substantial coverage. The claim would, I think, therefore have to be passing WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria #1 or #3.

I am no NASCAR expert, however he competes in the NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series which appears to be a third-tier racing series with low prize money. In the recent race, he DNFd.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of NASCAR can explain if he squeezes a WP:NMOTORSPORT on a technicality, but my view is he is not ready for an article.

If the community agrees, I'd also ask for a salt on this for the time being, given the prolific recreation attempts. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm torn on this one. The rationale is under WP:NMOTORSPORT No. 1, as while NASCAR stopped releasing purse money a few years ago, the caliber of operation required to make an entry into the series qualifies it as professional. That being said, I nominated it for AfD the last time when he only had an attempt and a DNQ, not an actual start. On the flip side, the creator of the page has a long talk page for numerous creations that did not meet notability guidelines, etc. and both myself and another editor has offered to help said editor build better pages. Instead, creations keep being one sentence, even after multiple warnings/offers to help. So technically while Gonzalez meets NMOTORSPORT, I have a very hard time finding significant coverage that's not press releases to satisfy WP:GNG. If the page were to be deleted, I would be in favor of a salt and maybe restrictions on this user creating pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought and my vote will be a weak keep at the present. He does meet WP:NMOTORSPORT, and he could make an appearance later on this season. Plus, after some research I found that he also competes in a couple of different Mexican series, so there may be some Spanish coverage on him that can be translated and put to use, especially since he has won contests in what seem like semi-prominent divisions of Mexican racing. Either way, if the page stays I'll put it on my to-do list. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are more refs for this article. 99721829Max (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NMOTORSPORTS. Several NASCAR Truck series starts makes him considered a professional driver. Thanks for working on the article, Willsome! (The previous 2 commenters and myself are members of WikiProject NASCAR.) Royal broil 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just worth noting that meeting WP:NMOTORSPORTS is not necessarily enough on its own. Per Q2 at the very top of that page, the subject of an article still needs to meet WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is the case here.Hugsyrup (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sales-Enablement

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

an essay written in impenetrable jargon which adds nothing to either the sum of human knowledge or the general gaiety of nations. TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Hi,

Thanks for the advice. Actually I wanted the people to know more about sales enablement and its advantages. It would be great if you can let me know which phrases/lines of this article you think is written in impenetrable jargon.

Thanks, --Sneha2019 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Sneha[reply]

Comment perhaps it was inspired by this 2014 article - Mobile sales enablement. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a huge difference between mobile sales enablement and sales enablement. I would request Mccapra to re-consider this article.

Thanks--Sneha2019 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Sneha[reply]

Delete—I think WP:NOTESSAY is relevant? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 18:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that he fails to meet notability standards. Just Chilling (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Raut

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

The only claim to notability is having directed a few movies. No coverage in RS other than that. Filmmakers aren't automatically notable, are they? Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals apply to film directors, I think. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's not notable itself. I think the Article could consider as WP:GNG, too.Forest90 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's up and coming, but isn't quite notable yet. Subject to more information. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) P.S., see WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2019 (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. ST47 (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival

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

Promotional. I've did some digging, as much as the fest promote itself as a world class festival, no one recognize it. Wikipedia should not be part of their PR effort. Viztor (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it promotes itself by saying having famous "alumni", well anyone can bestow an award on some world class directors, but that doesn't make the award "world-class" Viztor (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you spent doing your digging? Today? FYI, this editor has been nominating articles for deletion, left, right and centre for some time now at an exponential pace, and has been given advice against this on their talkpage. I'm involved because they've nominated an article I created, a short Canadian film. One of their arguments was that its awards were not "world class" (whatever that means) and when I pointed out that one of them was from this festival, they began arguing that the festival itself is bogus, "hilarious", etc. Let me point out that I am well aware of the existence more or less fake or questionable film festivals--but that's a very recent phenomenon. It does not apply to a festival that has been running since 1968. I do not want to assume bad faith here, but it strikes me that the primary motivation to get this page deleted is to devalue the award of the film in the article they nominated for deletion mere days ago. It is certainly not done after a period of reasonable research and reflection. The editor's pattern of behaviour (frequent calls for deletion) may stem from bitterness over one or two of their own articles being deleted. It's hard to understand the call to delete this article out of the blue otherwise.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this:

WorldFest is one of the oldest and largest film & video competitions in the world, with more than 4,500 category entries received from 37 countries in 2006. Actually WorldFest is 12 Major film & video competitions in one event, unlike Cannes, Sundance and Toronto, which are just 2 competitions for shorts and features only. Because of our 12 major competitions and the 200+ sub-categories, WorldFest does give a lot of awards, but they are both earned and deserved. No awards are given in any category unless the scores from the juries are high enough to place for honors. Overall only 15-20% of the total category entries actually win an award at WorldFest. However, everyone attending the Grand Awards Gala wins an award, as we only invite the actual winners, which makes for a delightful and enjoyable evening, since there are no disappointed “nominees” that do not win anything. Those that do not win an award are informed by email or letters prior to the festival.^[1]

ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "WorldFest History". worldfest.org. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

@ZarhanFastfire:Write long paragraph without an argument doesn't make the case stronger, inserting the official promo does not help at all, I've seen pictures of their event, It is pretty clear what they are doing. Questioning my experience in filming also does not make the case, which you seems to have made a habit of, ad hominem statements are not arguments. And calm down, plz. Viztor (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And assertions made without evidence are not well-constructed arguments either (What do these pictures you refer to show? Are you able to prove that the above statement by the Festival is false in some way?). I've merely stated facts, not made ad hominem attacks: you have been nominating many articles for deletion at the drop of a hat recently, many of them within hours of their creation, some with equivalent articles in other languages, and you have been told this on your talkpage by other editors; some you acknowledged, some you dismissed. Look, I don't want this to be personal any more than you do, and I grant that as it's the first time it's happened to me I certainly could be reacting more emotionally than I should. It does irritate me when someone dismisses another person's arguments as non-existent or does not acknowledge them at all. Seems counterproductive at best.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this article could use some improvement and expansion — but WorldFest Houston is a well-established real film festival that's been running since 1968, not one of those fly-by-night "buy yourself an award for PR purposes" outfits. Even I've heard of it before, and I'm a Canadian who can name just four other USian film festivals (Sundance, Frameline, Tribeca, Telluride) off the top of my head without consulting a list to refresh my middle-aged memory. It's also a film festival that gets international media coverage, and has had more than enough written about it in its 50 years to clear WP:GNG. And no, the article is not unduly advertorialized in tone, either. Sure, it could use some further expansion and some more references — but it's not an objectively non-notable festival just because the nominator hasn't heard of it. Bearcat (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with extreme prejudice (in case that wasn't obvious from what I wrote above. @Viztor, here (and elsewhere) you seem to think you know a lot more about the world of film than you really do, or else you think you have a better grasp of material you read online (including WP policies) than you really do. Whenever you reply by dismissing another person's argument by saying "there is no argument" and offer none yourself in rebuttal when challenged on your own arguments, it means you are probably only seeing/hearing what you want to see/hear, and not genuinely engaging with the other person on any meaningful level. If you do not address this problem, you will repeat this pattern of failed nominations again and again until someone considers it to be disruptive. As I and others have suggested to you on your talk page, you need to slow down, and perhaps find something more positive to work on. Searching for monsters to destroy is by its nature dangerous. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is invited to read this press release from ca. 2011, in full, and consider withdrawing the nomination. Or else explain how all those august bodies can still be involved in the festival and it still be "not a real festival". The reference to "alumni" in the article is actually a list of discoveries made by the festival, i.e., those people's careers started at the festival.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2019 (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 Stagecoach Gold. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S1

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

Non notable bus routes. No significant independent sources other than bus fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. It's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagecoach Gold, as it is a valid search term, agreed though subject is NN Nightfury 08:14, 26 June 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sociometrics Corporation

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

Non-notable corporation as far as I can tell. Article is very close to WP:A7 status and nearly pure spam. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the face of it, I expected this company might be notable but after a search for references and an examination of references contained within the article, I am unable to find references that in my opinion, satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. The book references have all been produced by people connected with the company and this NIMHD reference does not have an "author" so fails as a potential reference. I'm happy to revisit this if someone can find references. But as of now, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vichanath Singh

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Cricketers who fails WP:NCRIC. Whilst they have made their debut today for an Associate team, they fail point #4 of WP:NCRIC as the match is not a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only) fixture. Note that the user has previously been told about the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of these for the reason stated by Lugnuts. Not a notable enough T20I and none of these players meet any of the other criteria either. Bs1jac (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not meet the revised inclusion guidelines for associate T20I matches as specified in WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination ~SS49~ {talk} 14:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remembering that CSD G4 does not apply when a player reaches notability, therefore, if and when these cricketers need to be reinstated, there is no issue. Bobo . 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 18:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) --MA Javadi (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Human (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC or WP:CRIN. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Not a notable enough for a single T20I Match. this article should be deleted.-Nahal (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles actually. Human (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as they do fail rule 4 of the WP:NCRIC HawkAussie (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realise I am late to this, but in April 2018 the ICC decided to grant full T20I status to all its members. Therefore, all these players have played cricket at the highest level. St Anselm (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: There was a discussion last year to tighten the notability requirements following the ICC's change, so these players are not auto-notable. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now you can see why I was so confused, Lugnuts! I still don't fully understand whether all the players in the third column on the Cricketarchive teams list are notable by CRIN... Bobo . 20:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Until they appear in the regional final of a qualifier they won't be. Germany v Belgium friendly matches, played by amateurs, on a matting wicket, where the standard is poor just can't be considered noteworthy - they're essentially the same as they were before the status was assigned. CRIN works fine as it is. Sadly we can't AfD T20I status for all-teams because it's a statistical shambles. StickyWicket (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Pro Wrestling

