The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This person does not appear to be notable. The only sources are IMDB and a link to one of her own videos on Vimeo, neither is evidence of notability. The claim that her films have been screened at film festivals around the world and won several awards cannot, as far as I can tell, be verified. No significant coverage in third-party RS that I can find. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Contested A7/G11 CSD. I dream of horses ( C) @ 23:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 14:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Professor are not generally considered notable Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep Nominator is mistaken, full professors at research universities are usually notable. Subject meets several of the academic criteria as a leading expert in the Vikings and also meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". Click publications here for the list of published works: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/judith.jesch Philafrenzy ( talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"ridiculous"? Didn't you read the sources?
Philafrenzy ( talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he now trains with Shirak's first team. However, since the Armenian Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro, this does not confer notability, never mind the fact that he has yet to actually play, or that the claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Article refers to an individual who is scantly commented on in sources. Details on the martial artist are just generic stats on his weight and height along with compliments from notable fighters. Compliments and scarce connections do not denote to notability TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as proposer.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
22:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kentucky_gubernatorial_election,_2007. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominee for Lt Gov (bottom of the ticket, not running independently) who lost in the 2007 election. Therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also appears to fail WP:GNG without significant coverage. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep - This seems like a clear keep and I would've voted as such and the current article seems acceptable and sourced. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No reliable independent sources here. Claims that she is a Professor not supported anywhere, not even on her own Linkedin account. Reads like a self promo piece. Fails WP:GNG and as it stands would also be a candidate for a BLP Prod Velella Velella Talk 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request if new sources appear. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of meeting General notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Aside from the Dorkly blurb, all sources are self-published or user-generated sites. When and if this game gets reliable third-party coverage, an article may be warranted. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No indication of notability, promotional, flagged with reference/orphan issues for 7 years Nsteffel ( talk) 20:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, all four articles-- Ymblanter ( talk) 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Advertising tone and feel, little out there to suggest the company meets WP:COMPANY, flagged for notability for almost 5 years without any improvement.
Took a closer look at the editor's history and also want to suggest deleting the following bundle of articles as related ones with similar issues:
Nsteffel ( talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Self-promotion for a non-notable organisation. Only cites subject's social media pages and there doesn't seem to be anything else. Was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Economic Merit Award before being speedily deleted per author's request. Hut 8.5 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article is grossly promotional. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. References are a joke. Many do not mention the subject at all. Many are not reliable. None provide anything even remotely close to the "in depth coverage" required by the guidelines. In a sane world this would be a speedy delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only serves as aid to elected politicians. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced and lacks an actual lead section. At the moment, most of the the entries in the list lack any sort of description and are simply links to the articles; those that do have descriptions are not sourced at all. The list is potentially so broad that it will be unmanageable to maintain, and as it is right now, the list is very scattered in what it covers. I think having only a category, with no list article, would be a much better way to deal with the subject. Inks.LWC ( talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nicholas Megalis. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Green Party of England and Wales. The redirect target and an merger of content is up to editorial consensus. But consensus here is not to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No evidence that this is an actual entity. All the refs simply show as an integral part of the Green Party and not even a splinter group,simply one component grouping. As written this fails WP:GNG . Maybe a merge back to the relevant parent article might be the appropriate solution. Velella Velella Talk 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Creating and editing a Wikipedia page for an institution of which you are Chair is a clear breach of WP:SPIP. The current article does not meet the criteria for balance, and constitutes self-promotion, please see: Wikipedia:NOTCV. Support Velella's point: integral parts of the party do not constitute a separate grouping that is notable, and therefore should be merged into the article. Rob304665 ( talk) 00:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If you do insist on merging it then I would advise against merging it with the UK Green Party as the UK Green Party hasn't existed since 1990. And as mentioned above, over Parties' LGBT+ Groups are allowed, so unless the other pages are deleted, I do not think Wikipedia should be making a Partisan decision. Aimeec110 ( talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable You Tube series. All self-published sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He was describe as "rising actor" by some local blogs. Not every local actor with press coverage are notable. Ref 1 and Ref 2 looks promising but not enough to establish notability. Ref 3 is a blog, ref 4 is a passing mention, ref 5 is a blog and say nothing about the local actor, ref 6 is a "YouTube Video" and ref 7 is not what I will considered a significant coverages (just few lines sentences). Other uncited sources I found are just a passing mention perhaps WP:TOOSOON. In addition, the article is a pet page for an WP:SPA who just want the article to stay. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete. Author has blanked and G7'd the page. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this is a brand-new article, but I do not think that even with a week to edit will it prove suitable. A small-time middle school with no claim of notability (which throws out WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), and the only press coming from local sources about relatively mundane things. Primefac ( talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. As per our usual practice, especially regarding pages nominated for deletion as promotional, I am discounting the views expressed by anonymous and very new contributors because of the very high likelihood of votestacking (not that this is a vote). This leaves us with an unanimous consensus to delete the article as a vanity autobiography of a non-notable person. Sandstein 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Promotional with no underlying notability. The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense. For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles; he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander! He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him; and to add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities. He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published". He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices andPR about the speech.
Written by spa editor with no other significant contributions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved from talk page.
I would like to contest the nomination for deletion. This article has been deleted previously, but restored by the one who deleted it because changes and justifications were made to a satisfactory level. Below, I address some of the issues brought forward by DGG.
DGG: Promotional with no underlying notability.
My response: The article has been edited to remove unintended promotional tone. Notability of the subject has been raised - see the awards, as well as work in the Non-profit sector, additionally as position in Parami Energy Group.
Wikipedia is supposed to be informational and factual, which this article is, based on the information provided. Notability guidelines have been considered. The article meets these guidelines. More on this is discussed below.
If you take a look at notability guidelines, the awards, credentials, and public quotes are all in the article. This individual is recognized by the World Economic Forum, the World Cities Summit. He is the Country Head of Cambodia, Previous Secretary General of the United Nations Association of Singapore, and a Young Outstanding Singaporean, awarded by the Junior Chambers International.
DGG: The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense.
My response:
"impressive array...." implies sarcasm.
To the best of my ability, I am being factual and referencing nearly every sentence to ensure accuracy. Giving references is part of the guidelines of wiki and I have made sure that the references are from objective sources.
The sources referenced are not to his personal accounts or any blogs that he may be able to manipulated to his needs. These include official organization sites (global dignity, world economic forum, Norwegian Ambassy) that document this individuals accolades and contributions.
On the comment about the information being "nonsense" - all information are factual and based on objective sources. Please refer to the Wiki guidelines on Wikietiquette: " • Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. • Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor."
DGG: For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles
My response: It is a requirement of wikipedia to give references. This is not the only things that Yap Kwong Weng has written. There are several. The monograph is a compilation in which Yap Kwong Weng wrote 3 articles. It was actually a series of articles published and put together for the 1st time in the history of Singapore's Special Forces, and distributed at the ASEAN Defence Meet in 2009.
DGG: he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander!
My response: Again, the language used is sarcastic (Refer to Wikietiquette). Giving references is part of the Wiki process. Platoon Commander is not the only position held (it was actually an early position), there were many other positions in the military. These were not mentioned by DGG. Also, Graduating as a Navy Seal is notable at least in the world of the armed forces especially the US. I am unsure why there is a problem in stating that as a fact.
Also, DGG only picked a few minor things that may confer notability to refute the article. He did not mention notability seen in awards, such as Young Global Leader, Rotary, CSIS, Global Dignity, and others mentioned in the article. Also, Yap Kwong Weng has also gained recognition with youth work, has contributed to NGO work, and has given speeches at regional levels, as seen in the references.
DGG: He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him;
My response: Being a COO is part of the C-suite (refer to Wiki definition of COO). Parami Energy Group is now one of the Global Growth Companies of the World Economic Forum (2015) (Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/global-growth-companies-honourees-2015). To be a GGC company is a global recognition that is awarded to the highest potential growth with significant potential and achievement. (Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/community/global-growth-companies). As COO of this group, it therefore is considered to be notable. Yap Kwong Weng was COO before this company got GCC. He has been included in many business projects and is notable in the Myanmar business community as seen from the references especially in the areas of CSR.
On notability - Yap Kwong Weng is notable under the "Any biography" section under notability as he has won awards in his field and has made a lasting contribution in it. See above mentioned awards received (also in the article) from significant world organisations like World Cities Summit, World Economic Forum. These are notable awards. Why has DGG not contested based on that information? Yap's notability is not only based on his position in Parami, but also because of the awards received by world recognized organizations and bodies.
DGG: To add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities
My response: There is nothing unnotable or promotional about that. Yap Kwong Weng has been quoted as the COO of Parami. Also, Myanmar is undergoing change which needs more support from the international community to improve the lives of the people there. Yap is playing a role in that process, as shown in the references. Many of the quotes and references come from Asian news sites and magazines which may not be as well known to a Western audience. However, this individuals contributions and renown is dominantly in the South East Asian context, thus media coverage of him is expected to be in such a context.
DGG: He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published".
My response: We remove the word "widely" if DGG is not comfortable with it. But including the CDF essay competition in Singapore military is considered reasonable. The article was about ex-military personnel (often stereotyped) being more recognised in the workforce. That is hardly promotional, rather, it is a study that benefits military personnel.
Also, the article written about dignity for the Lee Kuan Yew school is notable in the Asian context. This was not highlighted. The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is recognised in Singapore also Worldwide, especially in Asia.
DGG: He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices and PR about the speech.
