WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2019 MAY 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 May	23 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Burnsville, Minnesota. T. Canens ( talk) 01:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Burnsville Police Department (Minnesota)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG, independent coverage is limited to local news reports. I was able to find some wider-audience sources that include mere-mentions and routine news coverage, but nothing that would comprise significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, second choice, merge and redirect to Burnsville, Minnesota. There's nothing notable about the department that isn't better placed in the article about the city. Uninvited Company 21:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete or merge and redirect to Burnsville, Minnesota. Coverage is routine, and non-local coverage is insignificant. Citrivescence ( talk) 18:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Not enough sourcing to establish notability as a standalone article, but a merge and redirect to Burnsville, Minnesota would be good. TH1980 ( talk) 03:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect the lede and the sentence about this being the first department in the state to require body cameras to Burnsville, Minnesota, as a new section after the "Government and politics". No need to delete the page history. bd2412 T 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. "You know nothing Jon Snow". There is clearly no consensus to delete this bundle. See also WP:TRAINWRECK. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. ( talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Myrcella Baratheon

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

A minor character in the novels and TV series. The character was not also widely recognized. The article itself is consisted of plot summaries and is referenced to original sources. The subject doesn't seem to be notable. We have a list that covers the characters from this franchise: List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. This article and the ones below could be redirected if the users were to oppose deletion. Keivan.f^Talk 23:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of them seem to be meeting the notability criteria that we have for such topics. They are minor characters as well and their articles only consist of plot summaries. It's also important to remember that just because the actors are notable, that doesn't mean that the characters are notable as well:

Support redirects, as redirects to "List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters" would be helpful. Per WP:PLOT, articles shouldn't be plot only summaries, which these articles are almost entirely made up off (there are small sections that do go into more out-universe detail, but not much). I will change my mind if reliable sources can be provided to increase "production", "critical reception" etc. sections. Anything that isn't plot summary, basically. Would also support doing the same for Bronn (character), as this article has the same problems. -- Ted Edwards 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Also I would support Hodor (character) (created only in March), Robert Baratheon, Theon Greyjoy, Tywin Lannister, Melisandre, and Oberyn Martell becoming redirects, because they are also almost completely plot summary. There might be more articles like this, but a.t.m. I don't have time to check. Again, will stop supporting doing this if sections other the plot sections are expanded on. -- Ted Edwards 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to see someone can improve this article to make it more encyclopedic like removing too much plot and adding "production", "critical reception" per above. Otherwise, Redirect to List_of_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire_characters#House_Baratheon. Fandom and awoiaf.westeros.org are better sites to provide those information and they already have much more detailed information about this character. -- 94rain ^Talk 01:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TedEdwards: - given that so many articles are being nominated for deletion at once, how can we expect editors to fix them all quickly? We all have limited time on this website, we should be reasonable here. Unless we redirect without stopping a potential recreation of a proper article. starship .paint ( talk) 03:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Starship.paint: I would recommend listing reliable, independent, secondary sources on each talk page to prove the notability or lack of for each article. Then the ones with a decent amount of these sources can be kept, and the ones without a decent amount should be turned to redirects. To be "independent", this means sources like critics reviews, character analysis by scholars etc, not interviews with the actor who plays that character or of the like. Alternatively, I could create a subpage in my userspace to list sources. I'm hoping finding sources will not take too much time away from editors. -- Ted Edwards 16:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I radically disagree. Several of these characters are extremely important and relevant ones throughout the series. To suggest that major characters like Tywin, Theon, Davos, Melisandre, Oberyn, Tormund, the Mountain, Olenna, etc. all should have their pages deleted seems like madness. I could maybe see Myrcella, Rickon, and Gilly's pages go down, but I wouldn't necessarily advocate for it. If anything, a few more pages should go up in light of the recent season, like for Grey Worm, Qyburn and Euron, who were all major players the last couple of seasons. There are also a few other major supporting characters like Pycelle, Beric, and others that should have had their pages created long ago. If you see issues with pages being little more than plot summary, then add to them! Game of Thrones is the biggest television show of all time and we should be seeking to enrich and expand its content, not cut it down for no reason. I'm currently working on these projects and will seek to expand those pages that seem lacking by adding reception, production, etc. sections. I would love any and all assistance in this regard! TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 04:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Just because you think they are important doesn't mean that they are actually notable. Yes, they appeared in major scenes but they are not central figures in the story. Some of them are not even POV characters in the books, meaning that you never see a chapter being told by them throughout the story. But I still refrained from nominating pages such as Tywin Lannister and Oberyn Martell because they played a more prominent role in the TV series. The others should either be deleted or redirected. Keivan.f^Talk 06:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TheGreatClockwyrm: and Keivan.f (plus all users generally). In my argument for deletion, I mentioned WP:PLOT, arguing that if articles can't be expanded in a way so they are not almost entirely plot summary, they should turned into redirects. So what I propose is that for all ASoIaF/GoT character articles, unless they do have more than a few lines of critical reception, real-world influence etc, we should see what secondary sources we can find, and if we can't (as they may not be enough), they will have to be turned to redirects. So I reckon I'm half agreeing with TheGreatClockwyrm, improvement would be better than turning to redirects and I'm grateful for their promise to improve articles, but the priority is making sure the character articles that we've got are good enough to stay, not create more ones, and I will also say that which articles are kept/made redirects must be based on real-world notability, not in-show notability. Some character articles are great (e.g. Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow (character), which are good articles, with some more articles that are definitely good enough to stay e.g. Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister) as they have good coverage of real-world stuff. However other articles need improvement or turned to redirects as they are almost completely plot summary, even ones like Arya Stark (here I reckon that improvement will definitely be possible; I'm very much not advocating deletion here). By the way Keivan, I just want to check you saw this comment from me, which suggested some articles that need improvement or turning to redirects. You've disagreed on at least two articles I mentioned, but I'm more confident you would agree on Hodor (character) etc. -- Ted Edwards 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree with you. The article about Hodor needs to go as well. As you mentioned above, some characters like Arya Stark are notable enough for us to look for sources and write an article based on real world material. But some like Gilly, Gendry and Ygritte are not among the universally known characters and I'm not sure how we could improve them even if we were determined to do so. I will be glad to work on the ones that I believe can be improved. Keivan.f^Talk 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

