Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Dadhich[edit]

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

Celebrity with questionable notability. There was a BLP prod tag on it-but I had to remove that as it is clearly no longer unsourced. But his he notable? I'm not sure. I can't tell if he really did all that or not. IMDB only lists him for 3 films. Wgolf (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 19 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (television executive)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and seems to be made by a user with a linear interest in this person. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. The fact that the text has been created by an editor with few other interests in Wikipedia beyond this article piles on the guilt. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cleaned out the promotional language and over-citing, and what's left is a few higher-level marketing jobs at large companies sourced to press releases or lightly-edited reprints of press releases. Whoever created the article clearly had access to a lot of personal information and built the article from that. An obvious attempt at (self-)promotion, so could be deleted under policy as unambiguous WP:PROMO, but in guideline terms the subject also fails to meet WP:GNG, as coverage is either not significant nor not independent (e.g. the Hollywood Reporter "coverage" is part of a press release, and THR is his former employer). Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 19 April 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) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of natural language processing[edit]

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

This outline of natural language processing was created in 2012 by User:The Transhumanist, who is a prolific creator of outlines and portals. The basic problem is that, while it refers to multiple Wikipedia articles, each of which has references to reliable sources, the outline itself, which seeks to impose a structure on an area of knowledge, is Original Research of a type not permitted by the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not for original research. This outline was associated with a WikiProject that is defunct and has been nominated for deletion, but this outline is outward-facing in article space; it is seen by search engines and may be (erroneously) assumed by readers to be backed up by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Αlthough the problems you identify are shared by all of the "Outline of . . ." articles that I have reviewed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all outline of pages are contentless link collections that duplicate the topic. Link farms are so 1995. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I PROD'd the outline initially. It was then de-PROD'd by User:ElectroChip123 with the edit summary "Just because a user likes to make this kind of page, doesn't mean these kinds of pages are bad." True, but this kind of pages are not good because they are not consistent with Wikipedia's rule that is does not contain original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PROD summary made significant reference to "user has made over X number of these pages", and didn't mention much else (IIRC). There are also html comments (in the source code view) pointing to the page being a WIP and a part of WikiProject Outline. I don't know if that is an actual project, nor do I know what its rules are if it is, however that did give me the impression that the page is supposed to exist. Likewise, I was concerned that the PROD ran the risk of being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was, however, unaware that the page is being inappropriately indexed by Google, nor was I aware of the original research problem. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, ElectroChip123. The edit summary of your PROD-removal reads indeed, "Just because a user likes to make this kind of page, doesn't mean these kinds of pages are bad." Let me simply remark that it all, of course, depends on what "this kind of page" is. Wikipedia, as well (should) know, is not a random listing of information nor the forum for pages we like to make. Just this for clarity, although I'm sure you're in agreement with it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really understand this much, but it certainly seems like there's a spam intention in it. It looks like a page full of keywords in order to make it seem significant on "what links here" and view count. Some common terms are wikilinked. Why? Graywalls (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., true it seems more of a Original Research QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userify per its html comments, the page is a WIP. Move it to their sandbox until it is polished enough to meet the projects standards. If possible, remove it from "what links here" as well. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectroChip123, CAPTAIN RAJU, Robert McClenon, Legacypac, and UnitedStatesian:

Keep The nominator is incorrect about OR, in that outlines are one of Wikipedia's long-established navigation systems. Note that if nav systems were covered by OR in practice, then everything Robert claimed would also apply to navigation footers and sidebars which also impose a structure upon a subject, and which are also "outward-facing" in article space. Note also that referencing doesn't generally apply to the subheading structure of articles either, an embedded nav system we take for granted, which also impose a structure upon a subject and are outward facing. Based on the nom's arguments, all outlines would need to be deleted, and that just has never been the intention of the community, which has accepted the outlines as one of its navigation systems, a role they have performed since the beginning of Wikipedia (in the beginning, 2001, all outlines were titled "List of x topics", and there are still many with that style of title). As with all navigation pages, references are included at the destination (after you click on the links). That's always been the case with outlines and the other navigation systems. If this outline is subject to OR/referencing, then so are all outlines and all navigation templates in article space, and to remove them on that basis, a community-wide discussion would need to be conducted. This issue is beyond the scope of AfD, as it applies to all outlines and all navigation structures in the encyclopedia, and goes against the standard practice that has been followed with these for 18 years. — The Transhumanist 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about this outline. No need to shout [1] Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume people are daft. It's about standard practice (click-through for references), which applies to all outlines and all navigation pages, which this outline follows. And who's shouting? — The Transhumanist 00:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist, it's internet etiquette to not write in ALLCAPS; for they resemble shouting to get attention. ∯WBG^converse 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "if you delete this you have to delete every 'x'" is an amateur argument; please do not insult our intelligence by making it again, and instead limit your discussion just to this article. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll rephrase my argument: OR/referencing doesn't apply because it has never applied to outlines, because outlines are navigation pages. It has been that way for 18 years. If you are going to change the standard practice, then you really need to have a community-wide discussion. If OR/referencing doesn't apply to outlines in general (which it doesn't, because they are navigation pages), then it doesn't apply to this outline either. Click-through (for references) has always been the standard for navigation pages, including outlines. It is not appropriate to try to establish a new practice for outlines at AfD, via this particular outline, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. — The Transhumanist 03:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTH is the main person behind a whole project to push 700 more draft outlines into mainspace. The argument that other similar pages exist does not matter. TTH has made hundreds of these. I've participated in deleting several and I know there are others that have been deleted. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are irrelevant to this discussion, and I haven't been "pushing" them. They are simply there for the depositing of relevant material as it is come across, and they are essentially place holders for potential future outlines. With respect to the outlines in article space, thousands of editors have edited outlines, and millions of readers use them each year. But the point is, that the argument for deletion provided in the nomination does not apply. Trying to get an outline deleted for that reason is inappropriate, and violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. — The Transhumanist 05:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist, millions? Are you delusional? ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shadow article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not OR, it's simply navigational structure, exactly like breaking a huge "List of" article into subarticles, providing categories and dividing them into subcategories, organizing things sectionally in a complex navbox, arranging a disambiguation page with sections, etc., etc. We routinely make, as Wikipedians, organizational and presentational decisions of this sort, either based on logic (e.g., our division of articles into subtopical sections) or arbitrarily (e.g. A-M, N-Z), as the needs calls for. Outlines like this are actually very useful, providing an overview of everything we have pertaining to a broad subject area, in an easily navigable format. Way easier to use than categories. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, SMcCandlish. Editors' contributions, I'm afraid, cannot go beyond a certain limit without crossing over into original research territory. Note, please, that the term, used is "research" and not "text", "write up", "opinion", etc. This expands the texts that are forbidden here. Our combinating efforts may include arranging a dismabiguation page, dividing text into sections, offering (brief) overviews, or creting alphabetical lists, but not the combination of third-party material in order to construct an otherwise coherent or even useful yet new text and post it up on Wikipedia. (For the sake of people who are new to the project, let me emphasize that this encyclopaedia is not the place for scientific, artistic, philosophical or other theses.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see any minimal use; link-spamming. I have no clue about the framework. It discusses broad topics under a single header, some of which don't have much to do with one another except when viewed from layman eyes. These topics often fork into a variety of stuff which might be sub-topics of same functional gradient or not. Example usages are sometimes mentioned in a similar vein. Just weird. ∯WBG^converse 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a subject that has been independently the object (no pun intended) of outside sources. The subject is concocted (not necessarily baselessly, from a scientific point of view) and then supported by related (reliable) sources that refer, though, to the elements of this research and not on the research subject per se. It appears this is yet another of those theses that could possibly be useful in a scientific context but has no place in Wikipedia; this project is neither a forum or a journal for scientific research and publications, nor an unruly listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Gupta Memorial Education Society[edit]

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

No evidence of notability is provided. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG Muhandes (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been declined for proposed deletion in the past (see WP:SOFTDELETE for more information).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist per NA
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:GNG Rollidan (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an unusual one. The refs I can find are mostly from one of the higher education institutions operated by the Society. There are refs out there but not many that look to me like IRS. On the other hand the Society operates multiple HEIs, many of which are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles themselves. The Society itself may not be very high profile but I think it is valuable to the user to have a short article on it rather than just passing mentions in other articles, so that its central organising role is clear. I also added one RS.Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 19 April 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. Normally I'd like to see more discussion take place, however, this has been relisted twice and there's been minimal discussion. The minimal discussion, however, moves this into a keep close. With the short amount of discussion that's taken place, there's no issue with speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Villarruel[edit]

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

This a self-promotional article Campinux (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- This article is about a negationist who denies State terrorism in the 70s in Argentina. - This article makes some bold non-encyclopedic claims written as propaganda - This article has no counterpart in the spanish wikipedia (which makes it all the more suspicious considering it is about someone form Argentina, making claims about events that happened in Argentina) - The person in question, is of no public relevance

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may well be a difficult one for any admin to call. A problem with any Argentine political article is the country's revisionist history movement on the right (and left wing). This has a habit of "reinterpreting" history and also embellishing it with half-truths, lying by omission and just plainly inventing stuff. Revisionist authors are often published in normal print media, making it difficult for wikipedia since we'd normally consider print media with editorial oversight reliable. However, this isn't the case for these authors, they are often able to express what we classify as WP:FRINGE views. That said, some of what Victoria Villarruel is quoted as saying is true, there were links between terrorists movements and the Peronists that spilled over into the chaotic government of Isabella Peron. And the awful crimes of the military era tend to overshadow the very real terrorist threat in Argentina that led to the military junta but in no way justify them. It's also true that the Kirchner regime also protected former terrorists, even awarding state pensions to surviving members of the Condor group that hijacked an airliner on an internal flight. I don't think the lack of a corresponding article on es.wikipedia is significant, there are a group of editors there that effectively control the Argentine section and tend to push a POV favouring the Peronists. Looking at this article, Victoria Villarruel has appeared at the Oslo Freedom Forum, there is a pretty good and balanced article on Vice news [2] and there appears enough to satisfy me that Victoria Villarruel meets the requirements of WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage of her in news articles. This article is likely to require significant admin oversight as from experience it is likely this will become somewhat of a battleground between competing political factions from Argentina. W C M_email 10:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets the requirements of WP:GNG, there are sufficient reliable sources to source an article. That said per my comment above, I believe this article is going to require admin oversight to ensure it has NPOV coverage. W C M_email 10:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wee Curry Monster. Yann (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and authored books. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:06, 16 April 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Matthews (arsonist)[edit]