My response: This has been changed already. I am not sure why DGG has chosen to pick this as an issue. Also, according to a Forbes article, this was stated: "TED and TEDx are powerful events because their organizers and staff don’t do it for the money or the fame – for which there is neither. They do it to make a difference. And people that do things out of passion, do them better". There's no evidence to suggest that PR exists in the speech. It's just media reporting which the author is doing due diligence by stating it down as part of the Wiki guidelines on referencing.( Reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/06/19/heres-why-ted-and-tedx-are-so-incredibly-appealing-infographic/)
In any case, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. I, as an author, have explained to the one who previously deleted the article that I had viewed TEDx and TED as synonymous. However, with the difference being pointed out, I have consented to change it. I am not sure why this was again brought up as an issue.
There are also many areas such as UN association work, etc. These were not mentioned in DDG's assessment and taken into account. DDG has narrowed his nomination to minor details and on articles. There is a much greater scope on the subject that has not been mentioned in the nomination for deletion. The subject is notable and the presented information prove it.
I would appreciate that DGG prove that this article contains "promotional activities", or has an intent to promote. And if there is, to point it out or to change it. The tone has already been edited by user jimbleak, and I as the author am willing to adjust if needed (I am still learning how to put up wiki article). Appreciate if DDG could help improve the article. Please advice on what to include and what to omit.
Wikiwak991 ( talk) 07:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
DGG: yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.
Response: Thank you for your comments and for changing it. On two occasions, you argued for the importance of differences between Ted and TedX. Now you said you changed it initially because you thought it was worth rescuing. So that settles the issue about TED and Tedx.
DGG: ..an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion."
Response: This statement is untrue according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no promotional intent nor backdrop that show the subject is being promotional. In fact, most wiki articles on notable subjects contains the activities in which the person has been involved in. In any event, the notability factor of a subject is guided by certain criteria, not the opinions of the editor or how yourself (DGG) thinks it should be. There is no indication in the references that the subject is promoting himself. I have already mentioned this in my previous posting and stated my rationale and supporting evidence.
The content on Yap Kwong Weng is factual and quoted on the news and articles. I don't see why it is considered promotion. Can you please explain this part again? I remain unconvinced of your assertions on this because it lacks supportive evidence of your claim.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
DGG: An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.
Response: I have tried to use and include links and other references, which is widely seen in wiki articles, as well as included links to the information about this subject. Please clarify this statement.
DGG: As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.
Response: Again, your response that such honours from this organization is mutual promotion is an opinion and a big generalization. WEF is known to world leaders, organizations and thousands around the world for its content, delivery and substance. The World Economic Forum Young Global Leader award is an honor given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. It is definitely not self-promotion. Please refer to this link that explains what the Young Global Leaders are:
http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders
So I do not agree that this blanket statement, which is not a fair statement to the 1000 YGLs in the world who include many notable people.
Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders:
Mark Zuckerberg,
Jared Cohen,
David Karp
Every Young Global Leader has a Wiki page linked to them, even the ones who are not household names, but are notable in their field and region:
Johannes Weber,
Ahmed Mater,
Zibusiso Mkhwanazi,
These are just a few, but the whole list can be found at:
List of Young Global Leaders. In fact,
Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). (
http://www.weforum.org/young-global-leaders/jimmy-wales)
Also, as stated under the Additional criteria for Notability:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
DGG: the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.
Response: If national branches are not notable, then what is? Maybe he can give examples. This is only one area of the subject's life, which should not be generalized as a failure for notability. Is this a criteria put up by Wiki or your own preference again? There are many notable people who hold office in national branches. What about regional branches then? Head of Global Dignity Cambodia? Rotary Peace Fellow? They are not national designations, but international ones. These are not brought up for consideration again, which again, brings back to the point of narrow focus. Global Dignity is a non-profit organization that advocates for dignity around the world. It is headed by the Crown Prince of Norway., and there is nothing promotional or un-notable about being its chair for an emerging country in Cambodia, which faces many human rights issues.
When you say "we", who are you referring to? If this is an AfD, then you shouldn't be representing other editors but yourself? See AfD guidelines for details. I thought AfDs are meant to be an expression of community thoughts, but you don't and cannot represent the community.
The content in question is a mere representation of the work the subject has done over the years with full references from reliable secondary sources. This is to ensure full accuracy in reporting, as I did with all sentences/sections dealing with each subject. Could you kindly advise on what to include and what to remove so that it is not over saturated with information, if that is what you mean.
DGG: Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.
Response: Again, DDG is speculating, and misquoting the facts. What was stated is Yap Kwong Weng previously held appointments in the military, one of them was Platoon Commander. Shouldn't this be part of the historical facts in an encyclopedia? Previously you tried use this as a point of contention, by stating that the subject "rose to Platoon Commander" as a sarcastic remark, which was untrue and misleading. It is not the role of platoon commoner that confers notability. It is merely the factual history of this subject who has notable accomplishments. Now, you are using the point about the subject graduating from US Navy Seal school as a point of contention? Since this is a fact, why can't it be stated? The military facts are important in this subject's military history and involvement in the Special Forces. The subject graduated from Class 237 of BUD/S in 2002.
Military histories are also stated in
Ahmed Mater's article where it states that he was a Sergeant.
Eric Greitens also the information about his Navy Seal title stated. I don't understand your logic. Yap Kwong Weng is not a General when he was in the military, but he is now COO of a Global Growth Company, which again, does not seem to be considered notable by you. There seems to be a preference for choosing minor points to provide a facade of unnotablilty. But the facts that the author brought up was not addressed. For military, Yap Kwong Weng was the editor and author of the Special Forces monograph of the SAF journal (The monograph was distributed to ASEAN militaries and used a reference in regional defence colleges concerning Special Forces operations). That fits into the requirements of Military notability, other than holding a "General" rank.
Please see military notability guide:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide: "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing."
The subject has accumulated a number of honors which shouldn't be discounted for independent ones that DDG has scrutinized. For example, according to DDG, while being a Navy Seal does not equal a Wikipedia entry, it does not mean that the subject should be 'penalized' for having the recognitions and history stated. The subject has met the criterias of notability under the "Additional Criteria". However, this is not recognized due to your preference/groundless opinions on WEF honors, an the others stated?
DGG: Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.
Response: The purpose of Wiki is to list down references as accurately as possible. Thats what I as the author did. There is nothing factually wrong about that and this shouldn't be used as a point for contention. Based on the previous argument on referencing and factual reporting which is the very basis of Wikipedia has been addressed, to which you have replied, "Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place." I am now unsure what your stance on this is. You seem to hold two contrary stances on this matter.
DDG's response here is vague and very general. I thought the article was supposed to contain several links and references. I am not sure what your point is. In my previous response to DDG, I have already stated that all references come from secondary and independent sources (see criteria for biography for living persons). There seems to be a repeated argument for deletion without providing any substance in response. These points have already been addressed in previous replies, hasn't it? There is no indication that all biographies must only use links, if that is what DDG is suggesting.
DGG: If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort.
Response: Thank you for the advice. I, as the author, agree that the article is imperfect but I believe that the subject still meets the criterias to be put up on Wikipedia. I am working on another article of a composer and arranger featured on grammy award winning projects, Phillip Lassiter. I think that would present less of a problem. I picked Yap Kwong Weng as a subject because it was relevant in my regional context. While I am new to Wiki Editing and creating, I disagree with your arguments. You cannot represent the community by stating "We" in an AfD. That is not supposed to be the purpose of the discussion. Your arguments seem to be repeated and based on preferences or misinformation about organisations such as the World Economic Forum and Global Dignity. The arguments are unable to address the points mentioned, with generalizations at best, ie. stating that WEF honors are promotional by nature. A reminder of constructive discussion is advised.
Referenced from Wiki guidelines on arguments and evidence:
"When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."
Referenced from Wiki guidelines:
"Wikipedia documents topics as they are seen through reliable sources such as academic papers, and reputable books and news media. The work of editors is to summarize and balance those sources and reflect them neutrally and fairly, rather than to present novel ideas of their own."
At the same time, there seems to be a bias on the article based on the deletion on the previous one of the same name. I am not sure if that colours the objectivity of your arguments.
Keep article I happened to chance upon Yap’s wiki page while I was searching for some information about the world economic forum. I do not agree that this page should be deleted. Reading through some of the comments, I could feel that DGG’s comments show signs of sarcasm, personal attacks and he picks on tiny petty details. Shouldn't his comments be deleted since no sarcasm is allowed on wiki? I also especially disagree when DGG mentioned that Yap’s contribution was not notable enough. Yap is making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation, society and even in undeveloped countries. Regardless of what positions he may hold, I am sure that he had touched and changed the life of many. Over all, I think this page should be kept since there are abundant of relevant secondary and reliable resources to prove of Yap’s background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.162.115 ( talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep article Apologies for extensive comments. Yap Kwong Weng is notable in the Asian context. He is a Young Global Leader under the World Economic forum, which is a notable global organisation. Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders, such as
Mark Zuckerberg. The honor is given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. He is also the country head of Global Dignity in Cambodia, as well as the COO of Parami Groups Myanmar, which is a leader in Myanmar Oil and Gas industry. The subject meets the basic requirements of notability under the "other" category. In the military context, Yap Kwong Weng has made significant contributions to the Armed Forces, as well as the Special Forces. The issues pointed out were focused on the more minor facts that on its own, do not confer notability (which is the main gripe), but against the backdrop of these achievements and contributions, serve as a factual account of this subject's history. DGG's concerns have been addressed previously, but he re-iterates the same points again to argue for deletion.