If you put a gun to my head and asked for articles to redirect, I wouldn't lose any sleep for Myrcella, Rickon, and Gilly. Personally I'd be squeamish about High Sparrow, Hodor, Viserys, Ygritte, and Gendry but I understand why some would want them to go. I would be strongly against the removal of others listed here. My other point is that I strongly believe that there are six or seven characters that should have articles and for which there is enough content to make good articles with all of these criteria you're talking about: Grey Worm, Euron Greyjoy, Asha Greyjoy, Qyburn, Beric Dondarrion, Barristan Selmy, and Grand Maester Pycelle. I've been very busy the past few days and haven't been able to get up to all these things I'm promising, but say if we were to get some redirects going and shore up these other secondary character articles, I would like to get to work constructing a couple of these in the meantime. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Currently working on standardizing the formats of each character page and giving them more robust headers where I can. Once I am done standardizing I'm gonna go in and see what more I can add to them. I already did some work on Ramsay Bolton and Stannis Baratheon and I hope to do more. In the meantime I'd say Rickon, Myrcella, and Gilly could probably be redirects but I would be against any others for the time being. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 02:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would disagree with simply deleting all these articles being deemed as not notable or significant enough (I'm not sure if I'm detecting good enough rationale to do so). I would argue that Game of Thrones is one of the biggest media properties on Earth alongside stuff like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars and such. It's got a large and acclaimed cast of characters and while I'm obviously not gonna advocate for making a page for, say, Areo Hotah, I think we should preserve most of these pages and also make a couple more for significant characters like Grey Worm, Euron, Qyburn, etc. In the mean time, our primary goal should be to improve those articles for major characters that need more content. However, I would advocate strongly against removing any pages right now until we can improve them (in the very least, I don't agree with removing any page aside from the three I already mentioned, and certainly not Hodor! He's a very recognizable and quoted part of the show and his death episode is considered one of the most iconic and best). We have hundreds of pages on Wikipedia right now for ficional television characters and so it seems backwards to start a pruning process with the biggest of them all. Regardless, you'll be seeing me around doing what I can to improve things. My vote would be that if we HAVE to nix things, Rickon, Myrcella, and Gilly are the places to start, but I would be strongly against anything beyond that for the time being. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Support redirects or subsections of list of characters per Ted Edwards. We have to separate our bias of perceived notability. Just because we, as viewers, think they're notable, doesn't mean they are universally. I'm sure plenty of people thought that the minor characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh were notable too. Jamgoodman ( talk) 16:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Partial Oppose: I object to the mass deletion listing. Yes Myrcella is a cypher, but the Olenna Tyrell article, for example, has 20+ citations and covers more than just plot. The performer was also nominated for several Emmy awards. Missandei and even Rickon Stark are well-sourced in a manner I believe asserts their notability. I have yet to examine all of the articles on this list, but though the nominator has decided who he thinks are minor characters, we need to examine each article on a case-by-case basis. Obviously List of Game of Thrones characters and List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters exist, so redirecting some of these will be easy, but in that case I ask that the redirects not be done lazily, and that sourced notable info (like major awards, controversy, and notable press coverage) be moved to the list entry if it's not already there.— TAnthony^Talk 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree with the sentiment expressed here and move that we remove these deletion consideration tags for the time being and instead work on improving extant articles. I also agree that even the smaller articles, like Rickon and Gilly, seem very well constructed and sourced. After a second review I believe that only Myrcella Baratheon seems to be one most lacking and for a minor character. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I want to make the comment, in addition to my other comments, that all Wikipedia articles should ideally meet notability guidelines; this page notes the section "Article content does not determine notability" that Wikipedia articles do not decide whether a subject is notable or not, and so real-world impact must be assessed. To meet the GNG, articles must be covered by secondary sources independent of the topic. This is why I believe an article such as Rickon Stark is not notable, as all the sources that refer to non-plot details are interviews by Art Parkinson (so not independent of the topic). -- Ted Edwards 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: I am never a fan of these large nominations (that is just my opinion, and I understand why editors may disagree). I believe it would be better to nominate each character separately to allow editors the time and opportunity to check if there are enough sources for an independent article. For instance, I remember there was quite a bit of discussion on Missandei about her ultimate fate on the show and her status as one of the few women of color present on the show. I agree that some of these characters (like Myrcella and Rickon) appear better suited for a redirect to the list, but I feel others may warrant further discussion. For clarity, I am not saying that Missandei has enough notability for a separate article (as I honestly have not looked into this case), but recent coverage on the character does raise some points of potential at least to me. Tl;dr: I think this should be handled with individual nominations to best gauge the notability of each individual character. It is a good discussion so I do not mean to fault the nominator at all. It is important to bring these kinds of things up. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The reason that I put them together was based on the fact that they share almost the exact same issues. So instead of having a discussion spread over multiple pages, I thought it would be better to discuss it in one specific place. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I can understand that. I just think that individual nominations would give editors more time to actually look into the notability of each article. The above list proposed for deletion is quite long and might discourage that in favor of more general comments. Again, as I said in my original message, it is just my preference, and I can understand why it was done this way. I just do not find it to be the most constructive route. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