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

Questionable notability appearing to rely on it's owners and the WWE try outs for a pass. Only five sources and two are primary. Casual mentions only in the other mainstream sources. Requires a discussion for deletion as the prod was contested. 2001:8003:594A:6800:808A:2E4A:F0DE:B8DC (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Completing on behalf of the IP editor. I am neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. The sources I found were either primary, directly related to the industry, or sourced from the "External links". The criteria of notability is that the subject is has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and I do not see this. Otr500 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2019 (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. Redirects at editorial discretion, although I am not sure if article->category redirects are common or even technically possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional comics

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

Overly long, poorly sourced list, filled with unnotable examples. Most of the comics listed on the page make only a brief appearance in the work they appear in, and have no importance to the plot. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless significant coverage in RS that discuss "fictional comics" as a thing is presented, per WP:LISTN. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced article about a trivial topic. The topic of "fictional comics" isn't something something we cover so, per WP:LISTN, we should not have this list. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is pretty much pure trivial, indiscriminate information. It completely fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial. When I saw the article title, I expected a list of comics that presented fictional content, not a list of comics that don't exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Fictional comics, as all the actually notable fictional comics are listed there. 193.211.7.235 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Spectacle LLC

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

Does not assert notability, would need rewrite as it appears to no longer be in business Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likely defunct, and the references look to have been trivial mentions of the company. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, I am unable to locate references to establish notability and the ones mentioned in the article fail the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 29 June 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Nickels

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

Mayors, as a rule, need to head larger cities than Manitowoc, Wisconsin, to qualify automatically. I don't see anything other than routine local news coverage, and there are no claims of extraordinary accomplishments, so neither WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG are satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Manitowoc is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — but the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources and routine coverage of the mayoral elections themselves, which is not enough to get a mayor over the bar. Every mayor of everywhere can always show election results reportage in their local newspaper, but every mayor of everywhere is not always notable — the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive article about their political impact in the mayors chair, not just the ability to technically verify that they got elected and then re-elected and then re-elected again. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's just news reports and other primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing beyond news coveraqge which can be found on any mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudokuthon

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

Does not assert notability and the only source is a broken link to the organization’s web page. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's a news article about it [14] but it looks like it was only for 2006. The Wikipedia article was created around the same time and it looks like it was unknown if this was going to be a yearly event. However, WP:SUSTAINED shows us it was only for 2006 and fails notability. – The Grid (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references in the article and my basic BEFORE (Google News, newspapers.com, JSTOR) fails to find even a single mention, let alone significant coverage. Indeed, even the official website is broken so it's difficult to prove this exists, let alone passes WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2019 (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 Windstream Holdings. The "keep" arguments do not seem to establish notability, but it is a plausible redirect and per the "redirect" arguments the information in history could be used to expand coverage of the acquired company in the article about its acquirer. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windstream Concord Telephone

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

Delete 12 year-old declined PROD; WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that rise to the level of meeting the WP:NCORP requirements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search for the company's original name, Concord Telephone, and you will find more references. This article about Clarence Horton, a retired judge and author, says that he wrote (among other things) a history of Concord Telephone, A Century of Progress. I have not seen the book itself, though, and the Library of Congress does not appear to have a copy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon entry says "hardcover by Clarence Horton, Jr. as published by The Concord Telephone Co./Jostens Graphics, Inc., and copyrighted 1997," which would mean that the book was published by the company (as is often the case with such books), and therefore not a source independent of the subject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything in a search which would lead me to believe they pass WP:NCORP. It's an old company, it's possible, but I can't find anything. SportingFlyer T·C 07:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's rationale Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I also note that the book referenced by Eastmain above is published by the company themselves and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windstream Holdings where it is mentioned. Though it doesn't meet notability standards for its own page, I see no reason not to convert it into a worthwhile redirect. I am not wild about a delete before the redirect since there is no reason not to preserve the history to alow expansion of the target if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Current article is completely unsourced and, judging by this AfD, unlikely to be cleaned up in the near future. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanish Sharma