Wikiwak991 (
talk)
05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The references do mention the subject in them, as far as I know. Perhaps you could point out a couple that do not mention or are not relevant to the article. I will remove those. There was no intention to attack DGG. I merely mentioned previous points brought up for deletion had been addressed, but had been repeatedly used as points of contention for deletion. It is also untrue to state that the facts presented are "vague ramblings". There have been many facts presented (please refer to above discussions and article on recognition by World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader, Rotary, Global Dignity, COO of Parami Energy Group). These are clear and distinct, not general statements that "he's a noble and important person". 155.69.161.36 ( talk) 02:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, I forgot to log on (user: Wikiwak) Wikiwak991 ( talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Quoting Bejnar, "Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia"
There is a Wiki page on
Young Global Leaders (YGL) that gives a clear picture of Yap's award: "over the years. Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people, including several popular celebrities, alongside with recognized high achievers and innovators in the realms of politics, business, academia, media and the arts". See
Young Global Leaders. , "Young Global Leader" is a recognition given to a few selected candidates per country who are reviewed by Heidrick & Struggles. The selection is chaired by the Queen of Jordan and a neutral committee.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). Candidates are publicly nominated. (Criterias state that "self-nominations are not accepted").
(Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/nominate-young-global-leader)
(Reference::
http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders)
In the arguments for deletion, it was stated that YGLs are not notable and is a promotional title. Please prove this statement and justify it with facts, as well as your thoughts on why this award is not notable.
For writing: The
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, ("Securing A Future for Dignity" article) is a significant reliable publication source in the regional context. The Special Forces monograph is also a peer reviewed journal article (military leadership article) by international journal of knowledge. Yap is the only editor and a contributing writer of the first Special Forces journal published by Singapore Armed Forces Journal, a regional military authority. The monograph represents one of the highest standard of Singapore's military staff writing. This meets criteria number 9 under the Military History Notability - People: "9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." Holding the rank of general is one of the many criteria that confer notability, not the ONLY criteria.
I will promptly remove sources which editors think is an "overkill", please assist in identifying and removing, if necessary. My intent was to be as factually accurate as possible with backing sources. May I also appeal to the editors to look at the subject as a whole, instead of looking at individual areas that is not representative of his entire notability. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikiwak991 (
talk •
contribs)
09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep I feel a sense of injustice for the contributor. Clear blatant bullying. This is a discussion, not a forum to showcase authority you wish to portray. Whatever experience you think you might have, this is not a place to show you wish to win. If there are reasons, state them, argue them without insulting the contributor. Using blanket statements, like "Delete". No notability." is a useless form of contribution without objective reasoning. Look at DDG, he should have been removed for his blatant sarcastic remarks, but he wasn't. What's the point of stating guidelines when it's not followed? As for Bejnar, you say Young Global Leader should have a wiki site if its notable enough, this was provided by the creator of the article. You obviously did not check/read/understand in the first place. So this justifies the credibility of your assessment. For JamesBWatson, you consistently twist your words, and argue that Yap Kwong Weng is not notable but cannot really justify why, and tend to nitpick without giving any concrete reason or rationale. Then when justified that an award was given, you say its not the award that matters, but the individual and its "evidence" which has already been mentioned, but was clearly unaccepted. Can't you read on the links what the subject has done or did you even read it at all? You then move into a baseless assertion mode to nitpick about this award definition by Wikipedia. i.e whether given to notable or noteworthy people, however you wish to twist it. Why don't you go ask the editors who wrote that instead? Now let's assume that World Economic Forum is "at best promotional" as DGG ridiculously puts it, how do you then justify that Yap is indeed un-notable? You cannot prove it, and move on to mention about not using "Bold" statements. What kind of logic is that? Clear unnecessary nitpicking to the extent of being unreasonable. To add on, anyone with some common sense can tell you that this award (YGL) itself is a recognition of his contributions obviously. Similarly, you seem to be arguing for the same points without providing much evidence and in fact, distort the facts to some extent (although you use the used the word "mistakenly"). In my opinion, the contributor Wikiwak has done a good job in writing about the subject. And there is nothing done to help him improve the article but just plain bombardment. Finally, why do you need to explain that an administrator will close the discussion and so on? Are you implicitly threatening the contributor or using assertion to prove your point? Anyway, I am a member of the public - A free person who doesn't use a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 ( talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Concluding Remarks: Perhaps an admin reply on Wiki's stand on whether Young Global Leaders and similar titles, as well as the role of individuals in notable organisations confer notability will help to resolve this issue. (In this case it seems that, COO, editor, board of directors, award holder is not sufficiently notable). Wikiwak991 ( talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Bejnar: See Wiki guidelines - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." The content by the subject is covered in diferent types of sources and references, which you do not recognize. This clearly reflects your above argument that Yap's awards (the ones you listed above) are baseless and misleading. There does not mean that if an award is put on wikipedia, therefore it can be known as notable. Further, you tend to use alot of words to explain your point but it seems to get nowhere. There are secondary sources to state that Yap is a recipient of the awards. It's not up to you to decide whether its notable or not but the committee of the awards who do so. At the very least, the YGL award is clearly notable, and it is a false impression/opinion to state it's not. The so-called 150 people in the world per year who are selected are all notable individuals selected. They are covered in international sites, press releases to state that they have been selected on a neutral basis etc. It is unlike a research article where you look for references, and/or gauge the journal's credibility. There is also no further indication in the criteria of a biography that the award has to be ONLY awarded to the subject for it to be known as notable. Kindly read criteria again, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 ( talk) 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Further, the below mentioned arguments reflect incoherent views, which are self-explanatory in nature:
JamesBWatson - "The fact that someone chooses to come along and post something to Wikipedia does not make it a valuable or reliable source of information, so quoting from other Wikipedia articles is of no value at all in establishing notability."
Bejnar - "Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Young Global Leaders organization; however, it does not have an article on any award nor on the Forum of Young Global Leaders." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.254 ( talk) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments I saw Yap Kwong Weng's Wikipedia page and want to say a few words on the discussion:
It is clear that the editors are biased from the language they use and the way they behave. They should be less aggressive in their approach and more encouraging. (See above for details to find the answer). Wikiwak991 should provide more information on why Yap succeeded on being "notable". He should also take out necessary repeat links and beef up substantially the quality of Yap's contribution to do justice to him and Wikipedia. The notability factor is based on criteria, not certainly not other Wikipedia posts. Awards are not meant to be questioned. That's not the job of editors in this space, or anyone else writing an Encyclopedia. The basis of discussion seems very Western-oriented. So the recognition of certain notability factors are excluded. There's a need to relook into this. Editors are not meant to be 'policemen' (at least this is obvious here). They should provide positive discussion points, which unfortunately I don't see here. Buckshot06 wrote a paragraph worth almost nothing when he pointed out "the subject served in the Army..." What relevance has that got with the subject matter here? Buckshot06 paradoxically asked "the subject to have some reasonable exploits...". There's no need to show how good you are in English. This is not an English class. By the way, I think Singapore has 5 million people now. And anyone can post on Wikipedia - isn't that the basis of free information? You ask others to be objective, then why bother to act smart by inferring unnecessarily? If you have anything to say, prove it. In sum, the method of argument in this entire discussion is flawed. There is no contribution to the Encyclopedia at all. In fact, I find the arguments regressive and senseless. However I do feel the writer of the article deserves a proper explanation and guidance.
PS: Please don't bother looking at my IP address and trying to figure out who I am. My name is Steven Wang, and I am a Singapore PR residing in Thailand. Whatever the case, I think Yap's article deserves a shot although most of you think otherwise.
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The South Carolina-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found in blogs and other sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. Article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD today, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
ThisGuyIsGreat ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeRivalry ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn GermanJoe ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Sources are short author bios and articles about Pixloo (not primarily about him). No in-depth coverage from independent sources found via Google. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - while I disagree with a few arguments in the first nomination, a second nomination based on similar grounds would be too early. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is keep (though article can do with improvement), and it appears to have been a bad-faith nomination to begin with. Drmies ( talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Badly written autobiography by yet another foolio with a sinister agenda. Hats off to tarantino who is doing his best to keep you folks honest. Only thing that's on my mind is, can you, can you handle this? Nora The Terrible ( talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep Subject is notable, tone is balanced, and article is sourced. What are the grounds for deletion? What does "hats off to tarantino" even mean? Bangabandhu ( talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Blatant self-promotion. Fancy you showing up here, Bangabandhu. Things must be getting lonely over at the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance in Arlington, VA. https://archive.is/VfHjr (Thank you, tarantino, for that link). I don't think you're ready for this jelly. And don't pretend you don't know who tarantino is. Everybody who is anybody on here knows tarantino. He's the gorgeous to your ... not so gorgeous. Nora The Terrible ( talk) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Being bad at something can be a basis for notability - cf. William McGonagall. But is this kid bad enough to be notable? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non notable local councillor. The article suggests 2 claims to fame. First councillor for UKIP on Bristol City and parliamentary election candidate. In the first case, simply being a local councillor does not establish notability and there are now about 500 UKIP councillors in the UK, which has over 400 local councils, so UKIP winning seats on them rarely attracts the significant news coverage which would satisfy point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage is local news coverage almost all of it in passing, failing WP:BIO. Similarly, being a parliamentary election candidate is not notable in itself and in this case the person finished a distant third with 9% of the vote. Valenciano ( talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article does not meet notability guidlines. Possible self promotion/ autobiography. Rhaskell42 ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This biography fails to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals.