In my view: characters to be kept: Olenna, Renly, Tormund, Missandei, Davos, Bronn, Tommen, Robert, Theon, Tywin, Melisandre. Characters deserving of articles: Grey Worm, Euron. Some for longevity leading to presence, some for being crucial for the plot of kings and manipulators. Characters for redirects: Myrcella, Rickon, Viserys, Ygritte, Roose, Gregor Clegane, Gendry, Gilly, Daario, Ellaria, Sparrow, Hodor, Oberyn, and should stay a redirect: Qyburn. For ultimately playing a small part. starship .paint ( talk) 03:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keivan.f will probably agree when I say that these character articles have been around for awhile with little improvement. I think we will be able to agree that most of these should be redirected for now, and the ones left alone should be given a reasonable amount of time to be improved. But though we can decide who we think is deserving of an article, it all comes down to who has the notable sources asserting notability, not who was more important in the story. It's been a few years since I actively researched ASOIAF characters, but I remember having trouble finding decent coverage for even Jaime and Cersei. I'm sure there is plenty out there now, but like, probably not for a character like Tommen. That said, if no one makes an effort to bring the "kept" character articles up to speed (which is likely), they should be redirected pending improvement in the future.— TAnthony^Talk 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with the sentiment that we will 'be able to agree that most of these should be redirected for now'. I do not think that we should delete the majority of these pages listed and this entire discussion seems to hinge on the personal opinions of the user who started it. Issues with extant pages should firstly be resolved by seeking to improve them, not ripping down half of the cast and placing them in a redirect. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It's not based on my opinion. It's based on the issues that these articles have and none of them have been resolved over the past few years. So, set your bias aside and try to show that these articles can be improved in order to prove your point, because merely stating that they are important will not make them notable. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