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

Difficult to find notable material with. Viztor (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what’s wrong with the sources provided? Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
third one is not accessible, the second is from an actors database. the first seems to be a short article. I can not find other sources. Viztor (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've fixed the third link. I agree the second ref is not that strong but overall it doesn't feel to me like we're in deletion territory here. Mccapra (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mccapra:It seems he is the youngest in the industry, which gives him some media exposure and would also put him in the BLP1E category. I also don't think being youngest is enough to ascertain notability or importance. Viztor (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (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 List of KDE applications#Discontinued. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KPDF

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

No significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_KDE_applications#Discontinued, where it is mentioned. This was a widely used program in KDE-based Linux systems. There are multiple short descriptions in the Linux book literature, but I haven't been able to find in-depth descriptions or reviews. In short, basic facts are verifiable, but it doesn't seem to be notable per WP:GNG. The topic is a plausible search term and a brief mention at List_of_KDE_applications#Discontinued places it in the context of other KDE applications with due weight. By our policy WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion for verifiable content should be considered. In this case, a redirect seems a reasonable way forward. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking. SJK (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KPDF-CD and redirect KPDF (software) and KPDF (PDF reader) to List_of_KDE_applications#Discontinued. Americanfreedom (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wersch Memorial Lecture

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

This is more of a listing of past events than an article on a notable subject. GNG fail, tagged for notability since 2015. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 24 June 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Koh

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

Individual does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There is some coverage in the Boston Globe, but no other publication. He fails WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being chief of staff to a mayor is not an WP:NPOL-passing role: it's the type of role that might get a person over NPOL #2 if they can be well-sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to credibly claim that they're special cases of significantly greater notability than most other mayors' chiefs of staff, but not a role that guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because a small handful of purely local coverage exists in the local newspaper where such coverage is merely expected. People also don't get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries, or for being smalltown municipal selectmen, so footnotes #2, 5, 6 and 7 aren't bolstering his notability at all — and the paid-inclusion wedding announcement isn't evidence of notability either. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or the coverage threshold for a local politician to meet WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete chief of staff to a mayor is not inherently a default notable position, no matter where the mayor is mayor of, and the coverage is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (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. After discarding sockpuppets, it seems like the key arguments appear to be NFRINGE as the most in-depth source analyses here given by Triptothecottage and Crossroads1 seem to indicate that all of the coverage are either coincidental hits on articles that use the word "educology or non-independent sources, as well as page quality/POV-pushing issues. If salting is needed, it can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educology

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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

This article, though lengthy and appearing to have many references, fails WP:GNG. It is based entirely on primary sources from a handful of proponents of "educology." It appears to be a nonnotable fringe theory - Flat Earth meets education.

Almost all of the references are by the same few authors - Brezinka, Christensen, Fisher, Maccia, Steiner/Steiner-Maccia - and/or published by "Educology Research Associates" and its "International Journal of Educology" or even in a few cases, from Smashwords.

A Google search reveals that results for the word, other than this article, (1) refer to an unrelated IT consulting company, (2) are by its proponents, or (3) do not appear to be referring to the same thing, as with the few Chinese and Lithuanian based sites.

A search on Google Scholar reveals the word is seldom mentioned in the academic literature. Compare [15] with [16] and [17]

Some corroborating evidence:

-Look at "what links here." [18] None of our other articles on subjects related to education or pedagogy felt a need to mention this supposed "study of education."

-The article is 98.8% written by one editor, User:CalaEdwards [19], whose edits have been almost exclusively on this article, and who has made their user page a redirect to this very article.