Rhaskell42 ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Even discounting the off-policy "keep" views, i.e. the ones that don't talk about sourcing, we don't have sufficiently clear consensus for deletion. Sandstein 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of a previously deleted article ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I have reviewed the sources, and I don't see any reliable, independent ones used. Forums, wikis, one or two trade magazines, a bunch of passing coverage. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. While the recent AfD closing as a keep is a concern, participants here have invalidated the comments there through new analysis not present then. — Spaceman Spiff 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
SPA-recreated Orangemoody article with questionable notability. It has several references, but most of them are blog-like or non-expert reviews, some of them are clearly affiliated or biased. In several of them AdPushup is not the focus, but only mentioned in a short paragraph as example for a trend or with some interview quotes (this is only OK, when the topic-related coverage is in-depth). With the article's history, the quality and reliability of sources should be closely examined. I am not convinced, that the included sources are more than PR coverage, WP:MILL startup reporting and passing mentions. The nomination is obviously not so much about the existence of sources, but about their applicability to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (2nd nomination). Hekerui ( talk) 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete - G11: Unambiguous advertising. ( non-admin closure) GermanJoe ( talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I could only find three sources, two of which only mention the subject in passing, and one of which seems likely to be press release generated content. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Prodded as an unsourced BLP and possible hoax - I can't find any online mention of either Bennetts or the named footballer he represents, and being "voted highest earning football agent" seems an oddly made-up claim. Article creator removed the prod and copypasted the content over the top of the unrelated Jonathan Bennett (mathematician) article. McGeddon ( talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP with only primary sources. I prodded it for having an unclear Alexa rank and "almost 3.7M likes on their Facebook page" as its only assertions of significance; the creator's response was to just delete those claims. McGeddon ( talk) 11:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Article is rife with original research and synthesis. It seems clear that the whole of the article is intended as a criticism of Christianity rather than good-faith, neutral content. -- Non-Dropframe talk 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Most third-party coverage is in the form of download sites, which do not establish notability. I think this fails WP:SIGCOV. sst flyer 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Orange and Lemons. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Totally unsourced blp. Created prior to 2010, so not qualified for Prod. Searches on News and Highbeam turned on several trivial mentions; newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR unsurprisingly returned nothing. The article is currently tagged with a COI issue. Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
does not meet wiki:notability , nowhere the source says nor discuss why the subject is notable, award claims to be frevilious without reference , also no quality references Shrikanthv ( talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Liam Lynch. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
While the artist who created this album is certainly notable, no indication at all that the album itself is. Article has not been referenced in its entire 9 year existence. A Google search turns up insufficient evidence of notability. Safiel ( talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep based on the number of sources available that give coverage to this article topic. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like not notable topic. There is no clear definition and it correlates with consultant Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Since this is all over news now, it makes sense to let the article stay. Also, no nomination reason provided, which makes it hard to refute the pro-deletion arguments. An eventual merge is possible, but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 08:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any verifiable claim of notability in this article. The author of most of the content on this page has a WP:COI since he claims to be the subject of this article. Also, this page appears to be largely, if not entirely, promotional as it is almost wholly dedicated to discussing his achievements and contains links to his website and twitter. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
While it's no doubt been note worthy in the news, I question the video's lasting notability, as notability isn't temporary. Does it have the staying power notability wise as say Numa Numa speaking in terms of notability? Or will it be a hot topic news story that like so many fades in to obscurity when the news spike dies out? In short, this article stinks of recentism, and therefore, it might be too soon to have an article. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 08:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. She is Mark and Bob Mothersbaugh's sister (from the band Devo) but aside from a handful of links on the web, she does not appear (the majority being Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc.) She is not associated with the band. Half of the links provided in the bio no longer exist. She is a gallery owner and may be well-known in the Akron/Cuyahoga Falls area of Ohio, but I do not see any significant contributions to the art genre outside of the temporary installation mentioned in the article. Leaving it open for discussion in case someone can prove notability. LovelyLillith ( talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This seems to be a personal essay about how space missions have caused radiation risks. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Teneo. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable company. fails WP:CORP. Apart from releases, there's not any great depth of coverage Flat Out ( talk) 06:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonnotable. Tagged for a year, no improvement Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable songwriting duo. I could not find anything on them from a simple Google search. Additionally, there might be a COI issue as the creator of this article is User:Danielcaesars. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non notable training area. No g-hits and the only source not reliable. Gbawden ( talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Peter Jon Pearce. Nobody is for retaining this as a separate article. Whether to merge any content can be figured out editorially. Draft:Cachet Chair would need a separate MfD nomination. Sandstein 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It is advertisement. And also delete Draft:Cachet Chair. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a school's sports season. Fails WP:NSEASON. - Mr X 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK for lack of available sources.- Mr X 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) - Mr X 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete; deleted by Liz-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable model. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find anything relating to this after searching numerous times. No references, clearly does not meet the notability guideline. -- Kethrus | talk to me 03:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect as per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note - I have deleted sections which were copyright violations.
The remainder is copied from http://penny-dreadful.wikia.com/wiki/Vanessa_Ives - and the list of sources provides are mostly other wikis.
Fails WP:GNG Flat Out ( talk) 02:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about company that spends most of its text discussing individual. Support for company is trivial and individual is NN. Mostly vanity based article. reddogsix ( talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps is without question the best known name in the Antique Map trade on a world wide basis. So, in terms of industry "fame", his is the biggest name by far in the world. There are 10s of thousands of antique map collectors world wide and 10s of thousands more enthusiasts who frequent his website for the descriptive content and illustrations. The website has been cited as one of the primary reference tools for map collectors and unquestionably, although there is no pricing guidance offered on the site, it has become the de factor barometer for valuation purposes.
Barry Lawrence Ruderman has created by far the largest on-line compendium of content rich description on antique maps. Here are just a few examples:
18th Century French Manuscript Map of Philadelphia (then capital of the US)
http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/41303
Commanche Pictograph Map--acquired by the Library of Congress http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/34803op
First American Postal Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/40648
Early Honolulu: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/35023
Rughesi's Asia: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33821
First Printed Plan of Any Planned Community In North America: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/37576
The Military District of New Mexico: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/39873
The Beaver Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/38663
Stephen F. Austin map of Texas: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33114
Hutchins Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/37434
Matteo Ricci Derivative Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/43034
Rev War Battle Plan http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/34474
Early Manuscript Map of California: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33352
The name Barry Lawrence Ruderman appears in at least 13 Wikipedia articles, either as a quoted source, on line reference or similar citation:
/info/en/?search=Casimiro_Castro
/info/en/?search=Emil_Fischer_%28cartographer%29
/info/en/?search=Stanford_University_Libraries_Digital_Image_Collections
/info/en/?search=Robert_Morden
/info/en/?search=Ignace-Gaston_Pardies
/info/en/?search=Fort_San_Miguel
/info/en/?search=Thomas_Kensett
/info/en/?search=Kellersberger's_Map
/info/en/?search=Capture_of_Santiago_%281585%29
/info/en/?search=Totius_Graeciae_Descriptio
There appear to be at least 24 references to Barry Lawrence Ruderman on wikimedia.
The BLR archive of map descriptions is accessed thousands of times each day, which has led to the use of free use of BLR images, descriptions and other content on thousands of other website. All of this content is given away for free--there is never a charge or licensing fee associated with digital images or descriptions. No watermarks are added and, when asked, the same high resolution images given to Stanford are made available to the public for free.
Note WP:Bio
- Any biography The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
1. Barry Lawrence Ruderman is the Leading Antique Map Dealer in the World
2. He is recognized for revolutionizing the Sale of Antique Maps On Line
3. Stanford recognizes and advertises as part of its permanent collection the Barry Lawrence Ruderman Collection of Digital Images
4. He hosts over 40,000 often content rich descriptions of Antique Maps on-line, representing 19 years of published research.
5. Raremaps.com is almost certainly the most visited and relied upon website in the world for map collectors, dealers and other map enthusiasts.
6. There are well over 1,000 independent on line references to the descriptions and images published on RareMaps.com. At last count, my it was estimated that over 5,000 separate "permissions" had been granted to use images for books, magazines, doctoral theses, blogs, websites, etc. and there are hundreds if not thousands more "unauthorized" (but not unwelcomed) uses of descriptions, images, etc.
Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
“Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”
--See numbered list above
Creative professionals: Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.”
--See numbered list above
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.”
--He is the first major on line retailer and by far the largest research content provider.
“The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.”
--Stanford University Libraries: " The Ruderman Collection gives scholars access to materials that might otherwise be unseen as they pass between private hands." https://library.stanford.edu/collections/barry-lawrence-ruderman-collection
See also WWW-Virtual Library: History Map History / History of Cartography: THE Gateway to the Subject http://www.maphistory.info/imagelarge.html
--You will note that Barry Lawrence Ruderman listed along with many of the top National Collections (Library of Congress, American Geographical Society Library, Boston Public Library, British Library, Oxford Digital Library, etc., as "Large general sites" for digital images. No other dealer is on this list and only one other private person is on the list (David Rumsey) /info/en/?search=David_Rumsey_Historical_Map_Collection /info/en/?search=David_Rumsey
“The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.”
Major Clients Include (this is a small sampling):
Library of Congress Geography & Map Division Yale / Beinecke Library Stanford University British Library John Carter Brown Library (Brown University) Princeton University New York Publc Library Canadian National Archive Bibliothèque nationale de France University of Michigan Clements Library
http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/125108118.html
"CarteMuseum.org/resources.html -- Museum is a non-profit cartographic museum located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and is dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of original maps and atlases.
We are listed in the Research Laboratories of Archaeology under "Repositories and Web Sites" http://rla.unc.edu/emas/abbrev.html
Here is an example of a typical on line image citation from the Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois: http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/search/details.php?a=1989.11.0025
Cornell/Persuasive Cartography: Another Link: https://persuasivemaps.library.cornell.edu/links
Dschultz099 ( talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was 'Redirect to Holy Family High School (New Bedford, Massachusetts) as I was going to comment but this seems obvious. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a typical parochial middle and elementary school. Under the widely accepted customary standards for school articles described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this sort of school doesn't get its own article unless a clear showing of notability is made. Possibly this could be redirected to Holy Family High School (New Bedford, Massachusetts), the now-closed high school at the same location; if not, then could be redirected to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Education instead. A prod was declined. Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This person does not appear to be notable. The only sources are IMDB and a link to one of her own videos on Vimeo, neither is evidence of notability. The claim that her films have been screened at film festivals around the world and won several awards cannot, as far as I can tell, be verified. No significant coverage in third-party RS that I can find. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Contested A7/G11 CSD. I dream of horses ( C) @ 23:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 14:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Professor are not generally considered notable Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep Nominator is mistaken, full professors at research universities are usually notable. Subject meets several of the academic criteria as a leading expert in the Vikings and also meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". Click publications here for the list of published works: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/judith.jesch Philafrenzy ( talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"ridiculous"? Didn't you read the sources?