BBC [1] quotes Looker's analysis of 15 male, and 15 female characters' lines from season 1-7 - Theon, Davos, Bronn are high for second-tier characters. Robb, Sandor, Tywin, Eddard, Stannis are close together. Note: several characters are missing from this analysis. starship .paint ( talk) 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The content threshold is not which characters appear/speak more or are more important to the story/series, it is based on real-world notability. This is established by external, reliable sources that discuss/analyze the characters in a meaningful way. Most of these character articles have been created and redirected before. I'm suggesting redirecting so that articles can be easily recreated if and when someone decides to improve them. But some of these have literally been tagged for improvement for years. Some do not meet our criteria and there doesn't seem to be a troop of editors willing to do what really needs to be done (including myself) in a timely manner, so in the interim they should be redirects.— TAnthony^Talk 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would be less opposed to redirects that are without prejudice to recreation. Redirecting on the grounds of current quality rather than notability. starship .paint ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep most of them - most of these need improving and not deleting. The only ones that are borderline not notable are Myrcella, Gilly and Rickon. I'm shocked that Davos and Olenna are up for deletion. Spiderone 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

That's why the other users suggested that we redirect them to the list of characters we have for this series. That way, in the future, users can easily restore the page with meaningful material. By the way, since you mentioned Davos and Olenna, I would like to ask: what impact did these two characters have on the popular culture and in real world? Basically none. Davos, for example, is not even notable compared to characters like Tyrion and Jon. So please try to avoid being biased. Just because a character appears a lot in the story, doesn't mean that he is actually notable on a world-wide scale. Keivan.f^Talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. I too share a concern about considering these articles en masse. It would be better to decide on more of a case-by-case basis. Calidum 20:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep most of them - I'm shocked Davos, Tormund, Olenna, and Bronn are nominated. Bad calls by nominator. Decide rest case-by-case. -- Shivertimbers433 ( talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep some of them - Davos jumps out as being very out of place on this list; he is a significant PoV for books 2, 3 and 5, and appears in every show Season after 2. Many of the others are justifiably nominated, being only minor characters in the books, and not being hugely significant in the show. Oberyn Martell is an example of this, appearing only very briefly in both. Roose and the High Sparrow should also probably be kept, but the rest do not serve much purpose. 2A02:C7F:C641:5A00:1D5E:F8F1:D8C8:5F1B ( talk) 09:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS ( talk) 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Elitaliana

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

Consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 8#Elitaliana was that the previous AfD needs to be redone. I personally have no opinion and no stance. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete found out about this in the DRV, I voted to relist due to the poor quality of discussion, but I don't think the sources in the article or the sources presented at the last AfD pass WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T· C 00:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as the editor who originally nominated it for deletion, I have yet to see examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - My main analysis here is that Elitaliana is the company that operates search and rescue, medical evacuation, and police helicopter services for a number of regions within Italy, particularly Calabria, as well as providing similar services in Bosnia and Kosovo. This of course is not by itself a reason to keep, but it should hint to editors that it ought to be notable so we need to look in detail for sources (but of course still delete if they cannot be found). In addition to those in the previous AFD I have found the following:

- A 2017 piece in the Corrie della Serra (an Italian national paper) where the reporter visits a helicopter base operated by Elitaliana and interviews various personnel there. This appears to be significant coverage based on the machine translation.