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

Clearly WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTNEWS. He has not yet been convicted of arson, which is the only charge against him. wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. He is accused, not convicted, so aren't their WP:BLP issues too?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pseudobiography of one arrest. Clear WP:BLPCRIME violation. Without a conviction, even the title is a BLP violation. Zero biographical depth. The crime may be a notable event, but that doesn't mean the alleged perpetrator should get a Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, if he is convicted then the subject can be reconsidered such as through WP:AFC, I'm adding a speedy for blp violation Atlantic306 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 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 snow keep. Doesn't look like this discussion is going to go any other way. Sam Walton (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bouman[edit]

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

She was one of more than 200 members of a large team who worked on the Event Horizon Telescope. The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. The article presents no proof of any independent notability, or any accomplishments she is personally credited with. Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist. Otherwise this is a clear case of WP:1E. At most this merits a redirect to Event Horizon Telescope. Any relevant material can be mentioned there. Tataral (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist", but you thought a cat called Brexit warranted its own entry? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit_(cat)&action=history Jesswade88 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many reliable sources providing significant coverage of her personally. Natureium (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, only in the context of WP:1E, and she isn't actually credited with any notable accomplishments herself. There is an article on the event, which is where this content belongs. --Tataral (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are guidelines, not policy, and based on the amount of publicity she's receiving, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a well-sourced article on her. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:1E, "the individual's role within [the event] should [...] be considered" and "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person". Only if "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." There were at least 200 people with comparable roles and dozens of people with much more notable roles in this event. It's not a good idea to create biographies on obscure postdocs who played very small and junior roles in the event. --Tataral (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - She's about to start a position as Assistant Professor at CalTech. She's been featured in almost all coverage of the black hole image. She is most certainly not an 'obscure postdoc'. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't you think that this position is a consequence of this mediatic coverage? I don't support deletion of the article, but the importance of the mediatic coverage and her implication in the M*87 black hole should be explicit as “member of a collaboration of 200 researchers”. Who got a wp page from the proof of Higgs' boson? Chouhartem (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure you're saying what I think you are, but no, her tenured position at CalTech was announced before the media frenzy this week. I'm not really concerned who "got a wp page from the proof of Higgs' boson?", but I'm sure heaps of people did. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Where do the sources say that she is tenured? She may be on the tenure track at a prestigious university, but that alone doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. I know I'm going against the tide here, but I don't see the policy basis for keeping this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Tenured at 29? I’m skeptical. Something like that would almost be worth an article itself. Natureium (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I was (quite clearly) responding to the comment that she is an 'obscure postdoc'. My 'vote' is below. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I guess that’s the problem with Wikipedia. We cover what reliable sources cover. Natureium (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily notable. Being a key component of only one significant scientific discovery doesn't mean you're not notable. Regardless, sum of all human knowledge and all that, I see no reason why it shouldnt be kept. Vermont (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that she is a "key component". There article doesn't demonstrate that. --Tataral (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The subject meets neither of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. If an article about the actual discovery exists or is created, they can be mentioned, but there is no justification for this spin-off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's now tons of in-depth coverage specifically about her, making it very difficult to take claims of not passing GNG in good faith; the only possible issue is BIO1E. And the Washington Post story shifts gears from her role in the black hole image to online trolling focused around her, making this more than just about a single event. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I made the article). She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here. In the past 48 hours Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world. The bio has been translated into almost 20 languages and was viewed over 30,000 times yesterday alone. Her TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/katie_bouman_what_does_a_black_hole_look_like?language=en) has received almost 3 million views. Her story *should* be on Wikipedia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and adjust her article to reflect the analysis—in reputable secondary sources—about how the media singled her out as the "hero". Heaviside glow (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject meets criterion 7 under NACADEMIC due to the press coverage of the subject's work. Any argument that the press should not have covered her work is original research (at best) and should not be taken into account.Spope3 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. Prominent coverage is primarily due to a facebook photo that went viral. --mikeu ^talk 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Almost all Caltech professors have in some way been revolutionary in their fields, so this is good indication that the Bouman article is notable. (This article is much better than many others about non-notable academics!) If keep votes keep winning, I suggest WP:SNOW. OtterAM (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability doesn't hinge on whether she was the principal person behind the the images (Bouman and her colleagues have openly declared that it was a group effort). WP:BIO is predicated on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and there is plenty of that here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I suggest WP:SNOW because this article is two links away from the Main Page and is being accessed very frequently, so it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have the AfD tag on top. OtterAM (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Unlike the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps case, Bouman has received substantial focused coverage from many major news outlets, and even as part of a team she played a leadership role, but the perhaps the disproportionate level of coverage to her share of the project should be clarified. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that "her story needs to be told" is a justification for a WP article. WP:1E is pretty clear; even the sources like the NYT note that the press coverage she's received is of outsize significance to her actual role in the project. If this ultimately does pass muster, it will be more due to press/social media celebrity, which again, is not necessary indicative of notability if it is not WP:SUSTAINED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, press coverage is exactly indicative of (and more or less synonymous with) notability, as defined by GNG. What it isn't indicative of is significance, but that's a different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important nuance that you're missing (along with others)—WP:SUSTAINED press coverage is what establishes notability, not a sudden burst of coverage. WP:TOOSOON also applies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, WP:RAPID. Ahiijny (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the subject meets WP:GNG. With regard to BLP1E concerns, it was held recently in the AfD discussion about Saikat Chakrabarti that coverage of other aspects of the person's like (which our article on her details a fair bit of) satisfied those concerns even if the coverage was in news stories otherwise about the "1E". -sche (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria under WP:NACADEMIC due to *extensive* press coverage (including multiple secondary sources) over the past 48 hours. Recommend editing article to reflect disproportionate amount of press coverage received and reiterate that she is one of the many researchers behind the photograph of the black hole. Soulsinsync (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shit like this is exactly why en.wp is such a sausage party. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the media did give her way too much unasked for credit for a discovery made by a large international team. However, she does pass the notability criteria on her own. OtterAM (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement. Gwalters69 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some undue weight, but that doesn't means she isn't notable. Maybe article should be trimmed a bit, but deletion is unjustified. If the sources highlight her, and they do, then arguing "she was just 1 in 200" is just a personal opinion. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might be a good place for a speedy decision to be made, to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. It looks like keeps are very clearly winning. OtterAM (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wide variety of coverage in a variety of media, from general outlets to more specialist, plus the academic she’s just taken up. David Underdown (talk) 21:00, 12 April 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Buchanan[edit]

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

Failing WP:NBOX. No top level national or international titles or contests. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come close to meeting WP:NBOX and he lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NBOX. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 19 April 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. This is obviously a passionate topic for both editors who have participated here, and obviously your input is much appreciated. I'm essentially closing this as a contested PROD and there's no obvious consensus on either side if this article should be kept. I don't see a point in relisting this a third time as there's not been any activity in the discussion in over two weeks. There's no no issues with a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kushaba Moses Mworeko[edit]

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

Unfortunately I see little choice but to nominate this article for deletion. It appears to fail WP:NOTE and is based on poor sources. The article's only two sources are Box Turtle Bulletin, a source that as a blog fails WP:RS, and something called, "LEZ GET IDEAS", which does not look like an acceptable source and which redirects to an unrelated page with nothing to do with the article's subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With just a quick, non-detailed search, I've found reliable sources with in-depth coverage in Black Star News , OpEdNews , wPolityce.pl and Politico.Tamsier (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having gone through the article and done some checks, I came upon numerous sources confirming his notability. He is more notable than I initially thought as I'm not familiar with this individual and his activism at all until I started digging. I have edited the entire article and added sources from this to this. Further Box Turtle Bulletin is not your typical blog but a peer-reviewed one whose publisher Jim Burroway is a notable writer and researcher on LGBT issues, and whose work and site is reviewed by many RS media outlets including Washington Blade, CNN, LA Blade, Towleroad, Economist, CNA, Huffpost, and numerous books on LGBT related issues. Jim was also "the first in the West to break the story of Scott Lively's fateful conference in Kampala, Uganda in 2009, and his website has faithfully chronicled events in Uganda since then. In 2011 Jim broke the story of Kirk Andrew Murphy, a man who had been "treated" by ex-gay activist George Rekers at UCLA in 1970, when Murphy was 4 years old."[3] As per Wiki policy. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [4] which is the case here. In any case, any quote from Jim has been attributed to him and other RS secondary sources have been used backing up content in the article as evident therein. This in my opinion is a clear keep. Unless the nominator has objections, I would advise that they withdraw this nomination so the admin can CSK this. Failing that, perhaps a snowball closure is in order.Tamsier (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the article. It is certainly relevant if more suitable sources discussing the article subject exist and they may well support a case for keeping the article. However, Box Turtle Bulletin is unambiguously a blog, published by a private individual and reflecting his views and opinions, and as such unacceptable per WP:RS. See WP:USERG: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs". Box Turtle Bulletin is not "peer-reviewed". It is simply a website run by a person who has final say on what appears there; if you believe that is peer review, then you misunderstand the concept. Box Turtle Bulletin does not become an acceptable source because it gets mentioned in a newspaper and it is simply untrue that gay activist Jim Burroway is an "established expert" on the politics of Uganda. If you disagree, then by all means explain what qualifications he has that make him an "expert" on Ugandan politics. I looked up all your references above. They are simply examples of Burroway's name and his views being mentioned; they are not examples of his "work in the relevant field" being published by "reliable third-party publications". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copyediting the article. Jim is a well respected figure within the field of LGBT issues especially pertaining to Uganda hence why his views and his website are regularly referenced by third party reliable sources as evident in the sources. If he was not regarded as an expert within the field he would not be referenced and quoted by these reliable third party sources. He must have been regarded as credible for them to reference him, as no RS in their right mind would reference someone they do not deem reliable or credible. As no one goes to university (as far as I am aware off) to study a doctorate in LGBT activism, WP:COMMONSENSE apply here. Jim has spent many years reporting on these issues and the first to break some LGBT related issues in the West as stated above, hence why he is viewed as credible by third part reliable sources. In any case, where it is relevant, I have attributed to Jim his own views and also used other third party reliable sources to support the article.Tamsier (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:25, 12 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Reed[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guideline WP:NMUSICIAN --wooden superman 15:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a bio at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/angie-reed-mn0000041344/discography and two reviewed albums [5] [6]. Enough to convince me that more exists. At the very least, it's plausible search term and the content should be merged to Stereo Total and a redirect should be left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is multiple reliable sources coverage including the allmusic bio and album reviews and exberliner magazine piece Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot vote on this article at this time. Thinly sourced - and undeveloped. I cannot see how this person passes WP:GNG Article is badly in need of an ambitious edit and development. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. She has never been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, and has never had a single or album on any country's national music chart or a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. She has not had received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, hasn't had two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, hasn't been one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style and she has never won or been nominated for a major music award. Altough I happen to be an acolyte of independent avant-garde music, Wikipedia is not the place where I'd look for every individual working in the field. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 19 April 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. Sandstein 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranwin Le-Roy[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 and G11 on this, because there were a couple of sources. However, outside of one interview and a few passing mentions, that's pretty much it in the way of coverage. I couldn't find anything on Billboard or Rolling Stone, which are the sort of sources that really matter. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. However, they have gotten some notice here, probably a WP:TOOSOON. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:54, 16 April 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. I appreciate the passion that Curb Safe Charmer has shown in this discussion, but the consensus here is to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ware Junior Senior High School[edit]