Bottom line: It remains to be established that educology has received direct, detailed coverage by multiple, independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Crossroads1 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don’t agree with the nominator. I have never heard of this term before and was highly sceptical about it but it is evident only from the refs provided that there is a sufficient body of scholarly work to substantiate the term. It may or may not be widely accepted, I don’t know, but it appears to me to meet our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Having thought about the concerns raised by other editors below I'm striking my !vote as there is more to this than I have time or inclination to examine thoroughly. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. How did you (Crossroads1) determine who is a proponent of the concept? If it was by who has written papers on the subject, then that is a self-fulfilling circular argument. Under that definition all the sources must be proponents. In any case, that is still a lengthy list of authors, whatever their POV. The claim that the term is seldom used in scholarly works is blatantly untrue; gscholar has thousands of results, and the first two pages of results all have the term in the title and more than half the authors listed are not the "same few" authors cited in our article. The long spread in time of these papers (1976 to present) tells me it is a well established term. There is an International Journal of Educology and the University of Prešov has an Institute of Educology and Social Work according to this paper. Finally, the absence of incoming Wikipedia links is not a failure of notability (WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source}, it is a failure of Wikipedia editors. SpinningSpark 00:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to recognize the existence of this field except those promoting it, who claim it is the study of education. This is highly unusual - other theoretical approaches from string theory to critical pedagogy are mentioned by secondary sources in neutral or critical terms. Having a "lengthy" list of authors, having some results on gscholar, persistence over decades, and publishing its own journal does not establish notability outside the field - these do not consist of independent, secondary sources. Foreign references to the word educology are rare and do not seem to refer to the specific field that this article is about - it may be a translation issue, perhaps in some languages the study of education is called that. Crossroads1 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question; how are you determining who is, and who is not, a proponent of the field? Would you consider, for instance, Jane Mallum An Educology of Peace Education a proponent? She seems more interested in conflict resolution than promoting educology as a discipline. How about "Chinese and American college students' memories of childhood play: A comparatives educology". Again, a source that is using the term but seems concerned with something else (childrens' play) rather than educology as a subject. Demanding sources independent of the field is a misinterpretation of policy. We would expect most of the sources in the quantum mechanics article to be experts in quantum mechanics, not unqualified passers by who think they have some criticism of it. Your comparison with string theory is unreasonable. String theory is an actual theory, which is not yet fully accepted and criticism can be found and is rightly in the article. Educology is a discipline, not a theory. It's hard to imagine how one would find RS criticising the study of education without them criticising education itself. We would have to resort to citing the Taliban for something like that. I have no idea how you can claim that RS continuing to be published over decades does not establish notability. That is almost our very definition of notability. And by the way, publications go back much further than I stated above. There is More Essays in Educology, 1964, a follow up to Essays in Educology, 1956. SpinningSpark 14:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mallum does appear to be a proponent. You can similarly find people pushing Scientology as a means of conflict resolution. Quantum mechanics is notable because its existence as a field of study is acknowledged by those outside of it - other branches of physics, quantum chemistry, etc. The disciplines tasked with studying the educational process are called simply education or pedagogy. It is as though we had an article on "matterology" claiming to be "the study of matter and how it interacts with itself." Why is it a separate field from physics? It doesn't matter that a few crackpots over decades have written books on matterology, published their own journal, and very rarely, gotten cites from people outside the field. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why are you calling Mallum a proponent? At the moment, you are just dismissing every source presented in those terms. I don't really accept that proponents can't be RS, but it is impossible to search for sources that meet your criteria unless you clearly state what they are. On Scientology, I remind you that despite being a fringe subject, it still has an article on Wikipedia. If enough reliable sources discuss it, however partisan, we can have an article on Wikipedia. That's how it works here, not by how worthwhile the concept is. Indiana University thinks Educology is a thing and runs courses, as does the European Union. I agree that the many foreign institutions using the term for courses may have a translation issue, but they can't all be misguided POV pushers: University of Prešov, Slovakia, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania, China. SpinningSpark 17:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology is notable because many, many people outside it acknowledge it exists and discuss it. If it was just a few dozen people big, it would probably not have RS discussing it and not be notable. I don't see hardly anyone outside the educology cult acknowledging it. RS would be something like textbooks on education or university departments of education discussing educology as a theoretical perspective, or as the overall study of education. The fact it claims territory covered by existing fields, like my hypothetical matterology, is a huge red flag. Except for the Indiana University result (which appears to be by a proponent), those foreign results do not appear to be talking about educology in the sense of this article (the Chinese one claims it started in the 19th century, for instance). Crossroads1 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, dismissing any source offered as being part of the "educology cult", but failing to set out what makes one a member of this cult. It's not really a cult one can actually join and pay subscrptions to. You ask for a university department, but when Indiana is offered, they are also part of this cult. How about David Tripp of Murdoch University in Perth, "Creating Waves : Towards an Educological Paradigm of Teacher Education" in the Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Tripp has never published in the IJE as far as I can tell and couldn't be further away from Indiana if he tried. He puts clear water between the terms "education" and "educology" both in the title of the paper and in a detailed discussion in the paper (from page 10 onwards). If he's in your cult too, that's getting to be a pretty widespread and notable cult. SpinningSpark 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Someone with time would need to go through this. I was looking at the references and the ISSN 0818-0563 is used 39 times in the references. While the subject may be notable, referencing the same book 39 times seems like it might require a second look. You might also check to see of how many times the other referenced publications are duplicated in the references.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That ISSN is for the International Journal of Educology. How surprising that it should contain so many papers related to educology. SpinningSpark 13:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A journal published by "Educology Research Associates" and without a known impact factor. Probably of zero. Odd that a field that is supposedly "the study of education" has exactly one obscure journal devoted to it. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposal for deletion appears to arise from perhaps a misreading of the Educology article. First, it is not true to say that the article is based on primary sources from a handful of proponents. A careful reading reveals that the article cites 105 secondary sources and 22 primary sources, and the number of scholars cited in the article who identify as educologists is 30. Many more could be cited, but there are already perhaps too many references. Second, a careful reading of the article also reveals that the Educology article is not a polemic for educology. Rather, it is a well documented description of what constitutes educology as described and exemplified by scholars who identify as educologists and produce educology. Third, the contention that educology “appears to be a nonnotable fringe theory” mischaracterizes the article. A careful reading reveals that the article does not argue that educology is a theory. Rather, the article clearly states that educology is not a theory and that it is the fund of knowledge about the educational process. The fund of knowledge includes empirical facts, explanatory theories and normative arguments. The article states that the fund is produced by careful, disciplined research (educological inquiry) about the educational process, including research about the essential elements of education and the mutual effects of its elements upon each other. And the article notes that the role of theory within educological discourse is to provide terms, explanations and justifications which can be used to guide, clarify and organize educological discourse and that theories within educological discourse compete with each other about how and why education works in the way that it does, how education should be conducted and what purposes education does and should serve. Critical pedagogy, for example, is one of those theories which competes in educological discourse with other educological theories about the proper purpose of the educational process and proper ways to teach, study and learn. Fourth, it is not true that “a search on Google Scholar reveals the word is seldom mentioned in the academic literature.” A search of the term “educology” on Google Scholar reveals over 4000 results. Given these four points, given the substantial 64 year old history of educological literature, beginning with the publications by Lowry Harding (1951), given the number of universities which have departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes of educology and given the number of scholars around the world who have contributed to educological literature over these past 64 years (and in spite of the many people who have not read and assimilated any of this literature or use the term “educology” in their discourse), it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Educology article satisfies the criteria for WP:GNG and that the article should remain on Wikipedia. To delete the article would certainly be a loss to Wikipedia readers who want to know about educology (1260 page views over the past 90 days). User:CalaEdwards 17:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind the reader that this editor is essentially the sole author of the article. Why don't scholars who do not identify as educologists acknowledge the existence of the field? Why is this field separate from educational psychology or pedagogy? Universities have departments of education, not educology - why? Why do textbooks like this one not even mention the word? Crossroads1 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note CalaEdwards has been confirmed to be using sockpuppets in this discussion, by creating the alternate account Ukambani to vote "keep" below. ST47 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I keep coming back to this. I don't feel comfortable !voting at this stage, so just a few thoughts that I may come back and update. There are a lot of sources, and enough that appear to be secondary that I might wind up on the keep side, but I'd want to take a closer look. Wikipedia has in the past been used to promote academic ideas based on walled gardens of sources. If it were the case, for example, that there were lots of sources but all of them were published in journals about Educology, there would be a good case for considering it a fringe theory. We would not, of course, have an article on some creation science topic if it were covered only in journals of creation science with no mainstream scientific coverage -- we need sources published by those who don't have an invested interest in the subject. It does appear there are some of those independent sources here, but again, it would take time to dig in given the size of the article. Another potential red flag is that the article itself isn't a Wikipedia article; it's some blend between textbook and essay. It seems to be making an argument for educology while presenting various principles in a systematic way (as with a textbook, rather than summarizing in prose as Wikipedia does). That, combined with it being largely a product of a single user, has at times in the past been connected to OR/promotion (but again, that's not to say that's happening here -- it could also be the good faith product of a user that has not yet learned how Wikipedia articles are typically written). This is a complicated case, I think, that would take some amount of effort for someone not otherwise familiar with this subject to evaluate these sources, so I would hope that this would be relisted rather than just closed as keep based on the first few !votes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that I posted this: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Educology? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to bring to attention this paper which discusses the work of Hardng, (by the way, citing the earliest publication yet, Anthology of Educology, 1951) and the use of educology as a term, which they think has merit. This paper is from Singapore, so no connection with University of Indiana or US proponents of the term, and is published in a jounal other than the IJE. SpinningSpark 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the authors of that paper seem to not have actually read the books they are referencing. Copying from the discussion at FTN, Elizabeth Steiner admits that Harding's earlier references are joking and describes the coining of the term she uses starting here on p. 14. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, you are right, those books are not serious works. That still leaves Harding with the credit for coining the term if the article is kept. SpinningSpark 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trivial latinogreek bastardisation by an uneducated coterie; Andragogy, and Pedagogy, are well established alternatives to this WP:REFBOMB. Comparatively this has more sections, references, and content, than both Andragogy, and Pedagogy, combined; it's like it's trying to use verbosity to validate itself. It isn't even WP:NEUTRAL; Andragogy is not gender-biased (man, human, woman, huwoman, wohuman,..so much for "equality"). -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meaning of the term 'educology', when used seriously, which Harding did not thusly use, refers to and makes significant, knowledge about something. And, the something is the social process involved in the educational process as it is practiced in public and private schools, as well as other social institutions in developing democracies in the world. The question being asked and attempted to be answered about educology, generally in philosophy of knowledge, i.e. in epistemology, is the one that has been asked in the modern era of science and philosophy. It is the question "Is knowledge about anything possible?" In respect to philosophy of educology, the question becomes "Is knowledge about the educational process possible?" i.e. "Is educology possible?" Consider the epistemological answer in philosophy of educology to be the answer: "Knowledge about the educational process is not possible", i.e. the answer "Educology is not possible" By implication, then, the consequence of such an answer is ignorance. Without knowledge, i.e. with ignorance, about the educational process, democracies in the world cannot succeed. They depend on such knowledge to understand how to educate their people to succeed in keeping themselves alive and well. The article in Wikipedia is one in which is presented a positive answer, i.e. that "knowledge about the educational process is possible," i.e. that "educology is possible." Implicit in the article is the perspective that, basically, there are three such modern era positive answers; (1) an analytical philosophy of educology positive answer; (2) a phenomenological philosophy of educology positive answer, and; (3) an experiential philosophy of educology positive answer. Implicit in the article, then, are positive answers to the modern era philosophy and science question, i.e. the answer that educology is possible, hence, developing democracies can succeed by keeping their people educated, alive, and well. The article in Wikipedia keeps before people in developing democracies of the world the question "Is educology possible?" and the positive answer of "Yes." Those people, in developing democracies in the world, who want to delete the article are ones, probably unknowingly, i.e. probably ignorant, of the significance of the question and of a positive answer to the question. To