Philafrenzy ( talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 23:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he now trains with Shirak's first team. However, since the Armenian Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro, this does not confer notability, never mind the fact that he has yet to actually play, or that the claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Article refers to an individual who is scantly commented on in sources. Details on the martial artist are just generic stats on his weight and height along with compliments from notable fighters. Compliments and scarce connections do not denote to notability TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as proposer.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
22:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Kentucky_gubernatorial_election,_2007. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominee for Lt Gov (bottom of the ticket, not running independently) who lost in the 2007 election. Therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also appears to fail WP:GNG without significant coverage. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep - This seems like a clear keep and I would've voted as such and the current article seems acceptable and sourced. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No reliable independent sources here. Claims that she is a Professor not supported anywhere, not even on her own Linkedin account. Reads like a self promo piece. Fails WP:GNG and as it stands would also be a candidate for a BLP Prod Velella Velella Talk 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can be userfied on request if new sources appear. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of meeting General notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Aside from the Dorkly blurb, all sources are self-published or user-generated sites. When and if this game gets reliable third-party coverage, an article may be warranted. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No indication of notability, promotional, flagged with reference/orphan issues for 7 years Nsteffel ( talk) 20:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete, all four articles-- Ymblanter ( talk) 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Advertising tone and feel, little out there to suggest the company meets WP:COMPANY, flagged for notability for almost 5 years without any improvement.
Took a closer look at the editor's history and also want to suggest deleting the following bundle of articles as related ones with similar issues:
Nsteffel ( talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Self-promotion for a non-notable organisation. Only cites subject's social media pages and there doesn't seem to be anything else. Was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Economic Merit Award before being speedily deleted per author's request. Hut 8.5 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article is grossly promotional. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. References are a joke. Many do not mention the subject at all. Many are not reliable. None provide anything even remotely close to the "in depth coverage" required by the guidelines. In a sane world this would be a speedy delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only serves as aid to elected politicians. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is completely unsourced and lacks an actual lead section. At the moment, most of the the entries in the list lack any sort of description and are simply links to the articles; those that do have descriptions are not sourced at all. The list is potentially so broad that it will be unmanageable to maintain, and as it is right now, the list is very scattered in what it covers. I think having only a category, with no list article, would be a much better way to deal with the subject. Inks.LWC ( talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nicholas Megalis. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Green Party of England and Wales. The redirect target and an merger of content is up to editorial consensus. But consensus here is not to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No evidence that this is an actual entity. All the refs simply show as an integral part of the Green Party and not even a splinter group,simply one component grouping. As written this fails WP:GNG . Maybe a merge back to the relevant parent article might be the appropriate solution. Velella Velella Talk 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Creating and editing a Wikipedia page for an institution of which you are Chair is a clear breach of WP:SPIP. The current article does not meet the criteria for balance, and constitutes self-promotion, please see: Wikipedia:NOTCV. Support Velella's point: integral parts of the party do not constitute a separate grouping that is notable, and therefore should be merged into the article. Rob304665 ( talk) 00:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If you do insist on merging it then I would advise against merging it with the UK Green Party as the UK Green Party hasn't existed since 1990. And as mentioned above, over Parties' LGBT+ Groups are allowed, so unless the other pages are deleted, I do not think Wikipedia should be making a Partisan decision. Aimeec110 ( talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable You Tube series. All self-published sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He was describe as "rising actor" by some local blogs. Not every local actor with press coverage are notable. Ref 1 and Ref 2 looks promising but not enough to establish notability. Ref 3 is a blog, ref 4 is a passing mention, ref 5 is a blog and say nothing about the local actor, ref 6 is a "YouTube Video" and ref 7 is not what I will considered a significant coverages (just few lines sentences). Other uncited sources I found are just a passing mention perhaps WP:TOOSOON. In addition, the article is a pet page for an WP:SPA who just want the article to stay. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy Delete. Author has blanked and G7'd the page. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this is a brand-new article, but I do not think that even with a week to edit will it prove suitable. A small-time middle school with no claim of notability (which throws out WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), and the only press coming from local sources about relatively mundane things. Primefac ( talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. As per our usual practice, especially regarding pages nominated for deletion as promotional, I am discounting the views expressed by anonymous and very new contributors because of the very high likelihood of votestacking (not that this is a vote). This leaves us with an unanimous consensus to delete the article as a vanity autobiography of a non-notable person. Sandstein 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Promotional with no underlying notability. The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense. For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles; he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander! He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him; and to add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities. He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published". He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices andPR about the speech.
Written by spa editor with no other significant contributions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved from talk page.
I would like to contest the nomination for deletion. This article has been deleted previously, but restored by the one who deleted it because changes and justifications were made to a satisfactory level. Below, I address some of the issues brought forward by DGG.
DGG: Promotional with no underlying notability.
My response: The article has been edited to remove unintended promotional tone. Notability of the subject has been raised - see the awards, as well as work in the Non-profit sector, additionally as position in Parami Energy Group.
Wikipedia is supposed to be informational and factual, which this article is, based on the information provided. Notability guidelines have been considered. The article meets these guidelines. More on this is discussed below.
If you take a look at notability guidelines, the awards, credentials, and public quotes are all in the article. This individual is recognized by the World Economic Forum, the World Cities Summit. He is the Country Head of Cambodia, Previous Secretary General of the United Nations Association of Singapore, and a Young Outstanding Singaporean, awarded by the Junior Chambers International.
DGG: The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense.
My response:
"impressive array...." implies sarcasm.
To the best of my ability, I am being factual and referencing nearly every sentence to ensure accuracy. Giving references is part of the guidelines of wiki and I have made sure that the references are from objective sources.
The sources referenced are not to his personal accounts or any blogs that he may be able to manipulated to his needs. These include official organization sites (global dignity, world economic forum, Norwegian Ambassy) that document this individuals accolades and contributions.
On the comment about the information being "nonsense" - all information are factual and based on objective sources. Please refer to the Wiki guidelines on Wikietiquette: " • Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. • Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor."
DGG: For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles
My response: It is a requirement of wikipedia to give references. This is not the only things that Yap Kwong Weng has written. There are several. The monograph is a compilation in which Yap Kwong Weng wrote 3 articles. It was actually a series of articles published and put together for the 1st time in the history of Singapore's Special Forces, and distributed at the ASEAN Defence Meet in 2009.
DGG: he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander!
My response: Again, the language used is sarcastic (Refer to Wikietiquette). Giving references is part of the Wiki process. Platoon Commander is not the only position held (it was actually an early position), there were many other positions in the military. These were not mentioned by DGG. Also, Graduating as a Navy Seal is notable at least in the world of the armed forces especially the US. I am unsure why there is a problem in stating that as a fact.
Also, DGG only picked a few minor things that may confer notability to refute the article. He did not mention notability seen in awards, such as Young Global Leader, Rotary, CSIS, Global Dignity, and others mentioned in the article. Also, Yap Kwong Weng has also gained recognition with youth work, has contributed to NGO work, and has given speeches at regional levels, as seen in the references.
DGG: He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him;
My response: Being a COO is part of the C-suite (refer to Wiki definition of COO). Parami Energy Group is now one of the Global Growth Companies of the World Economic Forum (2015) (Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/global-growth-companies-honourees-2015). To be a GGC company is a global recognition that is awarded to the highest potential growth with significant potential and achievement. (Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/community/global-growth-companies). As COO of this group, it therefore is considered to be notable. Yap Kwong Weng was COO before this company got GCC. He has been included in many business projects and is notable in the Myanmar business community as seen from the references especially in the areas of CSR.
On notability - Yap Kwong Weng is notable under the "Any biography" section under notability as he has won awards in his field and has made a lasting contribution in it. See above mentioned awards received (also in the article) from significant world organisations like World Cities Summit, World Economic Forum. These are notable awards. Why has DGG not contested based on that information? Yap's notability is not only based on his position in Parami, but also because of the awards received by world recognized organizations and bodies.
DGG: To add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities
My response: There is nothing unnotable or promotional about that. Yap Kwong Weng has been quoted as the COO of Parami. Also, Myanmar is undergoing change which needs more support from the international community to improve the lives of the people there. Yap is playing a role in that process, as shown in the references. Many of the quotes and references come from Asian news sites and magazines which may not be as well known to a Western audience. However, this individuals contributions and renown is dominantly in the South East Asian context, thus media coverage of him is expected to be in such a context.
DGG: He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published".
My response: We remove the word "widely" if DGG is not comfortable with it. But including the CDF essay competition in Singapore military is considered reasonable. The article was about ex-military personnel (often stereotyped) being more recognised in the workforce. That is hardly promotional, rather, it is a study that benefits military personnel.
Also, the article written about dignity for the Lee Kuan Yew school is notable in the Asian context. This was not highlighted. The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is recognised in Singapore also Worldwide, especially in Asia.
DGG: He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices and PR about the speech.