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

~~Per this discussion,~~ the school fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. See also this discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, typically these are allowed to stay despite the GNG. I once tried to fight these and learned it was futile and thus I feel it should be applied fairly if we are to do it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: Is this just a generalisation or did you assess this particular case? please see WP:OUTCOMESBASED, which reminds us that "schools are usually kept" is not a valid argument. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may dislike my viewpoint on this but here goes. Schools, especially secondary schools are notable within their communities. I used to nominate for AFD Robinson Malls from the Philippines cause how is a mall by itself notable? It wasn't until I got there and realized the impact and truly how notable they were in the context of the local community. I had to concede that while from my corner of the world it may not seem all that notable to the communities there it is. We aren't here just for the giants of notability but also the notable of those communities. It's noted this school is part of the National Historic Register of Places? That alone is enough to pass notability. I'd suggest a little liberalism in your idea of notability. The article isn't promoting anything, and doesn't harm anything. I see no reason to remove it from the rectory of knowledge we are compiling! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hell in a Bucket. I don't dislike your viewpoint, but was asking what it is about this specific article that led you to believe it should be kept. If your reasoning is that it passes WP:NBUILDING then that's fine, but you hadn't said that. There's nothing in the article saying that it is a national heritage site, though. Re the reasoning in your final sentence, WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not strong arguments. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I am short on time so I will just give examples of sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (though this last source is marginal coverage that might or might not belong in a current article). All of these are substantial coverage and this is without any sort of sports coverage or noting of the school's test results which is verifiable information but less helpful in establishing notability. This high school is very old as seen by the first source and so I think someone more interested in this topic could likely find further coverage, but there is clearly enough to be considered notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would nominate this school. WP:BEFORE could not possibly have been done. This school easily crosses the historical low bar we've always had for schools plus it is a contributing property to a NRHP historic district. The nomination form for that historic district is linked in the district article and has more than enough details on its own to merit a keep without anything else. It's highly doubtful that any high school in the US or Britain will ever be deleted at AfD. And I'm sorry, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly indicates that. Words written out somewhere do not define notability; consensus does. It's the consensus now, and has been for a looong time, that a diploma granting school that exists is notable. It's much closer to WP:GEOFEAT than NORG. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Please see WP:OLDSUBJECT for a reminder that notability is not established by how long a thing has existed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's my assessment of each reference, either in the current version of the article or cited by Barkeep49 above:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
usnews	N	N	Y	N	N	Listing; data on exam results etc. presumably provided by the school
maxpreps	N	?	Y	N	N	School baseball team results
1994 guide to highschools	N	N	Y	N	N	just a listing, data presumably provided by the school or school board
Ware River News	Y	N	Y	N	N	Local newspaper article about appointment of new head teacher and deputy head. Interview. Connected people talking about themselves and the school.
masslive 1	N	Y	Y	N	N	Someone from the school attended a meeting
masslive 2	N	N	Y	N	N	Superintendent wants to continue her role
1899 annual report	N	Y	Y	N	N	Proves that the school existed in 1899
School offers firefighting course	N	N	Y	N	N
Robots	N	N	Y	N	N	School bought some robots for use in teaching computer science; likely based on press release
wbur	N	N	N	N	N	Radio interview with two girls from the school
telegram	N	N	Y	N	N	School football coach talks about season
masslive 3	N	Y	Y	Y	N	article about baseball player that attended the school in the 1940s
gazettenet	N	Y	Y	N	N	Review of book about baseball players from the town; mentions one attended the school
The North Adams Transcript						Subscription required - awaiting Wikilibrary access
masslive 4	N	Y	Y	N	N	Headmaster spoke at meeting
masslive 5	N	Y	Y	N	N	Superintendent speaks at school board meeting about gun control
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I would be keen to hear how Barkeep49 and Just Chilling believe any of these meet the WP:GNG criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer I have already said that I believe that all the sources I provided except the telegraph are significant coverage. You disagree but there's the rub. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer, what do the sources on the article have to do with the question at hand? You are confusing AfD with AfC. It is not the article that is or isn't notable - it's the subject. So why are you wasting others time with your (faulty) analysis of the existing sources when I've argued there is a source not mentioned in your review that satisfies GNG on it's own without any other sources? And what exactly did you do for WP:BEFORE? It's policy it's required and it's clear you didn't do it. Your checklist analysis is nothing but a waste of other editor's time. Your analysis is not determinate of meeting GNG. That is determined by consensus founded in discussions, not by pretty pictures. Whether an individual article is worthy of the encyclopedia is determined by consensus not your interpretation of policy. I'd strongly suggest you withdraw this. It appears quite possible if not likely you've brought this in retaliation for the overruling of your initial faulty rejection of a perfectly acceptable article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I brought this to AfD because WP:DRAFTIFY says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. I did my WP:BEFORE check as part of my AfC review. The district is a historic place, but it doesn't automatically follow that everything in the district is notable (notability is not automatically inherited). This form of analysis of sources is exactly per WP:ORGCRIT, which WP:NSCHOOL says are the relevant criteria, so I don't see how it is faulty or a waste of time?

What is this source you mention that isn't referenced in the article but clearly infers notability? Meeting WP:GEOFEAT would be a good justification for 'keep' if it can be substantiated. I have searched the National Register of Historic Places and the school is not listed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer I hadn't looked closely at the table before. While I can see not counting the mass live refs as significant I am having more troubles understanding how they're not secondary. They are reports of a school board meeting by a freelance reporter. It's not an interview like wbur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks, Barkeep. Identifying primary and secondary sources isn't straight forward. WP:Identifying and using primary sources is the best place to go for clarication. In the case of the masslive sources, it is actually clear cut: a primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. The reporter being there at the time, listening to what was said at the meeting or writing down what an interviewee said to them makes those primary sources. If the reporter had been working off a report of the meeting taken by someone else and later provided their own interpretation and analysis of what was discussed then they would be secondary sources. A secondary source is always based on a primary source, so if thinking something might be secondary, it helps to ask oneself what primary source it was based on. If it isn't based on another source, then it itself is primary. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough here to justify that this is a notable school. It's quite odd that the nominator points to this discussion in the nomination as his or her justification for claiming that the article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There was no consensus that the article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG in that discussion. In fact, there was no support for that position other than by Curb Safe Charmer. Curb Safe Charmer didn't think the subject should have been accepted as an article. Other's disagreed, and Barkeep49 pointed out that if Curb Safe Charmer disagreed with his or her acceptance of the article then he should take it to AFD. I also suggest that this nom be withdrawn. Meters (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: With hindsight, I shouldn't have written "per this dicussion" in my nomination. It was important that I linked to the talk page discussion as background, but I didn't mean to imply that there was any consensus there on notability - clearly the opposite was true. I have amended the nomination accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and striking. Linking to the previous discussion is fine. Meters (talk) 17:10, 15 April 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. Sandstein 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project X Engineers, Inc[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Quick check around the web doesn't show a hair of notability indication. Furthermore, nothing links to it and this page has just 30 views a month which seems to augment the lack of importance.Graywalls (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 19 April 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. The "keep" opinions do not address what matters for notability: sources. Sandstein 06:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian John[edit]

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

Not notable with sources not providing enough information. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of User:132.185.161.125 - I myself am neutral for the moment.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adrian John has worked in UK radio for nearly 40 years, including many years at Radio 1. This alone more than satisfies any notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable UK radio presenter, passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This is Paul (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult. Although he presented programmes at BBC Radio 1, there's not much in the way of reliable references and sources. Keep if more sources can be provided. UK Wiki User (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added an additional reference. Rillington (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Whilst this guy ought to be notable, the references to support notability just aren't there, or at least I was not able to find them in my WP:BEFORE. Daily Mail is not an RS, and the two other citations are a BBC listing (not independent source on this particular subject, and not significant coverage since it is a bare listing of his name against a program) and a Radio Today article that mentions his name in passing (and hence is not significant coverage). I could easily switch if better sourcing were found. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that someone who has 40 years of experience as a DJ/presenter, including seven years at Radio 1, is notable. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem inconceivable that someone who presented a daily show on Radio 1 for seven years, in the pre-web pre-streaming era when the station had an audience of millions, would not have attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources at the time. It seems that we would need someone to look in newspaper and magazine archives for the 1980s to unearth such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is my opinion at the moment due to the lack of reliable sources. There's not much that comes up when I search for him online. Although he worked for Radio 1, there's nothing that says all radio presenters need to have an article. As FOARP says above, if more sources can be added, I'll easily be persuaded to change my mind. Sorry y'all. Toby Hynde (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Toby Hynde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pardon my suspicion, but it seems odd that a brand new editor should first create a user page that is a copy of another user's, and then immediately go on to support that other editor in five deletion discussions about radio presenters. What is going on? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I have an interest in the media and have been watching a number of discussions including this one. Yes - I've just taken it upon myself to join Wikipedia and don't want you to accuse me of something that I haven't done. If you've noticed, I'm mid-way through taking part in other discussions! Toby Hynde (talk) 11:13, 18 April 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. Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Niels[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, only brief passing mentions due to being friends with Mac Miller - no coverage as far as I can find and doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC just having been a "guest" performer. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:19, 12 April 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. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idrees[edit]

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

This is a biography of a youtuber sourced only to the individual's youtube videos. A Google search turns up nothing of significance. Was previously deleted at AFD. Peacock (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTubers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own videos metaverify their own existence — as with all of our notability standards for people in all fields of human endeavour, the notability test does not hinge on his own self-published web presence, but on the reception of reliable source coverage about him in real media (i.e. newspapers, magazines, books). If real media haven't devoted their editorial resources to paying his accomplishments any independent attention, then he doesn't pass our notability test no matter what he claims in his own self-created content about himself. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person, and no reliable secondary sources are presented in the article to suggest otherwise. Article reads like the "trivia" section of a promotional flyer. Bricology (talk) 06:14, 13 April 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. I've checked several of the Arab links listed below and they are indeed all copies of the same press release, not contributing anything to notability. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanya Ismail[edit]