- A 2009 story in Strill.it (apparently a WP:NEWSORG covering Calabria nb., Calabria is a region of Italy, equivalent to a US state/Canadian province, and as such this is not 'local' coverage per WP:AUD) regarding an interruption in Elitaliana's services. This directly discusses the company and appears to be WP:SIGCOV, based on machine translation.

- A 2016 story in the Corriere della Calabria covering (based on machine translation) a court case lost by Elitaliana. Whilst of course coverage of the case per se is not coverage of Elitaliana, the story does discuss the company as well as the case. This amounts to significant coverage (just about) since it tells us that Elitaliana managed the helicopter rescue services for Calabrian hospitals.

- Coverage by VISTA, apparently an Italian national news agency. Not being able to speak Italian, I am an uncertain of the level at which this discusses the company.

- Coverage by DIRE, apparently an Italian national news agency. Not being able to speak Italian, I am an uncertain of the level at which this discusses the company.

- This 2014 article by Meridiana Notizie, apparently a WP:NEWSORG covering the Italian region of Lazio, also appears to give significant coverage based on the machine translation.

I think there may be other sources that could be discussed in Kosovan/Bosnian press but, except for coverage about a press conference at the Italian consultate in Pristina (which probably isn't Sigcov), I can't find much - but then these are hard sources to search. I understand why editors are voting delete on this but I think it still just about scrapes over the line based on the sourcing produced so far and that on the page. FOARP ( talk) 08:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I can understand Italian fairly well and am under the impression that these sources fall short of demonstrating notability. The first source barely says anything about the company, the second and third sources do not appear to include a byline, which throws their reliability into doubt. Going into their content a bit more, source 2 doesn't say anything about an interruption of service, it's about an agreement settled between Elitaliana and the government of Calabria for Elitaliana to provide emergency helicopter rescue services. 4 and 5 are primary sources, interviews of an Elitaliana official and pilot (respectively) and such would not count toward notability even if they did discuss the company in detail (they don't). The final source is actually decent and briefly details the company's emergency rescue services; if there were several more sources like this, I would reconsider my vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I'll see if I can find more when I get more time - however, if we do have one region-level media reference giving significant coverage, then don't the WP:AUD objections to the aviation-press references raised in the last AFD fall away? WP:AUD requires that at least one instance of coverage be national/state-province-whatever, and I think we've got that. FOARP ( talk) 11:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Weak, but there's enough here, with the references found by FOARP, and also bearing in mind that this is in a reason where WP:CSB needs to be considered as well. It needs a serious grammar sweeping, but that's not something to cause deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per FOARP's sources. Amisom ( talk) 14:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is still split, it needs relisting - including any consideration from the earlier !voters who haven't yet commented on the additional sources either way
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: Struggled a bit on this one... but eventually came down on the side of 'Keep' per FOARP's sources. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No need to further belabor this discussion. bd2412 T 19:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jenny Wüstenberg

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

I don't think that this subject quite makes the cut. None of the provided sources are independent, and searching online all I found were some public letters that Wüstenberg co-signed. Most damning, however, is that Wüstenberg is only an assistant professor, with a Google-scholar h-index of 6, which is too low to meet WP:NACADEMIC for political science. I'm skeptical of the article's claim that Wüstenberg is "a leader in uniting the emerging field of memory studies", as a Scholar search for "memory studies" returns relevant results dating back to the 90s with hundreds of citations each (in some cases, thousands). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Probably too soon. Only one significant book. Journal articles & articles in collections do not seem all that important. But h index is totally irrelevant in the humanities and in those fields of social science where people publish like the humanities. It only works in fields of higher citation density. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. I found and added to the article three reviews and two award shortlists for her book. If there were another book with a similar reception I'd switch to keep. But it's one book, not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR, and the other material doesn't appear to rise to the level of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete I too would have voted keep, but her h-index is too low, and she is not a member of any societies. If she would have been a member or fellow of the German Academy of Sciences then the h-index might be overlooked, but as its stands, too soon and delete applies.-- Biografer ( talk) 19:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. 103 cites on GS not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Try again in ten years. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC). reply
Delete per DavidEppstein's rationale. Looks like classic case of WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Empire Flippers