My response: This has been changed already. I am not sure why DGG has chosen to pick this as an issue. Also, according to a Forbes article, this was stated: "TED and TEDx are powerful events because their organizers and staff don’t do it for the money or the fame – for which there is neither. They do it to make a difference. And people that do things out of passion, do them better". There's no evidence to suggest that PR exists in the speech. It's just media reporting which the author is doing due diligence by stating it down as part of the Wiki guidelines on referencing.( Reference:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/06/19/heres-why-ted-and-tedx-are-so-incredibly-appealing-infographic/)
In any case, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. I, as an author, have explained to the one who previously deleted the article that I had viewed TEDx and TED as synonymous. However, with the difference being pointed out, I have consented to change it. I am not sure why this was again brought up as an issue.
There are also many areas such as UN association work, etc. These were not mentioned in DDG's assessment and taken into account. DDG has narrowed his nomination to minor details and on articles. There is a much greater scope on the subject that has not been mentioned in the nomination for deletion. The subject is notable and the presented information prove it.
I would appreciate that DGG prove that this article contains "promotional activities", or has an intent to promote. And if there is, to point it out or to change it. The tone has already been edited by user jimbleak, and I as the author am willing to adjust if needed (I am still learning how to put up wiki article). Appreciate if DDG could help improve the article. Please advice on what to include and what to omit.
Wikiwak991 ( talk) 07:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
DGG: yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.
Response: Thank you for your comments and for changing it. On two occasions, you argued for the importance of differences between Ted and TedX. Now you said you changed it initially because you thought it was worth rescuing. So that settles the issue about TED and Tedx.
DGG: ..an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion."
Response: This statement is untrue according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no promotional intent nor backdrop that show the subject is being promotional. In fact, most wiki articles on notable subjects contains the activities in which the person has been involved in. In any event, the notability factor of a subject is guided by certain criteria, not the opinions of the editor or how yourself (DGG) thinks it should be. There is no indication in the references that the subject is promoting himself. I have already mentioned this in my previous posting and stated my rationale and supporting evidence.
The content on Yap Kwong Weng is factual and quoted on the news and articles. I don't see why it is considered promotion. Can you please explain this part again? I remain unconvinced of your assertions on this because it lacks supportive evidence of your claim.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
DGG: An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.
Response: I have tried to use and include links and other references, which is widely seen in wiki articles, as well as included links to the information about this subject. Please clarify this statement.
DGG: As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.
Response: Again, your response that such honours from this organization is mutual promotion is an opinion and a big generalization. WEF is known to world leaders, organizations and thousands around the world for its content, delivery and substance. The World Economic Forum Young Global Leader award is an honor given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. It is definitely not self-promotion. Please refer to this link that explains what the Young Global Leaders are:
http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders
So I do not agree that this blanket statement, which is not a fair statement to the 1000 YGLs in the world who include many notable people.
Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders:
Mark Zuckerberg,
Jared Cohen,
David Karp
Every Young Global Leader has a Wiki page linked to them, even the ones who are not household names, but are notable in their field and region:
Johannes Weber,
Ahmed Mater,
Zibusiso Mkhwanazi,
These are just a few, but the whole list can be found at:
List of Young Global Leaders. In fact,
Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). (
http://www.weforum.org/young-global-leaders/jimmy-wales)
Also, as stated under the Additional criteria for Notability:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
DGG: the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.
Response: If national branches are not notable, then what is? Maybe he can give examples. This is only one area of the subject's life, which should not be generalized as a failure for notability. Is this a criteria put up by Wiki or your own preference again? There are many notable people who hold office in national branches. What about regional branches then? Head of Global Dignity Cambodia? Rotary Peace Fellow? They are not national designations, but international ones. These are not brought up for consideration again, which again, brings back to the point of narrow focus. Global Dignity is a non-profit organization that advocates for dignity around the world. It is headed by the Crown Prince of Norway., and there is nothing promotional or un-notable about being its chair for an emerging country in Cambodia, which faces many human rights issues.
When you say "we", who are you referring to? If this is an AfD, then you shouldn't be representing other editors but yourself? See AfD guidelines for details. I thought AfDs are meant to be an expression of community thoughts, but you don't and cannot represent the community.
The content in question is a mere representation of the work the subject has done over the years with full references from reliable secondary sources. This is to ensure full accuracy in reporting, as I did with all sentences/sections dealing with each subject. Could you kindly advise on what to include and what to remove so that it is not over saturated with information, if that is what you mean.
DGG: Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.
Response: Again, DDG is speculating, and misquoting the facts. What was stated is Yap Kwong Weng previously held appointments in the military, one of them was Platoon Commander. Shouldn't this be part of the historical facts in an encyclopedia? Previously you tried use this as a point of contention, by stating that the subject "rose to Platoon Commander" as a sarcastic remark, which was untrue and misleading. It is not the role of platoon commoner that confers notability. It is merely the factual history of this subject who has notable accomplishments. Now, you are using the point about the subject graduating from US Navy Seal school as a point of contention? Since this is a fact, why can't it be stated? The military facts are important in this subject's military history and involvement in the Special Forces. The subject graduated from Class 237 of BUD/S in 2002.
Military histories are also stated in
Ahmed Mater's article where it states that he was a Sergeant.
Eric Greitens also the information about his Navy Seal title stated. I don't understand your logic. Yap Kwong Weng is not a General when he was in the military, but he is now COO of a Global Growth Company, which again, does not seem to be considered notable by you. There seems to be a preference for choosing minor points to provide a facade of unnotablilty. But the facts that the author brought up was not addressed. For military, Yap Kwong Weng was the editor and author of the Special Forces monograph of the SAF journal (The monograph was distributed to ASEAN militaries and used a reference in regional defence colleges concerning Special Forces operations). That fits into the requirements of Military notability, other than holding a "General" rank.
Please see military notability guide:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide: "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing."
The subject has accumulated a number of honors which shouldn't be discounted for independent ones that DDG has scrutinized. For example, according to DDG, while being a Navy Seal does not equal a Wikipedia entry, it does not mean that the subject should be 'penalized' for having the recognitions and history stated. The subject has met the criterias of notability under the "Additional Criteria". However, this is not recognized due to your preference/groundless opinions on WEF honors, an the others stated?
DGG: Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.
Response: The purpose of Wiki is to list down references as accurately as possible. Thats what I as the author did. There is nothing factually wrong about that and this shouldn't be used as a point for contention. Based on the previous argument on referencing and factual reporting which is the very basis of Wikipedia has been addressed, to which you have replied, "Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place." I am now unsure what your stance on this is. You seem to hold two contrary stances on this matter.
DDG's response here is vague and very general. I thought the article was supposed to contain several links and references. I am not sure what your point is. In my previous response to DDG, I have already stated that all references come from secondary and independent sources (see criteria for biography for living persons). There seems to be a repeated argument for deletion without providing any substance in response. These points have already been addressed in previous replies, hasn't it? There is no indication that all biographies must only use links, if that is what DDG is suggesting.
DGG: If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort.
Response: Thank you for the advice. I, as the author, agree that the article is imperfect but I believe that the subject still meets the criterias to be put up on Wikipedia. I am working on another article of a composer and arranger featured on grammy award winning projects, Phillip Lassiter. I think that would present less of a problem. I picked Yap Kwong Weng as a subject because it was relevant in my regional context. While I am new to Wiki Editing and creating, I disagree with your arguments. You cannot represent the community by stating "We" in an AfD. That is not supposed to be the purpose of the discussion. Your arguments seem to be repeated and based on preferences or misinformation about organisations such as the World Economic Forum and Global Dignity. The arguments are unable to address the points mentioned, with generalizations at best, ie. stating that WEF honors are promotional by nature. A reminder of constructive discussion is advised.
Referenced from Wiki guidelines on arguments and evidence:
"When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."
Referenced from Wiki guidelines:
"Wikipedia documents topics as they are seen through reliable sources such as academic papers, and reputable books and news media. The work of editors is to summarize and balance those sources and reflect them neutrally and fairly, rather than to present novel ideas of their own."
At the same time, there seems to be a bias on the article based on the deletion on the previous one of the same name. I am not sure if that colours the objectivity of your arguments.
Keep article I happened to chance upon Yap’s wiki page while I was searching for some information about the world economic forum. I do not agree that this page should be deleted. Reading through some of the comments, I could feel that DGG’s comments show signs of sarcasm, personal attacks and he picks on tiny petty details. Shouldn't his comments be deleted since no sarcasm is allowed on wiki? I also especially disagree when DGG mentioned that Yap’s contribution was not notable enough. Yap is making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation, society and even in undeveloped countries. Regardless of what positions he may hold, I am sure that he had touched and changed the life of many. Over all, I think this page should be kept since there are abundant of relevant secondary and reliable resources to prove of Yap’s background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.162.115 ( talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep article Apologies for extensive comments. Yap Kwong Weng is notable in the Asian context. He is a Young Global Leader under the World Economic forum, which is a notable global organisation. Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders, such as
Mark Zuckerberg. The honor is given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. He is also the country head of Global Dignity in Cambodia, as well as the COO of Parami Groups Myanmar, which is a leader in Myanmar Oil and Gas industry. The subject meets the basic requirements of notability under the "other" category. In the military context, Yap Kwong Weng has made significant contributions to the Armed Forces, as well as the Special Forces. The issues pointed out were focused on the more minor facts that on its own, do not confer notability (which is the main gripe), but against the backdrop of these achievements and contributions, serve as a factual account of this subject's history. DGG's concerns have been addressed previously, but he re-iterates the same points again to argue for deletion.