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

One of 9 recipients of the 2019 "Women in Innovation" award which is given to the "UK’s most innovative female-led businesses|.[12] Sources in the article are a mix between the subject's own published work, fairly local/minor coverage of the award (often with others), and some routine PR (e.g. this has a blurb on Ismail giving a talk). Not close to meeting GNG or meeting NPROF. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep she's the only Kurdish woman to ever win the Women in Innovation award, which very few women win per year Jesswade88 (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)User:Jesswade88, It is customary to state that you are page creator when commenting at AfD.[reply]
She's a UK resident since 1995, and ethnic origin has no bearing on notability. Multiple women are awarded the "Women in Innovation award" every year (9 in 2019), and this is a minor award that isn't close to meeting WP:ANYBIO(1).Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not do that please? Focus on the merits of the article not the person who made the article. ~~Great wrongs indeed.~~ -- GreenC 16:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, struck. Just focus on the article content is it OK for Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched, and I cannot find WP:SIGCOV for this product developer/scientist who was one of several persons to win an annual non-notable award.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I also contributed to this article, and I honestly cannot believe that we are having a deletion discussion on one of the few Kurdish female scientists who passes notability. I totally disagree with the idea that her ethnicity has no bearing on this discussion, because our community recognises that women, and especially ethnic minority women, tend to be overlooked by the media, and yet there are a ton of good references available in this case. The fact that this woman has won a prestigious award for her work despite being an ethnic minority woman scientist proves beyond reasonable doubt that she more than meets notability. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point. And yet, of I wasn't aware that this article was written for the reasons you and page creator Jesswade88 have presented, I would assume that it was mere PROMO for a non-notable tech start up. We really do have an obligation to judge an article about an "ethnic minority woman" by the same standards we use to judge articles about other humans. In this case,, the claim to notability is winning the very minor "Women in Innovation" award given to 9 women in the year she won. A minor industry award does not make teh leader of a minor tech start-up notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you would assume wrongly. I run a project as part of my work with Wikimedia UK called the Kurdish Wikipedia Project. I monitor press who are talking about notable Kurdish people, and then try and create articles for them. I improved or created 25 articles for Kurdish women as part of Women's History Month. I suggested to Jess to start this page because not only was she a Kurdish woman, but a scientist, and Jess works on improving and creating pages for women in STEM disciplines. Jess created the page and I improved it as part of both of our work to reduce the gender gap on Wikipedia. Neither of us is connected with the subject. However, deleting this page would be seriously discouraging to both of our hard work in trying to reduce gender bias on Wikipedia. It's such a shame that you assume that this page was created as promotion. Where in the text do you see NPoV language? Why are you assuming bad faith? I just don't understand this attitude, and I cannot tell you how damaging this kind of thing is for people like us who are working hard to improve Wikipedia. This woman is clearly notable, you can see by the coverage she has had. Jwslubbock (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that this oversourced page proves, on examination, to be extremely weakly sourced. It is WP:PROMO, but WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you are engaging in promotion and using WP as an advocacy platform. This is not a proper use of WP. For you to tell another editor that their objective assessment of notability is "damaging" is ludicrous. If there is a gender gap in science, that's a terrible thing, but WP is not and cannot be the place to ameliorate that discrepancy. If there is a gender gap in who deserves an article but does not have one, that can be addressed through legitimate means on WP, but not by promoting people who are not notable or extremely borderline. Frankly, I was sympathetic to this initially, but I'm turned off by your accusatory approach and I'm almost regarding it as slightly disruptive. This is probably a conversation that should take place on another page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The fact that someone is the first from a particular group to do something is interesting, but if the thing done is not itself notable, it cannot confer notability on the person. Melcous (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concentrating on her ethnicity rather than addressing the large amount of independent, reliable coverage she has received as a result of winning a prestigious government award for science which is awarded to very few women? Given that her ethnicity is not relevant to you, it's suprising to me that this is the only thing you believe is worth mentioning in relation to deleting her article. What's your opinion of the significant press coverage she has received? Jwslubbock (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the WP:BLP1E nature of the coverage in relation to this minor entrepreneurship award for women, the coverage has been far from significant - local and industry coverage - often together with out recipients. This is run of the mill coverage, and we routinely delete startup founders with much more significant coverage (that still doesn't rise up to GNG). Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's been covered by Kurdistan24 which is an international news service based in Iraq, and a reliable source. Why are you trying to minimise this? Jwslubbock (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is clearly notable in Kurdistan, if Kurdistan24 is covering her work abroad. We have two Kurdish language Wikipedias already, and two more Kurdish Wikipedias in the Incubator. Howabout contacting a Kurdish speaker and getting more information on her, and getting the article translated? It would be a shame to delete useful, constructive content that could give people hope in a war-torn area of the world. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively trivial award; the standard in modern science and technology is worldwide and impersonal, unlike such things as politics which only expects notability in a particular country, or literature, in a particular language. By that standard the extent of the work is insufficient. If judged by the standards for a start up, the coverage is principally about initial funding, Press coverage for people in either technology or business without substantial accomplishment is essentially human interest tabloid journalism, which is not the sort of NPOV coverage necessary for an encyclopedia . In this case even that coverage is relatively localized., and there is no indication besides the assertion here that the award is significant. I should note that "but haven't had the attention that they deserve..." is essentially the same as "not yet notable but ought to be". I agree that we need to adjust standards for earlier periods, and have advocated for doing so for years, but not for the 21st century. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV. I'm not seeing any significant secondary sources covering this person's body of scientific work. I'm all for greater diversity in Wikipedia's collection of BLPs, but we shouldn't be indiscriminate. WP is largely a reflection of what's covered in secondary sources, and I'm not seeing that this meets that threshold. I also don't like when editors purport that their off-Wiki experience supposedly makes them a better judge of notability than other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Innovate Women UK award seems to be nationally significant, which would make the subject notable under #2 of WP:NACADEMIC: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The organization that issues the award was established by a UK act of Parliament. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some evidence for this prize as "nationally significant," It is, AFAICS, given each year to each of several women by a minor British agency promoting technological innovation. Teh fact that it gets very, very little press coverage mark it as a minor prize. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My only inference on national significance was that the award was awarded by a government agency. I could be wrong. This seems really borderline. I don't know whether using Wikipedia as an advocacy platform is appropriate, and the user who created seems to create quite a few articles that end up promptly deleted. This is a waste of time & resources if the creating editor cannot be trusted to do their own WP:GNG verification. I also have WP:MEATPUPPET concerns about some of these other keep votes and whether they personally know the originator of this one. I honestly have to mull it over. The only one of the nine criteria under WP:NACADEMIC that the subject might possibly meet is #2, and the prestige of this award is not clear to me. I'm not even seeing any of the major UK publications like BBC or the Guardian covering it. Honestly I'm leaning back towards delete. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's my final vote. The appropriate guideline to look to is WP:NACADEMIC for notability. The subject fails eight of the nine criteria outright, and as for "winner of a national prestigious award," I'm not convinced. If they were to get a passing grade on #2, it wouldn't be above a D. I can't find a single major publication covering this. The examples given as "prestigious national awards" are ones that anyone would immediately recognize like a Guggenheim, and this isn't anywhere close. It also doesn't seem very competitive—there were a number of winners, so this seems more like a grant than anything. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The supplied sources seem adequate to pass WP:BASIC and it is easy to find more such as Women in chemistry: Reducing the UK’s 2.5 billion binned coffee cups. As plastic coffee cups are quite a nuisance, this seems like quite a big deal. Why on earth would we want to delete this when all our policies argue otherwise --- see WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. The latter seems especially appropriate in this context, geddit... :) Andrew D. (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

themanufacturer.com? Is this an INDEPENDENT, WP:RS? E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. About us. Large circulation, associations with academia, editorial oversight. -- GreenC 19:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, One solid source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 19:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a mockery of WP:GNG. You can count the number of outlets covering this on one hand, and I haven't heard of any of them before today. She is not even the central focus of any of them—this "award" is basically a grant that does not seem enormously competitive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". I've been doing this AfD thing for over 10 years, I don't make a mockery of GNG do you? -- GreenC 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at two articles from obscure, technical sources that are basically saying the same thing: she's been working on X for a few years and received some funding. This does not notable make. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. Don't badger me for expressing mine. -- GreenC 21:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being asked to explain your vote is a normal part of the process. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough sources to pass GNG. Just as you think there are not enough. That is my opinion, and that is your opinion. There are no fixed number required, and obviously everyone will have different opinions about it. -- GreenC 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"No fixed number" does not mean "one" is acceptable. Because that's the number of sources that you've cited as supposedly being reliable & independent. The policy states: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "one", and even you said there were "two articles" though I think there are more than that and if you keep pushing the matter I will log into my paid library account and start doing deep searches of commercial databases and dumping the results into this page. -- GreenC 21:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are withholding sources that will establish the subject's notability, by all means, share them. If they're not relevant, that would be pretty classic WP:POINT behavior. I'm starting to believe you know this doesn't pass WP:GNG and you're voting "Keep" for all of the wrong reasons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you little rascal you. -- GreenC 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources

Notability is global and permanent.