them, the invitation is made, here, to engage themselves in the epistemologically oriented philosophy of educology question "Is educology possible?" Hence, rather than try to get the article deleted, become involved in this very serious philosophical question. To the "deletionists" the invitation includes imagining a negative answer to the question "Is educology possible?" i.e. imagining the answer being "Educology is not possible?" If such a negative answer is true, then, the question becomes "Can democracies in the world be kept alive and well?" And, to the "deletionists" the question to them, then, becomes the political philosophical question: "In the first fifth of the 21 century, do you recognize and acknowledge that democracies in the world are in danger of dying?" With such recognition and acknowledgement, it can be realized that what the democracies in the world need now is knowledge about the educational process, i.e. what the democracies in the world need now is educology. Such knowledge can provide an understanding of how to keep democracies in the world alive and well. "Delitionists," join in being philosophical, hence, join in asking and positively answering the epistemological question about educology. Stop trying to "delete" such a question and answer: Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherjames (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Fisherjames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per User:Fisherjames exposing that this article is apparently being used to promote a particular POV (albeit a difficult one to follow). User:CalaEdwards has also been duplicitous claiming, absurdly, that educology was first developed in a book that was intentionally humorous (perhaps we should include this as an example in WP:BJAODN). This is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. I see no way to fix the situation by edits alone. WP:TNT seems reasonable, but I wouldn't go as far as to WP:SALT. jps (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that WP:SALT may be warranted if deletion does occur. The promoters of educology are clearly very determined; one of them links to the Wikipedia page to help legitimize the field. It would not surprise me for them to wait a while and attempt to sneakily recreate the article. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive salting is not the best thing to do, necessarily, especially when I can imagine that a quick redirect to pedagogy or something like that may be warranted. If the page does get recreated out of process then we can ask for salting. jps (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 1978 I began studying Educology at university under the guidance of Elizabeth Steiner and James Christensen. I found the analytic aspects of the study helpful in formulating and what was then my undergraduate thesis on the Individual and Education. I have also applied the discipline of the study to other lines of inquiry as a way to focus and organize my thoughts in an appropriately scholarly manner. While I have observed that over time, from Socrates to Dewey, the discipline of educational philosophy has moved between metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and political points of view with no one theory claiming victory, the study of Educology over the past four decades has produced useful insights into both practice and theory. I would hate to see this entry deleted, as it provides a useful window into this study along with pathways to further investigation. User:Ukambani 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Ukambani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note Ukambani is a confirmed sockpuppet of CalaEdwards, who has already voted in this debate. Vote struck. ST47 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator here. I would like to draw attention to WP:NFRINGE. My emphasis: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals—even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." All the references to educology both in the article and this discussion so far seem to be (1) by its promulgators, (2) obscure papers that are not 'extensive' discussions in 'major publications', (3) a few foreign usages of the word, which may simply be what 'education studies' is called in that language, not referring to the ideas of Steiner et al.; and/or at least some of which appear to be independent inventions of this neologism (such as this one). If anyone doubts that educology is a fringe field, I point out that it claims to be "the study of education," but that is already covered by educational sciences which "seek to describe, understand, and prescribe educational policy and practice" and pedagogy, the "theory and practice of education." As a thought experiment, if we were to WP:TNT but keep the article and rewrite it, what would we say about it? Reliable sources do not recognize the existence of the field. The fact we now have 3 SPAs showing up on this discussion makes this seem to be a clear case of WP:ADVOCACY. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator here again. I just found WP:JUNK. Although it is just an essay, I think it fits this article perfectly. Crossroads1 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads1: Are you sure it's a junk? Could you explain? Masum Reza^📞 23:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As others have mentioned, it is extremely long and in the wrong style, arguing from a pro-educology POV. If the subject was somehow notable, a brand new, shorter article would need to be written instead. As I mentioned before though, if you imagine that very scenario, there is essentially nothing to write about using RS. Crossroads1 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions are not cleanup requests. Masum Reza^📞 00:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD requires more evaluation and discussion. Aside from the nominator, there is only one non-SPA !vote on each side, and several of the keep !votes in particular appear to be either sockpuppets or canvassing. I'd ask other experienced editors to review the discussion and weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP:NOTWEBHOST grounds. Perhaps this is a notable subject, perhaps not, but the article is so badly malformed it's impossible to cut through to what's reliable and what's not. Considering the article has been significantly created by one user who does not appear to otherwise contribute to the project, I'm in favour of deleting completely and without prejudice if someone wants to take a crack at an actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer's !vote just above and the WP:FRINGE concerns raised by the nominator. Moreover, the article reads like a copyvio, thanks to short phrases being lifted from primary sources ("phenomena within the educational process", "the fund of knowledge", "intentionally studies under guidance some content in some physical, social and cultural setting", etc. [20][21]), and the fact that what was not lifted lacks all distinguishing features. The text around the plagiarized phrases is like an interminable and opaque PowerPoint presentation with too many words on each slide. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I've gone back and forth on this one. I have strong reservations about the article, as I explained above, but haven't felt comfortable deleting, so I was debating whether or not to remain neutral or suggest userfying, stopping short of WP:TNT since there's so much there. That's about where I was yesterday. But I see now that the user has been blocked after sockpuppeting in this thread. As that removes the possibility of userfication, and rather solidifies a bad faith approach to Wikipedia process, I'm now over on the weak delete side. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've struck my keep. Anyone resorting to sockpuppetry to defend an idea has lost all scholarly credence in my book. The entire article is consequently tainted. SpinningSpark 20:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would be good to see how much wikireader interest in this topic/term there is before deleting it (ie. do/will ed students/academics come across this term in their readings?), anyway whether it is deleted (highly likely) or redirected somewhere agree that at present, the article reads like WP:PROMOTION and should, at the very least, be blown up and left as a couple of sentences only ie. "Educology is ... Educologists include (insert names of notables, if there are any). It is taught at (insert names of notable institutions)." the end. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFRINGE. Nearly all the hits in databases I searched were to the above-mentioned International Journal of Educology; those that were not were to open-access journals that I would characterise as suspicious if not predatory. Nothing that could qualify as "substantial" coverage in sources independent of the field. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Presentation