Wikiwak991 (
talk)
05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The references do mention the subject in them, as far as I know. Perhaps you could point out a couple that do not mention or are not relevant to the article. I will remove those. There was no intention to attack DGG. I merely mentioned previous points brought up for deletion had been addressed, but had been repeatedly used as points of contention for deletion. It is also untrue to state that the facts presented are "vague ramblings". There have been many facts presented (please refer to above discussions and article on recognition by World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader, Rotary, Global Dignity, COO of Parami Energy Group). These are clear and distinct, not general statements that "he's a noble and important person". 155.69.161.36 ( talk) 02:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, I forgot to log on (user: Wikiwak) Wikiwak991 ( talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Quoting Bejnar, "Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia"
There is a Wiki page on
Young Global Leaders (YGL) that gives a clear picture of Yap's award: "over the years. Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people, including several popular celebrities, alongside with recognized high achievers and innovators in the realms of politics, business, academia, media and the arts". See
Young Global Leaders. , "Young Global Leader" is a recognition given to a few selected candidates per country who are reviewed by Heidrick & Struggles. The selection is chaired by the Queen of Jordan and a neutral committee.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). Candidates are publicly nominated. (Criterias state that "self-nominations are not accepted").
(Reference:
http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/nominate-young-global-leader)
(Reference::
http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders)
In the arguments for deletion, it was stated that YGLs are not notable and is a promotional title. Please prove this statement and justify it with facts, as well as your thoughts on why this award is not notable.
For writing: The
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, ("Securing A Future for Dignity" article) is a significant reliable publication source in the regional context. The Special Forces monograph is also a peer reviewed journal article (military leadership article) by international journal of knowledge. Yap is the only editor and a contributing writer of the first Special Forces journal published by Singapore Armed Forces Journal, a regional military authority. The monograph represents one of the highest standard of Singapore's military staff writing. This meets criteria number 9 under the Military History Notability - People: "9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." Holding the rank of general is one of the many criteria that confer notability, not the ONLY criteria.
I will promptly remove sources which editors think is an "overkill", please assist in identifying and removing, if necessary. My intent was to be as factually accurate as possible with backing sources. May I also appeal to the editors to look at the subject as a whole, instead of looking at individual areas that is not representative of his entire notability. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikiwak991 (
talk •
contribs)
09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep I feel a sense of injustice for the contributor. Clear blatant bullying. This is a discussion, not a forum to showcase authority you wish to portray. Whatever experience you think you might have, this is not a place to show you wish to win. If there are reasons, state them, argue them without insulting the contributor. Using blanket statements, like "Delete". No notability." is a useless form of contribution without objective reasoning. Look at DDG, he should have been removed for his blatant sarcastic remarks, but he wasn't. What's the point of stating guidelines when it's not followed? As for Bejnar, you say Young Global Leader should have a wiki site if its notable enough, this was provided by the creator of the article. You obviously did not check/read/understand in the first place. So this justifies the credibility of your assessment. For JamesBWatson, you consistently twist your words, and argue that Yap Kwong Weng is not notable but cannot really justify why, and tend to nitpick without giving any concrete reason or rationale. Then when justified that an award was given, you say its not the award that matters, but the individual and its "evidence" which has already been mentioned, but was clearly unaccepted. Can't you read on the links what the subject has done or did you even read it at all? You then move into a baseless assertion mode to nitpick about this award definition by Wikipedia. i.e whether given to notable or noteworthy people, however you wish to twist it. Why don't you go ask the editors who wrote that instead? Now let's assume that World Economic Forum is "at best promotional" as DGG ridiculously puts it, how do you then justify that Yap is indeed un-notable? You cannot prove it, and move on to mention about not using "Bold" statements. What kind of logic is that? Clear unnecessary nitpicking to the extent of being unreasonable. To add on, anyone with some common sense can tell you that this award (YGL) itself is a recognition of his contributions obviously. Similarly, you seem to be arguing for the same points without providing much evidence and in fact, distort the facts to some extent (although you use the used the word "mistakenly"). In my opinion, the contributor Wikiwak has done a good job in writing about the subject. And there is nothing done to help him improve the article but just plain bombardment. Finally, why do you need to explain that an administrator will close the discussion and so on? Are you implicitly threatening the contributor or using assertion to prove your point? Anyway, I am a member of the public - A free person who doesn't use a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 ( talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Concluding Remarks: Perhaps an admin reply on Wiki's stand on whether Young Global Leaders and similar titles, as well as the role of individuals in notable organisations confer notability will help to resolve this issue. (In this case it seems that, COO, editor, board of directors, award holder is not sufficiently notable). Wikiwak991 ( talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Bejnar: See Wiki guidelines - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." The content by the subject is covered in diferent types of sources and references, which you do not recognize. This clearly reflects your above argument that Yap's awards (the ones you listed above) are baseless and misleading. There does not mean that if an award is put on wikipedia, therefore it can be known as notable. Further, you tend to use alot of words to explain your point but it seems to get nowhere. There are secondary sources to state that Yap is a recipient of the awards. It's not up to you to decide whether its notable or not but the committee of the awards who do so. At the very least, the YGL award is clearly notable, and it is a false impression/opinion to state it's not. The so-called 150 people in the world per year who are selected are all notable individuals selected. They are covered in international sites, press releases to state that they have been selected on a neutral basis etc. It is unlike a research article where you look for references, and/or gauge the journal's credibility. There is also no further indication in the criteria of a biography that the award has to be ONLY awarded to the subject for it to be known as notable. Kindly read criteria again, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 ( talk) 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Further, the below mentioned arguments reflect incoherent views, which are self-explanatory in nature:
JamesBWatson - "The fact that someone chooses to come along and post something to Wikipedia does not make it a valuable or reliable source of information, so quoting from other Wikipedia articles is of no value at all in establishing notability."
Bejnar - "Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Young Global Leaders organization; however, it does not have an article on any award nor on the Forum of Young Global Leaders." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.254 ( talk) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments I saw Yap Kwong Weng's Wikipedia page and want to say a few words on the discussion:
It is clear that the editors are biased from the language they use and the way they behave. They should be less aggressive in their approach and more encouraging. (See above for details to find the answer). Wikiwak991 should provide more information on why Yap succeeded on being "notable". He should also take out necessary repeat links and beef up substantially the quality of Yap's contribution to do justice to him and Wikipedia. The notability factor is based on criteria, not certainly not other Wikipedia posts. Awards are not meant to be questioned. That's not the job of editors in this space, or anyone else writing an Encyclopedia. The basis of discussion seems very Western-oriented. So the recognition of certain notability factors are excluded. There's a need to relook into this. Editors are not meant to be 'policemen' (at least this is obvious here). They should provide positive discussion points, which unfortunately I don't see here. Buckshot06 wrote a paragraph worth almost nothing when he pointed out "the subject served in the Army..." What relevance has that got with the subject matter here? Buckshot06 paradoxically asked "the subject to have some reasonable exploits...". There's no need to show how good you are in English. This is not an English class. By the way, I think Singapore has 5 million people now. And anyone can post on Wikipedia - isn't that the basis of free information? You ask others to be objective, then why bother to act smart by inferring unnecessarily? If you have anything to say, prove it. In sum, the method of argument in this entire discussion is flawed. There is no contribution to the Encyclopedia at all. In fact, I find the arguments regressive and senseless. However I do feel the writer of the article deserves a proper explanation and guidance.
PS: Please don't bother looking at my IP address and trying to figure out who I am. My name is Steven Wang, and I am a Singapore PR residing in Thailand. Whatever the case, I think Yap's article deserves a shot although most of you think otherwise.
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The South Carolina-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found in blogs and other sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. Article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD today, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
ThisGuyIsGreat ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeRivalry ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn GermanJoe ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable businessman. Sources are short author bios and articles about Pixloo (not primarily about him). No in-depth coverage from independent sources found via Google. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator - while I disagree with a few arguments in the first nomination, a second nomination based on similar grounds would be too early. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is keep (though article can do with improvement), and it appears to have been a bad-faith nomination to begin with. Drmies ( talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Badly written autobiography by yet another foolio with a sinister agenda. Hats off to tarantino who is doing his best to keep you folks honest. Only thing that's on my mind is, can you, can you handle this? Nora The Terrible ( talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep Subject is notable, tone is balanced, and article is sourced. What are the grounds for deletion? What does "hats off to tarantino" even mean? Bangabandhu ( talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Blatant self-promotion. Fancy you showing up here, Bangabandhu. Things must be getting lonely over at the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance in Arlington, VA. https://archive.is/VfHjr (Thank you, tarantino, for that link). I don't think you're ready for this jelly. And don't pretend you don't know who tarantino is. Everybody who is anybody on here knows tarantino. He's the gorgeous to your ... not so gorgeous. Nora The Terrible ( talk) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Being bad at something can be a basis for notability - cf. William McGonagall. But is this kid bad enough to be notable? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non notable local councillor. The article suggests 2 claims to fame. First councillor for UKIP on Bristol City and parliamentary election candidate. In the first case, simply being a local councillor does not establish notability and there are now about 500 UKIP councillors in the UK, which has over 400 local councils, so UKIP winning seats on them rarely attracts the significant news coverage which would satisfy point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage is local news coverage almost all of it in passing, failing WP:BIO. Similarly, being a parliamentary election candidate is not notable in itself and in this case the person finished a distant third with 9% of the vote. Valenciano ( talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article does not meet notability guidlines. Possible self promotion/ autobiography. Rhaskell42 ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This biography fails to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals.