Arabic language sources

[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

There are sources in other languages which I could use help in finding. Kurds have their own language for example. -- GreenC 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All repeating the same thing - she was awarded a UK grant. Are any of these authoritative or reliable? Most importantly, I'm not seeing WP:SUSTAINED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I'm not too concerned with sustainability there are other sources that predate these and award winners are not usually treated as a single event. They don't all say the same thing even though they center on the award, Google Translate is a thing, there are some lengthy pieces here with content that can be used in the article. The sources demonstrate international coverage which is better than local or regional giving that extra weight. -- GreenC 05:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pile of URLs - not convincing - for starters some are blogs. However, all you've basically demonstrated is that a single PR release, in Arabic, on our subject receiving the innovated 2019 - got reprinted in oodles of online sources - the 17 are all more or less the same with some light editing/cutting/repackaging of the same content. CEOs of small startups don't become notable because they managed to get their PR release reprinted in multiple sites (Arabic nor English) - beyond RS and INDEPENDENT issues - the 17 URLs (which are duplicates, I believe, of the same PR in English which we have in our article) - are a single source. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First you complain there are not enough sources, then there are too many ("pile or urls"). I disagree with your sweeping characterizations of these sources as being unreliable, if they are how come these domains can be found on the Arabic Wikipedia as sources - who is more knowledgeable on Kurdish/Arabic sources, you or our fellow Arabic Wikipedia editors... CEOs don't tell news outlets what to publish that is their editorial decision and further evidence this is a notable subject. -- GreenC 14:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality matters over quantity. A bunch of little-known local sources regurgitating a press release contributes absolutely nothing to notability, and WP:SUSTAINED is not a policy we can gloss over. A link dump is not the appropriate way to argue notability, either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We use these sources (domains) on the Arab Wikipedia. They are good enough. Posting sources is how we determine notability. -- GreenC 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "good enough," they are all recycled content from obscure sources. This link dump adds nothing to the notability question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Clearly out of WP:PROF: h-index of 4 (Mendeley). So WP:GNG could be an option - but I do not see any "significant coverage". --FIFAukr (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been permanently blocked because of a "vandalism pattern we've seen before of a brand new account popping up and immediately making numerous almost meaningless comments in random AfDs".[30] -- GreenC 01:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Maybe. She seems like she might barely meet WP:NPROF but her notability as far as WP:GNG is concerned is a little dubious. That said, she has some mentions in Gov.Uk's website [31][32] concerning her status as an award-winner. There is the case that because she represents a niche of Kurdistan-Born Women chemists her article should remain, but WP:TOOSOON could also be applying here. Userqio (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had it right with WP:TOOSOON. The award is not particularly competitive or prestigious, and subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. I would count the Arabic-language sources above as one example of SIGCOV combined, and then in English there's these: [33] [34] [35] [36], plus her publications ~150 GScholar cites (by my count), 55 ResearchGate cites. None of this is overwhelming, but it gets over the line for me. I agree the article, as written, is too promotional, but that can be fixed with copyediting. Leviv ich 00:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the URL dump all from obscure sources recycling the same press release? This contributes nothing to notability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability, relatively trivial award as mentioned above. --Tataral (talk) 02:42, 13 April 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. Given the overwhelming majority of "keep" !votes, I don't see any reason to draw this out any longer. Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Bolds[edit]

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}}.

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

Fails WP:GNG, as well as the WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPROF SNGs. Subject had a college degree in physics and subsequently master degrees in computer science and management. She worked for the US Air force for her entire career, and authored a number of technical reports (with very low citation counts - gScholar has them at 1). My WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much in terms of sourcing. In terms of sourcing in the article: (numbering in relation to this revision)

ref1 - photo collage by local artist. 262 word summary of career.
ref2, ref4,ref5 , ref11 - United States Air Force PR mentioning Bolds (either in singular or in the context of her daughter and granddaughter).
ref3 - local WRGT-TV segment on the Bold family and how 3 generations work at the air base. mainly an interview, so not independent. Local nature is also not significant.
ref6, ref7, ref8 - technical air force reports authored by the subject. Not independent of the subject, nor is the subject of this article the topic of these reports.
ref9 -local movie listing for Hidden Figures (in which our subject does not appear AFAICT). The listing describes our subject as a local example for a hidden figure. Not significant, not in depth, and probably not reliable either.
ref10 - funeral home obit - not independent (family), not significant due to localized nature.

In short - far from WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. The sources justd ont exist, nor do the accomplishments that generate such attention in WP:RSes. Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Of course it is true that women were once denied the opportunity to become scientists. It does not, however, follow that we can RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article about non -notable women who worked in labs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as to stand alone article as fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. However, she could be briefly mentioned on Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber article page, if RS cited info that is noteworthy is found. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Women and black people have historically been passed over in many accounts. Great interest in these people was aroused by the book and film Hidden Figures. Redressing a lack of articles on them is not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in particular establish GNG here? That there may be an interest in this type of biography doesn't mean this particular biography has coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is obviously notable within a certain sphere. Is she notable for Wikipedia? There are not many successful black woman physicists from her era so the bar for inclusion is much lower. Notability criteria are designed to be flexible and subjective (what is "significant" coverage?), we need to keep context in mind - significance unique to this case. Systemic bias exists not only on Wikipedia but in the wider world where we get our sources from - we can do better by being conscious of these biases the lack of coverage and reading a little bit between the lines. I disagree with the noms characterization of many of the sources. -- GreenC 16:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguement runs counter to Wikipedia policy - we do not lower the bar by race/ethnicity. In this case we do not have even a single high quality independent in depth source. With which sources in particular do you disagree with my characterization of, and why? Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that confers notability is sources—if she were notable as one of the first African-American astrophysicists, then we would have secondary sources stating as much. This whole approach of finding primary sources that supposedly show someone to be notable and then alleging that they are notable because of their background without sources to support that contention is just WP:OR. I'm seeing a lot of these articles popping up by the same creator that are extremely light on any actual substance, notability, or achievements as we'd expect for any typical Wiki article, rely heavily on primary and other dubious sources, but have all the other usual trappings of a regular article (photo, infobox, well-written prose). This does not hold up to scrutiny. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of GNG is designed to be flexible otherwise it would state that each article must have 5 sources to national-level newspapers. We don't set bars like that, we keep it flexible for the context in each case. I've explained why I think this article is acceptable for the wording of GNG, what the context is and why it matters. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but that doesn't mean it runs counter to policy (GNG is a guideline anyway). -- GreenC 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very few women and even fewer African-American women were in the American Air Force Research Laboratory in the 1950s. Her bio has been covered by independent reliable sources (including the the air base, lab and local news). Jesswade88 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The airbase and air force lab - her employer - are not independent (nor subject to editorial oversight - this is essentially a PR release). A local news item (on her family - not just her - and mainly a short interview) is not significant coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A PR release for what purpose? To 'promote' a former employee who is dead? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not concur with the characterisation of the the Dayton Daily News, which is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article and serves a metropolitan area of nearly 800,000 people as being a local newspaper. [37] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DDN is a local news source - next to the airbase - and it is an interview with Bolds and her family - so not independent. Why is the Air Force releasing PR on this? Perhaps to promote the image of the air force. Or perhaps due to Bolds' family (daughter and granddaughter) who works at the same airbase (who also appear in these PR pieces). And all told - it isn't all that many PR pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got the idea that a daily newspaper covering a major city is somehow not independent secondary coverage; but you are mistaken. GMG ^talk 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are generally not independent of the subjects of the interview, and generally are not counted towards notability. www.wpafb.af.mil and afresearchlab.com are quite obviously not independent as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A news story in which they "quote people" is not the same thing as citing the transcript of an interview. Sources from the US government may not be the gold standard on topics relating to the US government, but we certainly do not in practice treat them the same as press releases by businesses. If you doubt that, then I can get you a good deal on a few thousand bios on US members of Congress machine generated from their official congressional bios. Beyond that, there is exactly zero in policy that devalues the use of local sources in biographies, in as much as a daily paper in a major city counts as a local source. GMG ^talk 22:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dayton newspaper article is not only local, it was written by the "public affairs" officer of Bold's employer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be using using Churnalism as "sources". Any citations to an article written by the public affairs officer of the subject's employer fails to meet WP:RS and ought to be deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC) See my update below.[reply]

Keep The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "passes GNG" !votes should be discounted unless !voters demonstrate that multiple, in-depth, reliable, independent sources actually exist. So far - we have a couple of local news items - which is far from the bar we generally apply for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree GNG-based !votes should be discounted. What should be discounted is the nom lobbying the closer. -- GreenC 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a rationale - in this case actually producing 3-4 in-depth independent sources - this is WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE/WP:VAGUEWAVE/WP:SOURCESEXIST - which is only a tad better than some WP:ILIKEIT !votes here. People asserting GNG - should pony up and present sources actually establishing it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a rationale. No one is required to debate about it. -- GreenC 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is required that someone present 3 or 4 items of WP:SIGCOV when claiming that a subject meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". GNG is a guideline. I've seen articles pass with ZERO sources. Stop creating high bars with fictitious rules. -- GreenC 19:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of INDEPENDENT sources that have been found to date is ZERO. Government reports aside, we have precisely 2 local news stories with content by her employer's PR dept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are pounding the table but the SNOW is so deep it doesn't budge. -- GreenC 21:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have beaten the bushes looking for SIGCOV. He name brings up nothing except a single press release in a Proquest new archive search. ~~Nothing at all in a gBooks search [38].~~ The "best" source now on the page is an article in the Dayton paper written by the public affairs officer of her employer. The rest are PRIMARY, or unusable stuff like an obit published by the funeral parlor. I am always open to changing my opinion at AfD - when someone brings sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled her name; here is the gBooks search[39]. It has some of her technical publication and work at conferences. StrayBolt (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Even with the correct spelling, that publication record is far too meager to meet WP:PROF. and note that the proquest news search was spelled correctly. We need WP:SIGCOV, and nobody has found it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little cited - miles away from meeting WP:NPROF(1) - a few scattered (less than 10 all told) citations to very technical and low-level documents. In terms of GNG - we have USAF PR - and not all that much of it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Article appears to have been updated with more independent reliable sources--see especially news story by Adam Aaro (an Emmy-award winning journo) and the clipping from Dayton Daily News. Bolds's inclusion as a subject in the Visual Voices exhibit ["These artists have researched prominent African-American’s (living or deceased) who have made a mark in their field and are role models for the community."] also proves notability. GNG does not list a minimum number of required sources; furthermore, WP:NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Finally, what proof is there that the technical reports she authored are "low-level"? Her work on aircraft dynamics relative to shock and airplane vibration, especially as it relates to the B-2 Stealth Bomber, seem pretty important to me. --Nonmodernist (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Adam Aaron story ran on the LOCAL network affiliate, and the ending ("For even more about this story, you can read the article written up by Wright-Patterson Air Force Base "here." And for more information about the base's educational outreach office which is a resource for K-12 STEM education throughout the Air Force and the Department of Defense, you can click "here.") certainly gives the appearance of having been part of a PR campaign by Bolds' employer. The article in the Dayton paper was actually written by the ppublic afairs dept. of Bold's employer and the Dayton art exhibit are also local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, can you point me to where GNG rules out local news sources as establishing notability? What is the threshold for a "local" paper? What size locality must a newspaper serve for it be considered reliable? Is the New York Times ruled out as a source about New Yorkers because it is the local NYC paper? Ditto, is the Washington Post ruled out as a source of info on anyone living in D.C.? --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when such material runs in the "Metro," "Local" or "Regional" editions of those papers. Although, in Bolds' case, it is not even clear that the article on local TV is INDEPENDENT; the article in the Dayton paper is clearly written by her employer. I am genuinely willing to be persuaded here. I have personally created dozens or pages about notable women. But my searches are not finding INDEPENDENT, SIGCOV. And no else has found coverage that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not who wrote the article - often we have no byline to tell us - but that there was editorial oversight in selecting the article as worthy of publication, and in checking its veracity, which is what we mean by an independent, reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was there? I don't see any substantial discussing on DDN in RSN, I think it is rather poor form for a newspaper to run a piece written by a PR person (military, government, or commercial) - it is a rather strong indication that the DDN is falling in form (structural changes in past decade) - and that it is not able to fund its own reporter to chew and writeup the PR release under their own byline. Sources reprinting or accepting PR submissions (not clearly marked as promotional content) - is an indication of low quality. Regardless - even if DDN were reliable, this is not independent - the airbase PR person, as Bolds herself were she to write about herself on DDN, are not independent of Bolds.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As was already pointed out, the farce of local sources has nothing to do with notability with regard to biographies, and for better or worse, US government publications are regularly treated as reliable sources. There's enough to write an article with, and that's the only part of GNG that matters, and the only part of GNG that we should be measuring. GNG is not a measure of importance; it's a measure of whether a policy compliant article can be written. GMG ^talk 00:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only 2 news articles about Bolds have been found; both are LOCAL one is certainly not INDEPENDENT and the other appears not to be INDEPENDENT. And, no, I do not consider Wikipedia's standards on Biographies to be a "farce."E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An essay != "Wikipedia's standards on Biographies". GMG ^talk 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"local" in this context, refers to the fact that biographies where sourcing is entirely local are rarely - if ever - deemed notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make time to read, or to re-read, WP:BASIC. The issue here is that coverage in those two local news stories, apart from being local, is neither INDEPENDENT nor SECONDARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search for sources shows in-depth obituaries and articles such as here, here, here and here. Easily enough to write an article, all of these have been published by professional organisations (who don't write about any old person). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources suggested by Ritchie are:

