Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Many are notable and many editors have offered their help. The nominator is advised to tread with the non-notable ones on a per-se basis. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Roy MacLeod[edit]
- Roy MacLeod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
User:Envale has created numerous BLPs which have been deleted because they lack references or do not meet WP:GNG. He has since been blocked indefinitely. After looking over all of his articles which remain in the new pages feed and per this discussion, I have decided to do a multiple AfD for most of them as they nearly all fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR (the latter applies only to some). DrStrauss talk 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I will check through all of these but off the top of my head, Farah Griffin at least is a clear pass of NACADEMIC #5, as she has a named chair at Columbia. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- A quick google of Mary Clearman Blew turned up a large number of reviews of her book, making her a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR #3; I've just started adding them directly to the entry (half dozen so far) rather than listing here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added refs to four reviews of Lois Horton's work plus link to indicate the PBS adaptation of one of her books, so another NAUTHOR #3 pass. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added five reviews to Lynn Dumenil. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added six reviews to Thomas Borstelmann. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Added
sixseven reviews to Ada Ferrer. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC) - Added six reviews to Anne Coldiron plus a ref for her NEH grant. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Six reviews just searching on one of Mia Bay's book; I'll look at the other books later. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Five reviews from four sources again just searching one of Susie Harries' books, will get to others later. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nine reviews of Elizabeth Hampsten's books, which is still not exhaustive...but I admit I am getting rather exhausted so I will break for now and hope these will be available to resume working on later. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- (EC) Speedy Keep as this is too large of a number to fully examine, and importantly, some of these are in fact notable for WP:PROF, take Giuseppe Ugo Papi, Robert Hamilton Austin, Alfred Francis Pribram, Susie Harries (notable as by this), Bernadotte Perrin (instant satisfying WP:PROF#5) as with Raymond James Sontag, Douglas James Scalapino, Farah Griffin, Thomas Borstelmann, Harry Mortimer Hubbell, Alonzo Hamby, etc. and this was enough to save us at least half of the nominated articles. As has been stated before, PROF is operated separately by GNG therefore is not relevant. Our usual methods of dealing with now-banned users or similar, are if they can actually be notable along with the shown notability factors; that can certainly be the case here. At best, after examining the list, there are some borderline ones, but that's why they can easily be examined and separated by relevancy in order. The one I at best could support deleting is the company one, as there's always restarting given the possibly campaigned circumstances. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, the whole idea of a multiple AfD is to meticulously go through all the mentioned articles. If you don't have time to do that, maybe you shouldn't !vote... DrStrauss talk 21:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the idea of these subjects is academics so the applied Notability is WP:PROF, which accepts these cases and the AUTHOR standards. BEFORE is relevant on the nominator's own behalf and especially so when it's a mass-deletion, as mentioned by the WP:AfD nominating guide. Together with the reviews added now, there's no imaginably policy basis for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per ST's proposal. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G5 all those which do not have substantial edits by other editors: Envale (account created 10 Jan 2017) is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Novonium who was blocked on 2 Jan 2017, so all these articles were created by a blocked user in contravention of their block. PamD 21:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Question Nominator, may I ask if you performed the WP:BEFORE checks (specifically item D1 of those instructions: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects") before putting up this long list of names? Apologies if this is a misimpression on my part; I just ask because in half an hour on Google, I've been able to find so many sources for so many of these entries that seeing them turn up at AfD is perplexing. If you didn't do so, I'd consider it a courtesy to consider withdrawing these nominations rather than ask for other editors' time going through the AfD process, especially for such a long list of entries, without first making the prescribed efforts to ascertain there's good reason to think they're non-notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions, per the Hettich (company) article listed herein. North America1000 23:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions, per the Multatuli Prize article listed herein. North America1000 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Too many of these have named chairs, academy memberships, or other evidence of clear notability to consider any group outcome other than a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and the only reason I did not close it myself is that this is too large for the macro--perhaps someone with more patience than I will do it manually. . We do not automatically delete articles by sockpupetts if there are significant contributions by reliable editors, and several such editors here have offered to do just that. They need time to do so. I think I would be able to show the notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF of at least half the subjects.. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.