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

Reads like a dictionary article, has WP:Original Research issues that have not been addressed in 10 years Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay without clear encyclopedic value. There are plenty of how-to guides on this topic on the web and in books, but I'd support deleting what we have here with WP:TNT. With any luck, someone will see the redlink and start fresh. Ajpolino (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What redlink? This page is an orphan so there will be literally nothing left behind if it is deleted. SpinningSpark 20:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can give a presentation in a variety of ways but that doesn't mean a technical format is a notable encyclopedic topic. Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't mean it isn't notable either. I'm still thinking about this one, but there are arguably enough book sources on the subject (e.g. Technical Writing & Presentation) to at least make a case for notability. That leaves deletion resting on a TNT argument. Of the four paragraphs, paras three and four have citations. Para two makes some rather inocuous assertions that I can't believe anyone would challenge. Most of para one is much the same except that I would question whether "classroom instruction" comes under this umbrella. That is something rather different, usually called "training" in my book. So the TNT argument is weak, although some cleanup is called for, and I am leaning to keep. SpinningSpark 14:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge to the surprisingly short Presentation would also work. Of course we can find sources about giving a technical presentation but this still uses rather general terms and a separate page is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:25, 26 June 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Layne Riggs

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

WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, as regional touring series are not professional. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [22] is more than nothing, but I don't see sufficient coverage to keep this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMOTORSPORTS with no NASCAR starts in one of the big 3 series. The CARS series is below professional standards for motorsports notability. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Royal broil 23:57, 30 June 2019 (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.

[GreeneGarmire2017-1] Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036.

[2] Viviane Callier. "The Open Data Explosion". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[sn1-3] Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Congratulations, you're a parasite!". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[4] Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Incentives Science". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[5] "WorldFest History". worldfest.org. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]