A page on her employer's website [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds
Another page on her employer's website [40]
The local Fox News story taht appears to be based on a press release by her employer and has been discussed above, and
a legacy.com obit. These are not INDEPENDENT sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary says "we have rules". This is incorrect. We are a consensus-based encyclopedia, not rules based. See core pillar policy WP:BURO. You continually have distorted how wiki operates and wikilawyered throughout the AFD. It's OK to cite previous general consensus findings like GNG, but not to try and invalidate other people's consensus opinions! It shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Seriously, read BURO. -- GreenC 01:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can prove that Bolds wrote the content of the sources or had any sort of influence in what went in them, they are independent. The Wright-Patterson Air Force Base doesn't write about any old person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer look at WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WPAFB is a government organisation. Now while one argue that some goverment things are biased and stupid (*cough* Walls *cough* Mexico border *cough), I cannot see any way that a USAF base could somehow be promoting itself or Bolds by writing about her. It makes no sense. That would be like calling NASA an unreliable and biased source for Buzz Aldrin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a somewhat unusual case of a person who was trained up to do work of national significance without leaving her hometown. Being the only woman at a symposium at the USAF Academy, and African American as well, was quite a achievement in 1970, as that particular institution's challenges with incorporating women have persisted even in recent years. It is a national level honor to be cited as a trailblazer in af.mil; we also note that her work for the Air Force was considered "substantial" and "instrumental." Oliveleaf4 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to point out that the arguments above, which suggest that the USAF is equivalent to a corporate employer, have been made in the past, but did not take hold, back when General McPeak changed the USAF uniform to something more similar to a corporate suitcoat. Equating top level USAF to corporate management did not receive ongoing acceptance, as the people responsible for the USAF consider their work to be a very serious mission, not just a "job" with an "employer." Oliveleaf4 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Arguments for WP:GNG seem based on special pleading and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

