Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (3rd nomination)

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 appears clear that the sourcing present is not enough, nor has anyone identified further sourcing on which to expand the article. At this time, she is not notable. @Djm-leighpark:, if you'd like this article to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rai Menges

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject lacks indication of strong notability for inclusion in the articlespace. It also lacks SIGCOV from multiple reliable, independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

A quick rundown of the sources cited:

AAAS: Not an editorial story; just a public membership blog post for any paid subscribers. Does not establish notability.
Aerospace Research Systems: The subject had an article deleted and now redirects to this subject. Not reliable and no indication of notability.
Springer-Verlag Book: A good source for information, but lacks significant coverage; also, the book itself does not establish notability.
Learning with Lowell: Not a reliable source.
NIAC: This is a PR booklet with only a few words that mention the subject; no significant coverage.
Energy Vortex: Press releases do not establish notability.
Star Sailor Energy: Press releases do not establish notability.
Cincinnati Public Radio: Two articles from this source are reliable, independent sources and contain SIGCOV of the subject. But this source alone cannot be used to establish if it needs its own article. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
University of Cincinnati: It is not an editorial article or news release, only a self-published page from an academic institution where the subject is affiliated with. A conflict of interest.
WIIS: Not a reliable source. An article submission attempted for this subject was also deleted by reviewers due to a lack of notability.

There was a previous concern raised over this subject and other articles previously in the articlespace affiliated with it. All of the articles were deleted except this one; and now the rest redirect to this article. Two deletion nominations for this article in the past ended in no consensus, despite the overwhelming majority in favor of deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing additional found for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure I would buy a used windmill from the subject of the article as many claims are futures and many claims are salespeak and need to be represented as such in the article. I was hoping against hoping for some action from STEM girls at Sante Fe college per the last press release; and I'll perhaps be looking for a STEM girls spinoff article at some time. And this reminds me of a redirect I need to do for underwater flying kites. While the sources can be argued I'm persuaded the likely consensus from that angle is to be a delete. However there is an Wikipedia:NACADEMIC viewpoint. And that certainly makes the University of Cinitati source ok. I suppose we're a "few weeks" since the last nom. an if I spend time on this this week the family will suffer so I'd like a draftify if this goes into a consensus delete, I've worked most of this from memory and I'd have to trawl another 4 hours of audio for other pointers and maybe take a trip to the states. I've also taken the time to fix a technical error in the AfD process. Closer to please draftify if this is deleted to avoid me making a separate request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator would have done well to avoid the "sour grapes" references to previous AfD's. A brief mention that they didn't reach consensus would have been sufficient. Looking over the sources, only Cincinnati Public Radio and Bentley even approach the level of coverage and independence we need per WP:GNG. The 2015 CPR article reads like a press release and doesn't discuss the subject in any depth. The 2019 CPR article is the best presented so far, but still very weak coverage of the subject herself. The mention in Bentley is trivial. So, weak delete despite, not per, the nom. Happy to revisit my !vote if another independent source is found; if kept this article needs a rewrite to be less resume-like. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written and unconvincing. Nwhyte (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (unless a consensus to keep emerges): With @Nwhyte'slagging my work off as Poorly written and unconvincing, which to a degree is hardly surprising given the history of this being done under XfD. This on top of in this XfD the nom. almost unbelievably taking an admin (and to a degree myself) to ANI for disruption; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Disruptive Conduct with that likely causing delete voter's VQuakr here. In the end I feel the nom. is obsessed with winning this one. It is possible Menges might scrape a no-consensus keep with a very good argument; but a further RS is definitely needed. I am personally convinced Menges is clever, and a quotable Subject Matter Expert in some areas. However all her claims, while likely having a basis, may stretch reality to a large degree. And that needs to be carefully presented in any return to mainspace, because this may yet be TOOSOON. As a final point I note the nom's non-notabble challenge about WIIS: Not a reliable source. An article submission attempted for this subject was also deleted by reviewers due to a lack of notability. This refers to Women In International Security which received a CSD:A7 on 15 November 2007 with a version falling on 2016 due to Copyright infringement+G11+G12. Additionally there is a version by myself which I believe possible for article space: and the cherry-pciking of a 14-year old A7 for a sustained current women's organisation might be inappropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (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.