Rhaskell42 ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Even discounting the off-policy "keep" views, i.e. the ones that don't talk about sourcing, we don't have sufficiently clear consensus for deletion. Sandstein 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of a previously deleted article ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I have reviewed the sources, and I don't see any reliable, independent ones used. Forums, wikis, one or two trade magazines, a bunch of passing coverage. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. While the recent AfD closing as a keep is a concern, participants here have invalidated the comments there through new analysis not present then. — Spaceman Spiff 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
SPA-recreated Orangemoody article with questionable notability. It has several references, but most of them are blog-like or non-expert reviews, some of them are clearly affiliated or biased. In several of them AdPushup is not the focus, but only mentioned in a short paragraph as example for a trend or with some interview quotes (this is only OK, when the topic-related coverage is in-depth). With the article's history, the quality and reliability of sources should be closely examined. I am not convinced, that the included sources are more than PR coverage, WP:MILL startup reporting and passing mentions. The nomination is obviously not so much about the existence of sources, but about their applicability to establish notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (2nd nomination). Hekerui ( talk) 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete - G11: Unambiguous advertising. ( non-admin closure) GermanJoe ( talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I could only find three sources, two of which only mention the subject in passing, and one of which seems likely to be press release generated content. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Prodded as an unsourced BLP and possible hoax - I can't find any online mention of either Bennetts or the named footballer he represents, and being "voted highest earning football agent" seems an oddly made-up claim. Article creator removed the prod and copypasted the content over the top of the unrelated Jonathan Bennett (mathematician) article. McGeddon ( talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP with only primary sources. I prodded it for having an unclear Alexa rank and "almost 3.7M likes on their Facebook page" as its only assertions of significance; the creator's response was to just delete those claims. McGeddon ( talk) 11:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Article is rife with original research and synthesis. It seems clear that the whole of the article is intended as a criticism of Christianity rather than good-faith, neutral content. -- Non-Dropframe talk 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Most third-party coverage is in the form of download sites, which do not establish notability. I think this fails WP:SIGCOV. sst flyer 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Orange and Lemons. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Totally unsourced blp. Created prior to 2010, so not qualified for Prod. Searches on News and Highbeam turned on several trivial mentions; newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR unsurprisingly returned nothing. The article is currently tagged with a COI issue. Onel5969 TT me 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
does not meet wiki:notability , nowhere the source says nor discuss why the subject is notable, award claims to be frevilious without reference , also no quality references Shrikanthv ( talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Liam Lynch. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
While the artist who created this album is certainly notable, no indication at all that the album itself is. Article has not been referenced in its entire 9 year existence. A Google search turns up insufficient evidence of notability. Safiel ( talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep based on the number of sources available that give coverage to this article topic. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like not notable topic. There is no clear definition and it correlates with consultant Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Since this is all over news now, it makes sense to let the article stay. Also, no nomination reason provided, which makes it hard to refute the pro-deletion arguments. An eventual merge is possible, but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 08:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any verifiable claim of notability in this article. The author of most of the content on this page has a WP:COI since he claims to be the subject of this article. Also, this page appears to be largely, if not entirely, promotional as it is almost wholly dedicated to discussing his achievements and contains links to his website and twitter. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 02:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
While it's no doubt been note worthy in the news, I question the video's lasting notability, as notability isn't temporary. Does it have the staying power notability wise as say Numa Numa speaking in terms of notability? Or will it be a hot topic news story that like so many fades in to obscurity when the news spike dies out? In short, this article stinks of recentism, and therefore, it might be too soon to have an article. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 08:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. She is Mark and Bob Mothersbaugh's sister (from the band Devo) but aside from a handful of links on the web, she does not appear (the majority being Pinterest, LinkedIn, etc.) She is not associated with the band. Half of the links provided in the bio no longer exist. She is a gallery owner and may be well-known in the Akron/Cuyahoga Falls area of Ohio, but I do not see any significant contributions to the art genre outside of the temporary installation mentioned in the article. Leaving it open for discussion in case someone can prove notability. LovelyLillith ( talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This seems to be a personal essay about how space missions have caused radiation risks. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Teneo. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable company. fails WP:CORP. Apart from releases, there's not any great depth of coverage Flat Out ( talk) 06:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonnotable. Tagged for a year, no improvement Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable songwriting duo. I could not find anything on them from a simple Google search. Additionally, there might be a COI issue as the creator of this article is User:Danielcaesars. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Non notable training area. No g-hits and the only source not reliable. Gbawden ( talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Peter Jon Pearce. Nobody is for retaining this as a separate article. Whether to merge any content can be figured out editorially. Draft:Cachet Chair would need a separate MfD nomination. Sandstein 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It is advertisement. And also delete Draft:Cachet Chair. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a school's sports season. Fails WP:NSEASON. - Mr X 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK for lack of available sources.- Mr X 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) - Mr X 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete; deleted by Liz-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable model. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth. ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find anything relating to this after searching numerous times. No references, clearly does not meet the notability guideline. -- Kethrus | talk to me 03:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect as per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note - I have deleted sections which were copyright violations.
The remainder is copied from http://penny-dreadful.wikia.com/wiki/Vanessa_Ives - and the list of sources provides are mostly other wikis.
Fails WP:GNG Flat Out ( talk) 02:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Article about company that spends most of its text discussing individual. Support for company is trivial and individual is NN. Mostly vanity based article. reddogsix ( talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps is without question the best known name in the Antique Map trade on a world wide basis. So, in terms of industry "fame", his is the biggest name by far in the world. There are 10s of thousands of antique map collectors world wide and 10s of thousands more enthusiasts who frequent his website for the descriptive content and illustrations. The website has been cited as one of the primary reference tools for map collectors and unquestionably, although there is no pricing guidance offered on the site, it has become the de factor barometer for valuation purposes.
Barry Lawrence Ruderman has created by far the largest on-line compendium of content rich description on antique maps. Here are just a few examples:
18th Century French Manuscript Map of Philadelphia (then capital of the US)
http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/41303
Commanche Pictograph Map--acquired by the Library of Congress http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/34803op
First American Postal Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/40648
Early Honolulu: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/35023
Rughesi's Asia: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33821
First Printed Plan of Any Planned Community In North America: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/37576
The Military District of New Mexico: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/39873
The Beaver Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/38663
Stephen F. Austin map of Texas: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33114
Hutchins Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/37434
Matteo Ricci Derivative Map http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/43034
Rev War Battle Plan http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/34474
Early Manuscript Map of California: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33352
The name Barry Lawrence Ruderman appears in at least 13 Wikipedia articles, either as a quoted source, on line reference or similar citation:
/info/en/?search=Casimiro_Castro
/info/en/?search=Emil_Fischer_%28cartographer%29
/info/en/?search=Stanford_University_Libraries_Digital_Image_Collections
/info/en/?search=Robert_Morden
/info/en/?search=Ignace-Gaston_Pardies
/info/en/?search=Fort_San_Miguel
/info/en/?search=Thomas_Kensett
/info/en/?search=Kellersberger's_Map
/info/en/?search=Capture_of_Santiago_%281585%29
/info/en/?search=Totius_Graeciae_Descriptio
There appear to be at least 24 references to Barry Lawrence Ruderman on wikimedia.
The BLR archive of map descriptions is accessed thousands of times each day, which has led to the use of free use of BLR images, descriptions and other content on thousands of other website. All of this content is given away for free--there is never a charge or licensing fee associated with digital images or descriptions. No watermarks are added and, when asked, the same high resolution images given to Stanford are made available to the public for free.
Note WP:Bio
- Any biography The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
1. Barry Lawrence Ruderman is the Leading Antique Map Dealer in the World
2. He is recognized for revolutionizing the Sale of Antique Maps On Line
3. Stanford recognizes and advertises as part of its permanent collection the Barry Lawrence Ruderman Collection of Digital Images
4. He hosts over 40,000 often content rich descriptions of Antique Maps on-line, representing 19 years of published research.
5. Raremaps.com is almost certainly the most visited and relied upon website in the world for map collectors, dealers and other map enthusiasts.
6. There are well over 1,000 independent on line references to the descriptions and images published on RareMaps.com. At last count, my it was estimated that over 5,000 separate "permissions" had been granted to use images for books, magazines, doctoral theses, blogs, websites, etc. and there are hundreds if not thousands more "unauthorized" (but not unwelcomed) uses of descriptions, images, etc.
Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
“Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”
--See numbered list above
Creative professionals: Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.”
--See numbered list above
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.”
--He is the first major on line retailer and by far the largest research content provider.
“The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.”
--Stanford University Libraries: " The Ruderman Collection gives scholars access to materials that might otherwise be unseen as they pass between private hands." https://library.stanford.edu/collections/barry-lawrence-ruderman-collection
See also WWW-Virtual Library: History Map History / History of Cartography: THE Gateway to the Subject http://www.maphistory.info/imagelarge.html
--You will note that Barry Lawrence Ruderman listed along with many of the top National Collections (Library of Congress, American Geographical Society Library, Boston Public Library, British Library, Oxford Digital Library, etc., as "Large general sites" for digital images. No other dealer is on this list and only one other private person is on the list (David Rumsey) /info/en/?search=David_Rumsey_Historical_Map_Collection /info/en/?search=David_Rumsey
“The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.”
Major Clients Include (this is a small sampling):
Library of Congress Geography & Map Division Yale / Beinecke Library Stanford University British Library John Carter Brown Library (Brown University) Princeton University New York Publc Library Canadian National Archive Bibliothèque nationale de France University of Michigan Clements Library
http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/125108118.html
"CarteMuseum.org/resources.html -- Museum is a non-profit cartographic museum located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and is dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of original maps and atlases.
We are listed in the Research Laboratories of Archaeology under "Repositories and Web Sites" http://rla.unc.edu/emas/abbrev.html
Here is an example of a typical on line image citation from the Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois: http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/search/details.php?a=1989.11.0025
Cornell/Persuasive Cartography: Another Link: https://persuasivemaps.library.cornell.edu/links
Dschultz099 ( talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The result was 'Redirect to Holy Family High School (New Bedford, Massachusetts) as I was going to comment but this seems obvious. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a typical parochial middle and elementary school. Under the widely accepted customary standards for school articles described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this sort of school doesn't get its own article unless a clear showing of notability is made. Possibly this could be redirected to Holy Family High School (New Bedford, Massachusetts), the now-closed high school at the same location; if not, then could be redirected to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Education instead. A prod was declined. Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)