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

Failing WP:NORG and WP:GNG on the basis of lack of substantial independent coverage. Except for one, all other references in this article are not ABOUT the company, they merely mention it in passing or quote a company executive as part of a general topic. Ref 3 is an interview with a corporate executive, but independence is unclear. I have not been able to identify other substantial sources, other than obvious PR, churnalism or blog posts by their staff or customers of the kind "I sold my business, it was sooo easy and I made lots of money and so can you...". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I don't even know what they're trying to sell or what those abbreviations in the article mean. Only notable in its very small circular world. Nate • ( chatter) 02:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:GNG, apparent PROMO for newish WP:CORP. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael J. Alessi

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Will circle back to see if someone improves the sourcing and GNG. If not I vote Delete as not WP:NPOL Lubbad85 ( ☎) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Edward J. Kuwik

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Marie Gannon

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. St Anselm ( talk) 04:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

John C. Ogarek

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level and smalltown mayors can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Timothy J. Whalen

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Barry L. Robinson

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Arthur W. Hardie

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Officeholders at the county level can sometimes still clear WP:NPOL #2 if there's enough sourcing to write a genuinely substantive article about their political importance — but they are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their existence as county councillors can be single-sourced to a primary source list of the councillors. The lowest level of political office that entitles a person to have an article is the state legislature — people at the local level of office require notability claims that go significantly beyond just the fact that they exist, such as the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive and detailed article. Bearcat ( talk) 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS ( talk) 17:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Taede A. Smedes

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. I found enough reviews of his books to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be a lot more in the way of reliable sourcing about him, his books, and his views on religion available if you read Dutch. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Notability verified by sourcing now on page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

GREedge

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

Fails to meet criteria for WP:N, citing no notable or even recent news sources. Transmissionelement ( talk) 17:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GNG by a mile. There is nothing I can find that is in-depth. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Basically advertising, not notable at an encyclopedic level. bd2412 T 19:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Galactica: Anno Dominari

(Find video game sources: "Galactica: Anno Dominari" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

An independent video game, which seems to have no claim to notability. The links currently included in the article are not valid reliable sources, nor do they do anything to establish any sort of notability. I have done searches, and have found nothing substantial, aside from a few sites hosting a download of the title, and a few minor sites reporting on version updates. I can not find any reviews at all. It seems that the article was already deleted once, after a discussion at AFD, but was re-created shortly after, with seemingly no improvements. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Inside Mac Games is reliable, but not in-depth. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Not notable at an encyclopedic level. bd2412 T 19:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jo Bury

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Neither his short academic publication record nor his administrative positions give him a pass of notability without additional evidence. (I am assuming here that "managing director" of VIB is like a "department manager" or "assistant dean" position at a US university — that is to say, a non-academic managerial position whose role is to make sure the payroll and other bureaucracy runs smoothly rather than a visionary who sets the research agenda for the lab, but I could be persuaded otherwise by the appropriate sources.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Just as David Eppstein states. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Moyna High School

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

There does not seem to be any independent, significant coverage per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Courtesy ping @ WereSpielChequers: per the patrol log (2018-03-20T09:24:06). ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 17:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - There are reliable secondary sources that verify this is a diploma granting secondary school. Long time practice is we have articles on any and all such institutions. That being said, it could certainly use work. Fix it, don't delete it. John from Idegon ( talk) 06:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per John from Idegon's points. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 11:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling ( talk) 19:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A9. Randykitty ( talk) 09:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Beyond the Dead Future