That's rather disingenuous. I wouldn't know Phyllis Bolds from a hole in the ground personally, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to write an article about her. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "righting great wrongs," maintaining a hostile working environment towards women and people of color appears to remain an overall priority for this online community; what the WMF refuses to acknowledge is that that's the way WMF has permitted its "community" to develop under its terms of use. Readers might well view this particular woman's achievement as WP:SOLDIER differently after getting acquainted with the genre of contemporary US female military memoirs. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is a subsection of WP:Tendentious editing, it refers to a pattern of editing by an editor, the first sentence says "taken as a whole". It applies to "problem editors" who might be sanctioned. It does not apply to AfD cases like this and if you think it does then open an ANI against everyone here otherwise stop accusing people of bad behavior just because you don't like how they !voted. -- GreenC 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie333. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear example of redressing a lack of articles. As others have noted above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is misused in this context. That essay is about fringe theories and tendentious editing, not about countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Clear evidence of GNG plus sources are reliable and of quality. No "special pleading" or anything else. Just as we acknowledge that a lot of notable people in the pre-internet age may not have easily accessible online sources that demonstrate notability, we also need to acknowledge that people in underrepresented groups did notable things that were mostly mentioned with far less detail than those of people in the dominant culture. Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My start on WP predates the notability guidelines and I remember them being proposed and developed. It is therefore natural for me not to see WP:GNG as rules that are to be obeyed but as suggested criteria to be mulled over. The guidelines are intended to serve a purpose – to try and be reasonably sure articles meet our content policies as explained at WP:Notability#Why we have these requirements. It looks to me that this article does indeed meet these policies pretty well. If applying the criteria strictly line-by-line leads to a "fail" (I don't know whether or not it does) then, in my view, the guidelines are not giving good advice in this case. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are strongly committed to applying the same rules to all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. It hasn't stopped me from creating dozens of articles about notable women, and notable members of ethnic and racial minorities. My two most recent articles are Gadeer Mreeh and Nabila El-Bassel. The argument being made by a series of editors above is that Wikipedia should require men to actually be notable, but we should let the girls qualify by an easier set of rules because otherwise so few girls would make the cut, is not only incorrect, it is appalling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing how hard it is to write articles. Your first article is a very public facing person being a news anchor and a politician and your 3 RS are a tiny article and two interviews. The second is an academic and the only source you provided is their own bio page on their employer's website. StrayBolt (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made me wonder what my first article was, turns out it was about a minor art museum. My 7th article was the first time I wrote about a notable women, a group of remarkable women, actually, Kalo Shops. Soon after that I wrote up artist Barbara Hines, singer Nasreen Qadri, museum director Susan Henshaw Jones, and dozens more since. It often takes me a while to get around to building a new page out. There are so many, many women who meet our notability standards and lack pages. But there have to be sources to support notability - or I don't start the page no matter how much I admire someone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion and thank you for the hundreds of articles you have created. I was referring to the two articles you had just mentioned and created, Gadeer Mreeh and Nabila El-Bassel. StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory. Before commenting here I had noticed that you have created many articles about women. It takes me ages to write an article and I haven't done so many as you but I also put in an effort, though I suspect I have created more articles about men than women. That is how the world was and I tend to have written on historical topics. I think too often we delete on notability grounds articles that have been written carefully and referenced in detail (like this one), albeit to sources that can be argued to be weak according our criteria. Even if this article had been about a man I think I'd have !voted keep. However, I only found this article because it had been flagged as being about a woman – I don't have the inclination to wade though the mass of AFDs generally looking for the rare article that is not vapid. I think you are wholly entitled to apply the same "rules" to articles on whatever topic but that seems to me to be simply a choice you make and not one that is demanded of editors. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being. I think it is pretty clear she fails WP:PROF, and we are discussing whether she passes WP:GNG. For academics, WP:GNG is actually typically difficult to pass, since one needs to demonstrate sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and very few independent sources are interested in academics, even if they happen to be black women academics. For the moment, I do not see such coverage here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well sourced WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85, can you point to 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT, WP:RS that support notability? I ask, because to date no editor has been able to identify such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - egregious case of attempting to pad up a subject whom, alas!, is not notable. The padding consists of adding entire papers written up by the subject, but which are either not cited by anyone or having less than 10 cites (lifetime grand total for the person for all papers), i.e., failing WP:NPROF. What does that leave? A churnalism article written for the local newspaper by the public relations officer of the subject's employer, a family interview, a series of PR/recruitment efforts including "honoring" by the subject's employer whose children are current employees (but note: not actual medals nor any genuine, formal recognition), and a paid obituary at Thomasfunerals.com. Clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and lack of WP:INDEPENDENT. All special pleadings and wishes to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ought to be dismissed out of hand. XavierItzm (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A suggestion. Everyone who !voted delete has created articles that have these reference problems still (I checked). Correction, one article doesn’t have these problems because it doesn’t even have any references. Instead of spending time on the next AfD, spend time fixing your articles. And if you don’t want to do that, then Draftify or PROD or AfD them, if that is what you prefer. I know we all have our biases blinding us so we might have trouble seeing the issues. Feel free to ask for help if you can’t find the problems, I can flag them. In the programming world, it is good to have people find and fix their own bugs, for multiple reasons. Show that you care about these issues by fixing them yourself now. StrayBolt (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: -> User:GreenMeansGo/Contributionism GMG ^talk 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one around who finds this reasoning absolutely unacceptable?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "reasoning". I'm not arguing for anyone to change their decision, there is no "WP:". I am only suggesting future actions on other articles (not AfDs), based on what was argued. StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(I !voted above) I think as a remark it is invalid and inappropriate and so should be disregarded by the closer but I dare say it should be allowed to remain as a comment. Thincat (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StrayBolt, an editor who exhibits ignorance of WP policies and standards, may be referring to my recent creation of a stub on Nabila El-Bassel, who already held an endowed chair at a major university where she was just made University Professor. As I said on the talk page when I crated the stub, I hope that someone in her filed of study will improve the article. But notability is not in quesiton because she passes WP:PROF, just as Gadeer Mreeh, a sourced stub Straybolt objects to, passes POLITICIAN because she was elected to a seat in a national legislature. Straybolt needs to learn to read the rules.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are adequate and so the topic passes WP:BASIC. The article is well-written and so the material should not be deleted per our policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, can you point to 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT, WP:RS that support notability? I ask, because to date no editor has been able to identify such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're hoping that badgering will somehow change the meaning of WP:INDEPENDENT. It's already been pointed out that the Dayton Daily News and Fox News are independent sources. So too is the USAF, which has no financial or legal relationship with an ex-employee. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was written and by and appeared over the byline of a public affairs officer working for Bolds' employer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC, etc.--PATH SLOPU 13:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that there is no evidence in the article of her passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, and that the "arguments [...] seem based on special pleading and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". I'm not at all opposed to biographies on female scientists, as long as they are in fact notable, but we don't create articles on people simply because of their gender. As E.M. Gregory noted, we can't "RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article[s] about non-notable women who worked in labs." --Tataral (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because:
1. She didn't just work on "cool toys", this was cutting-edge military technology at the time: B-52 "Stratofortress" jet bomber in 1961 [41], C-133 transport 1962 [42], F-102 jet–the first supersonic interceptor–1962 [43], a 1963 paper about the general techniques (I think, I don't understand science) [44] [45], UH-1C helicopter 1974 [46], F-111 nuclear bomber 1982 [47] (published by the Naval Research Laboratory, a different branch of the military), F-15 jet fighter 1984 [48], a 4-year report on the facility 1982 [49]... She wrote so many reports, in 1987 they had her write a guide to writing reports. [50]
2. ...and let's not forget she also worked on the Stealth Bomber [51], which might be the #3 most significant piece of military technology behind the nuclear missile and the aircraft carrier. That kind of classified work won't be reported in newspapers, but it doesn't mean the work–and the people who did it–aren't notable.
3. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:42 with multiple significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, with a combination of: Fox, Dayton Daily News, and W-P [52] [53] But wait! W-P is her employer and the Dayton piece is really just a press release from her employer! True, but she worked on top-secret military aircraft in the 1960s–80s; for example, note the declassification in her reports about the OH-6A helicopter (1975) [54] and AH-1G helicopter (1977) [55]. For government scientists (like astronauts at NASA and nuclear physicists at ORNL), it will often be the case that the primary–and sometimes only–source of information will be the government. "No firm rules" means we should be flexible in such cases. After all, if a person walks on the moon, do we object that the coverage of it is all based on a NASA press conference?
4. So I !vote to keep the article about the black woman physicist who worked on the stealth bomber. That's notable. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a screenplay to write... Leviv ich 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of votes should be dismissed outright. It's not a Wikipedia editor's job to assess the significance or importance of something if it is not stated by a secondary source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fox, Dayton Daily News, and the two W-P articles are secondary sources. WP:Secondary: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources." Leviv ich 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't independent of the subject (connected to employer PR - who has image, budget, and recruiting advocacy to do) - which is required for WP:SIGCOV. As for working on aircraft projects (some secret) - these projects have tens of thousands of engineers working on them. Even if we place Bolds (with domain knowledge in vibration) in the top 5% or even 1% of engineers in the project (without evidence) - that would not be notable - there are hundreds of auch engineers - they all author long technical reports (a project such as the B-2 or F-15 literally has reports in aggregate hundreds of thouaands or even million pages long). While lead aircraft designers (the engineer that heads the entire project) are often notable (due to SIGCOV) - career aerospace engineers in the military of industry usually aren't. The B-2 is cool - however that is NOTINHERITED to the multitude of engineers involved in the 23 billion (1980s dollars) R&D project.Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time following. On the one hand you say she was no one special just another employee among millions of federal workers. But you ignore the government sources which say otherwise, they clearly thought she was someone special - this is documented. So your entire thesis is based on ignoring those government sources. But as Levivich said, "No firm rules" means we should be flexible in such cases. It will often be the case that reliable sources of information will be from the government due to the secrecy of the work she was involved with. You have no response to this other than the optional guideline SIGCOV without addressing the core policy 5P5 raised. As for WP:NOTINHERITED, this essay (non-consensus opinion) is often cited but rarely understood. Please read the first sentence: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." Clearly this does not apply here as there are many sources. One can be notable for being associated with something important so long as sourcing exists. The sourcing shows she was more than just another employee among millions of federal workers, she stood out from the others and was recognized as such, she is the definition of notable. -- GreenC 06:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her employer is not independent. Even if we were to accept that she was an expert (in the airforce) in a particular niche (aircraft vibration) - that is not grounds for notability. The US airforce (and the federal government at large) has many experts in many niche topics. As almost all we have is her employer, who is not a critical source, has recruiting, local image, & budgeting concerns,and is not independent - developing a WP:NPOV page is impossible - our page essentially repeats USAF advocacy possibly misstating Blods' role as well as possibly misstating how the USAF treated and treats its employees. SIGCOV stems from V and NPOV - and in this case the NPOV issue is very clear and we also fail WP:NOTADVOCACY - Wikipedia is not a USAF recruting poster.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fox is independent even though it's an interview. It mixes in-own-voice reporting with quotes. Byline is a Fox reporter [56]. So that's one. The other three aren't independent, but look at it this way: we have no independent source that a man walked on the moon in 1969 or that there are people on the International Space Station right now. Every single reliable source establishing those facts are simply repeating what government employees said. I don't think they've ever sent a Fox reporter up there to verify. The same arguments about NASA's motivations of "image, budget and recruiting advocacy" are used by fake-moon-landing conspiracy theorists. But we write articles about it anyway. If we trust NASA to report about astronauts, why not trust USAF to report about USAF research? Like GreenC says, out of tens of thousands, USAF singled out this person and called her "exceptional" [57]. A black woman physicist working on top secret military planes in 1955 in a still-segregated United States, considered "exceptional" by the Air Force? That's notable. "Worthy of note." Worth writing about in the encyclopedia. Leviv ich 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have independent sources on the moon landing (and the moon is quite viewable from Earth with modern telescopes) - we most certainly do not trust NASA PR - we do trust independent reliable sources covering NASA (who generally confirm the moon landings). US military advertising/promotion is not a reasonable source. The US military included African American during segregation - see Military history of African Americans. The 1944 US Army documentary The Negro Soldier would not be a reasonable source (and it, at least, was directed by Frank Capra and written by Carlton Moss - in service of the War Department - and not by internal USAF PR people here).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Employee profile pages and interviews are both WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not contribute to notability. That applies to both the government employee page and the Fox interview. WP:SECONDARY sources are what determine notability, and we cannot have a page that is completely devoid of secondary coverage, no matter how hard some editors are willing to push an agenda and overlook policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your just repeating your position over and over. We get it but still doesn't address what Levivich said which is perfectly acceptable under our policies - our policies are more flexible than you understand. You are also assuming Bad Faith ("pushing an agenda") which shuts down having any conversation with you. See WP:AGF. -- GreenC 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikied is also confusing primary/secondary with independent/non-independent, even though this distinction is made in the very policy that Wikied is linking to (WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY), which I quoted above. It's also stated in the explanatory supplements Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. If that's not enough, there's an essay about it called WP:Party and person–this is the essay linked-to in our WP:OR policy. These four sources [58] [59] [60] [61] are secondary sources. A source need not be independent to be secondary. Leviv ich 15:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, is this [62] SIGCOV of "man walks on moon"? 100% of the information in that article comes from the government. The difference (for me) between the moon landing and WWII propaganda is that in WWII there were independent reporters on the battlefield, so we don't need to rely on gov't reporting. But when it comes to astronauts and stealth bombers, we do need to rely on the gov't. Leviv ich 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A single source is never SIGCOV (multiple sources are required), and the day-of reporting of the NYT would be WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as made clear in this historiography review article: Launius, Roger D. "Interpreting the Moon Landings: Project Apollo and the Historians." History and Technology 22.3 (2006): 225-255. - there is no lack of top-notch academic RSes covering the moon landings. Contrast this with Bolds - where the scant sources are primarily PR from the USAF (and even that - on the local base and lab level). Government PR/propaganda/releases do not establish SIGCOV - you need independent reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jealous bros or WP:IDONTLIKEIT...should not cry, She is clearly passes WP:BIO, WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "jealous bros"? I accidentally have a Wikipedia article (which I never touched) because I pass NPROF. She pretty clearly fails NPROF. GNG is up to debate here (whether sources are independent and/or reliable).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just i see... some debates base on the WP:IDONTLIKE "Black Woman" as above .MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Votes followed by obnoxious, empty justifications are pretty worthless to the discussion. This should be disregarded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
please note I'm from Myanmar, not US I don't care about Black and White! IMO, she definitely passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, specificially "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". An African-American physicist at a military research lab during that era is unusual enough to qualify. I've seen numerous comments above that convinve me that the subject is interesting enough to merit inclusion. --mikeu ^talk 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources that call attention to the subject. This is the threshold we go by. You should at least try to read up on this very basic tenet of WP before you cast votes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing WP policy for nearly 15 years.[63] I simply disagree with your interpretation. Your attempt, and others, to discredit good faith assessments of this article by flooding the discussion with comments is disruptive. I'm seeing three editors who (by edit count and added text) have added 50% to the page history.[64] This is neither a vote nor is it discussion where the number of bytes added "wins" - please stop, --mikeu ^talk 14:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm persuaded there's enough to meet the essence of WP:WHYN, i.e. to write a reliable entry for the reader. It does not improve the encyclopedia to delete this. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources. The arguments trying to show they are not independent are, at times, desperate. Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is NOT a vote and NOT an opinion poll. It is a discussion about sourcing. We need examples of WP:SIGCOV in order to decide to keep an article. Opinions only become useful to this discussion when the editor expressing an opinion like "I'm persuaded," or "there are sources" lists the specific sources that constitute WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. AfD is not about sourcing nor is it even about WP:NOTE. It is a common rationale, but a guideline only, people can !vote based on anything they want. See WP:BURO and WP:5P5. -- GreenC 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:IAR. Removing an article about a woman scientist from Wikipedia seems hardly a priority while there are 72 entries in Category:Japanese female adult models or 192 in Category:American female adult models, with much worse sourcing than this. Checking those out and nominating some for deletion would be more productive than spending community time on this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some editors Oppose other keep votes base on WP:IDONTLIKE... Shameless🤮🤮🤢 . MyanmarBBQ (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is basically WP:5P5 and WP:BURO which others have also raised, this is not a unique sentiment in this AfD and a valid rationale. That K.e.coffman also points out the large amount of trivial stuff elsewhere is a statement of fact that no one would disagree with. He is making a Good Faith editorial commentary about misplaced priorities, a sentiment I also agree with. -- GreenC 14:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I started an article for every one of the Women in Bletchley Park who worked as a code breaker, who is recorded in government documents and who and who was later the subject of a human interest story in her local paper? Or every woman in the Air Transport Auxiliary, or every PhD level mathmatician who spent her career at the Social Security Administration back when the universities ony hired boys? Would this be OK if we limited such pages to pilots and mathmaticians who were the subject of a human interest story in a local newspaper or alumnae magazine? Because that is what the sourcing on Bolds amounts to: A human interest story in her local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See slippery slope. It is a logic fallacy. Your argument doesn't allow for a middle ground, that some people might be notable. It supposes that if we do this article, we will do ALL such articles, with no reasonable understanding for a middle ground or allowing for specifics in each case. Certainly some of those people you mention will be notable, but not all. That is what we are here to determine, the specifics of this individual case. -- GreenC 14:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've pity to someone! very jealous here should not cry please....(Note:I don't tell by name) MyanmarBBQ (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's borderline, and I'm sure we'd all be happier if more sources were supplied, but I think the sources in the article are adequate to meet WP:N and WP:V and demonstrate that there should be an article. (Clearly some other editors disagree and think the sources don't pass that threshold—they've been replying to almost every 'keep' comment to make their position clear—but that's why we have this process...) -sche (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a tough call. The sourcing is definitely closer to "adequate" than to "stellar". Ultimately, though, our coverage of the history of physics would be worse off without this article. That's honestly how I see it; everything else is wiki-lawyering on top. XOR'easter (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We won't be able to tick every box on the wikilawyer checklist until a whole lot of primary material on secret government projects becomes available to the people who write secondary sources. In the meantime, it looks safe to presume notability, and this article improves the encyclopedia. I could quote WP:IAR, but I'd rather quote Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time". Bakazaka (talk) 00:58, 16 April 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. Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Heller[edit]

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

Promotion for Non notable actress. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the actress. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable 9H48F (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree the article does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 21:53, 14 April 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. Sandstein 20:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Caliguire[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, county freeholder and unsuccessful gubernatorial primary candidate Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither serving on a county council nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary passes WP:NPOL at all, but this is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar that he would actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are quite a number of sources that are not in the article. Here's one from the New York Times. ^[1] Here's some more: ^[2] ^[3]. There are hundreds of sources found by google search, many more found at newspapers.com. They aren't in the article, but that's no reason to delete the article. Passes gng.Jacona (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are still local sources. All politicians receive local press coverage, that does not make them notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that routine local coverage does not make a politician notable. Disagreed, that the only coverage of Aguirre is routine local coverage. There are hundreds of references, in addition to the New Jersey sources, there are some for which the moniker "local" is debatable such as the New York Times, New York Sun, New York Post Philadelphia Inquirer, the sierra club of NJ, and some that are unquestionably not local, such as the Buffalo newspaper. It's not just a few reference, there are a plethora. He is also the director of the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, which serves 2 million people, was part of Chris Crhistie's privatization task force, served on the State Commission of Investigation.Jacona (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen County (i.e. Newark, Hackensack, etc.) is part of the New York City metropolitan area, so New York City media coverage is local coverage for a figure from Bergen County. And "North Jersey District Water Supply Commission", "privatization task force" and "State Commission of Investigation" are not WP:NPOL-passing roles. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/nyregion/in-person-in-the-shadows-a-dark-horse.html
^ https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/republican-still-holds-174k-murphy-administration-job/
^ https://patch.com/new-jersey/ridgewood/governor-christie-appoints-ridgewoods-todd-caliguire-dcb680f7ae

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article seems promotional since the subject is not notable. Does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:POLITICIAN Lubbad85 (☎) 23:48, 16 April 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. Sandstein 20:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Wisconsin[edit]

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

Article only cites the official website and one source that says it exists. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Constitution Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 11:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recognition by the state as one of five recognized parties is at least a hint of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Party recognition in Wisconsin basically entails getting a small number of signatures (around 10,000, which other organizations often help with) or any candidate for statewide office receiving 1% of the vote - a small number that does not inherently infer notability. It does not inherently infer notability - that takes significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If there are no major elected officers (often third-party local officials are actually elected on a nonpartisan ballot, and then touted as elected officials), and no coverage of this specific state party, it’s not notable. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless covered in reasonable depth by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mere existence is not notable. Wikipedia reflects reality, and if (in reality) a minor political party is not considered worth covering by sources it should not be covered by Wikipedia. WP is not the venue to promote tiny political parties. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 15 April 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Stephens[edit]

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

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and WP:PROF requirements. There is no in-depth coverage of her work. Her h-index/citations are not particularly high ([65]), worse, at least two entries there are NOT written by her - not sure if she includes work by her students or what, but why is [66] or such there? Red flag. Red flag number two is IMHO the fact that she is a professor at the same institution that awarded her PhD, this is not considered a 'best practice' in the modern academia (through in itself this has no indication on her biography). Also worth noting that citations in the article are mostly to articles by her, not about her ([67]). No indications of awards, honors, etc. Bottom line, as I said, fails NPROF and all wider biographical guidelines. PS. There is no consensus that being a Full Professor in New Zealand or Australia is sufficient for NPROF#5, see ongoing discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination 9H48F (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn. Mosaicberry (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the anomalous articles seem to be from the same issue of the same journal, and two more clicks show that she was the guest editor of that issue. So Google Scholar erroneously read guest editorship as authorship. But take all those away and there's still, what, over 4000 citations to her work? Is that right? And that's not enough for WP:PROF#C1? Tough crowd. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as seen on Google Scholar search [68]. I count 6 papers with over 100 citations. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 as argued above, after removing anomalous results. (And being guest editor of a journal issue is itself, I'd say, a point in an academic's favor. Not enough for WP:PROF#C8 by itself, of course, but still a positive datum.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She easily passes multiple WP:PROF criteria, including WP:PROF#C1 (at least well over 4000 citations in Google Scholar regardless of any anomalies regarding two of the articles in a journal issue she edited) and WP:PROF#C5 by holding the highest academic rank in New Zealand which is the closest thing NZ has to distinguished professor. Especially in combination her notability is fairly evident. --Tataral (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nine publications with over 100 citations each on Google scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. I'm not sure I buy the #C5 argument: Massey has both named professors and personal chairs, beyond the rank of regular full professor, but one criterion is enough. And the nominator's opinions about whether it is appropriate to hire former students as faculty is completely irrelevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 14 April 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Quanze[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:Nbasketball. Not a lot of sources to show that he is notable THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although he fails WP:NBASKETBALL, he does seem to pass WP:GNG due to some in-depth articles about him. Three in-depth English articles (the latter two are not entirely independent sources though): China Daily, FIBA News, The Daily Pennsylvanian. Four in-depth Chinese articles (latter two of debatable reliability): The Beijing News, iFeng News (basically Phoenix Television), Sohu Sports, and Two Eggz. Altogether there are at least 3 independent secondary reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, so WP:GNG / WP:BASIC is satisfied. That said, the content there would definitely help flesh out this nearly-empty article. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just did some content expansion using those sources. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkH21. As one of the few Chinese expatriate basketball players in the US, he has received significant media coverage. Meets WP:GNG. -Zanhe (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkH21. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. More English sources under "Michael Wang". In addition to those already added to the article, there is also 1) "Penn basketball games now spread far and wide, in Mandarin". March 7, 2019. Philadelphia Daily News. 2) "Penn spreads Ivy roots to China with Mandarin broadcasts". February 22, 2019. USA Today. 3) "Fryer: Mater Dei’s Wang has come a long way". March 8, 2018. The Orange County Register.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other sources noted by MarkH21 and Bagumba. Meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkH21 and Bagumba's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 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. Sandstein 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Envault Corporation[edit]

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

This does not seem to be a notable corporation. Mccapra (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable 9H48F (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the company received some hype when it was a startup and its encryption method was bought by the Finnish Defence Forces, but it doesn't have sustained coverage. According to the latest stats the company now has four employees and a turnover less than 200K euro. -kyykaarme (talk) 18:55, 18 April 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. Sandstein 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Wait Animate[edit]

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

The sources I can find don’t support the notability of this band. Mccapra (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Soft Delete The only sources I found were on newsbank. The band got a week of coverage in the British press when they released their first single in 2010. There were also some trivial mentions from March to August 2010. Needless to say, this fails WP:SUSTAINED. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 19 April 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. Sandstein 10:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Gallery[edit]

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

Another apparently non-notable art gallery, I can't see how this one meets WP:NCORP (which has been tightened up since the last deletion discussion in 2006). Sources in the page are two reviews of exhibitions, and a listing apparently copied from our article in about 2011. The gallery gets some mentions in the press in reviews of artists' work displayed there; there's something resembling in-depth coverage in the Huffington Post UK blog, which however is not a WP:RS as far as I can determine. Two verifiable mentions on Gbooks. A search for "Transition Gallery" gets four results on JSTOR. One is a false positive, three relate to a show by Francis Bacon in 1934. As an aside, I'm far from convinced that either Cathy Lomax or Alex Michon is notable either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While noting the difficulty in demonstrating a gallery project's notability distinct from its exhibitors from whom it cannot be inherited, as well as the analysis by Tyrenius in the 2006 AfD, my searches are finding brief notices such as this from 2010 but not the specific detailed coverage needed for WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the nominator that the notability for the distinct articles on Cathy Lomax and Alex Michon is debatable. However there is probably enough to consider distinct from their roles in this gallery to merit separate AfDs. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 17 April 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 withdrawn.(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MC Pitman[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I was able to find http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_state_were_in/2967871.stm but nothing else in the first five pages in a Google search. Nothing Google news either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment: I came across this article at WP:BLPN#MC Pitman where another editor expressed concerns about it. I tried to do some WP:BEFORE, but came up with nothing other than the BBC link referred to above; that link, however, seems to be more interview than critical commentary which limits it's usefullness in establishing notability. Pretty much everything else I found was either user-generated or otherwise trivial mentions. Some one posted something about the subject's notability at Talk:MC Pitman#Untitled, but "availability of products" doesn't seem sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability, and the BBC article is insufficient on its own. I've asked about this at various WikiProjects, so if someone can actually find significant coverage of this person, then I'm open to reconsidering my WP:!VOTE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my !vote since there now seems to be some evidence that WP:NEXIST might apply. Just for reference, sources only need to be WP:PUBLISHED; they don't necessarily need to be available online per WP:SAYWHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is going to be a case where most of the information on the subject pre-dates the widespread use of the internet, but Pitman did attract a fair amount of attention in the UK for his first couple of albums, before the joke wore thin. Michig has shown above that these records were reviewed in national newspapers and music magazines, and there will certainly be articles and reviews in NME too. He also had radio play (more than once or twice) on BBC Radio 1, but I accept this is anecdotal evidence. The well-known music journalist and author Simon Reynolds briefly mentions him in his book Bring the Noise [74]. Richard3120 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My flaw was searching for the solid string "MC Pitman". Withdrawn based on the four references found by Michig. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 12 April 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.

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/nyregion/in-person-in-the-shadows-a-dark-horse.html

[2] ttps://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/republican-still-holds-174k-murphy-administration-job/

[3] ttps://patch.com/new-jersey/ridgewood/governor-christie-appoints-ridgewoods-todd-caliguire-dcb680f7ae

[1]

[2]

[3]