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

A seemingly unnotable album that fails WP:NALBUM. It was PRODed shortly after its creation back in 2006, but the PROD was contested due to the fact that the album was discussed on the artist's page, though that page has, since then, been deleted. The references currently on the page are not valid as reliable sources, and after some searches, I have been unable to find any substantial coverage or reviews on the album. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete: as the artist no longer has a Wikipedia page, I would think this qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A9 – the two "references" included in the article are simply links to web retailers where the album can be obtained, so no indication of importance either. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete per above. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete: A9 Ceethekreator ( talk) 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete This fails notability test entirely. 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Silika. O. Silika ^{talk}
Speedy delete (tagging with A9). Doesn't seem to be any coverage, significant or otherwise, and nothing seems to suggest this is important or significant. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. This is a lengthy discussion, so a few points. First, the headcount leans in favour of deletion; 18 delete arguments vs. 12 keep arguments plus a few merge or redirect arguments that echo the deletion ones. The key concerns are that this lists people by a non-defining classification (some people have contrasted this list to List of intersex people, noting that the other list pages are about conditions rather than), is trivial and is likely to attract BLP problems such as privacy invasions or libel. There are also some claims of being "unencyclopedic" and the like, which aren't straightforwardly based on policy or guideline, as well as the concern that we don't have similar lists for penis enlargement and other contentious practices.

The keep camp is pointing out that having an abortion is a controversial thing to do and there are campaigns related to this that have topics on Wikipedia (e.g RebeccaGreen's keep argument), that the WP:DEFINING guideline cited by many people advocating deletion is about categories and not list articles (and seems to advocate list articles in case of problems, actually), that there certainly is substantial coverage of some women who have had an abortion, that vandalism issues can be handled by page protection and that abortions do not by default have a stigma so aren't necessarily BLP issues.

There is also a discussion about whether limiting this list to celebrities is a good move, as it might give undue weight to a particular group of women and "celebrity" is not a defined concept. It seems like there is not really any support for the current title, so a move to a more general name would be in order if this were kept.

Now, as for keeping or deleting this article it's probably the BLP issue that carries the most weight. The BLP policy establishes that we strongly value the privacy so having a list of people who underwent a still stigmatized procedure would be extremely questionable especially when you add the "highlighting" aspect that raises undue weight problems - points raised by a number of delete arguments. As some keepers have noted though not all individuals here listed are living people and some who are have advertised their action/deed. At a minimum though as noted by some keep arguments as well we'd need tip-top sourcing and exclusion/inclusion criteria (e.g these noted by Dream Focus) for such a list.

Ultimately, this is a "delete and add the information to biographies if appropriate" mainly because between the headcount and the fact that pretty onerous - and presumably arbitrary - inclusion criteria and maintenance (e.g note Tony Ballioni's comments on protection) would be needed to address the BLP problems. And while largely undiscussed, Trillfendi's and John M Wolfson's arguments that one should discuss the abortions on the "respective" pages also carries some consideration, since while some of the abortions here described are certainly noteworthy (e.g RebeccaGreen's examples) many others wouldn't be and the former can be covered in the biographies (or the social movement) and the others would fall under the BLP privacy aspect.

Notability of the list has been largely discussed about by the keep camp, although one question that wasn't discussed was whether it's the list topic or its members or the campaigns that are notable.

Finally, another thing, can we avoid the thinly supported speculation about the motives of other editors? They are not germane to a deletion discussion at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

List of celebrities who have had an abortion

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

This is basically trivia and I can't imagine many entries on here will be significant enough that it should be included in their article much less an entire list and is just a massive BLP vio waiting to happen. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Wow, that was fast. This list is highly relevant to an important social issue. You may have missed it but celebrities are engaged in a campaign to publicize their abortions and the impact they have had on their life. Many of them describe their abortions as the best or most important decision they ever made. That seems significant enough to include in their own Wiki pages, and to categorize into a list. Scribestress ( talk) 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't see how this is WP:DEFINING for most people on this list for the same reason I don't think saying Minka Kelly is of Irish descent because her third great grandmother was Irish would be relevant (that's not actually the case in her article but elsewhere.) I think your statement about "relevant to an important social issue" is also a violation of WP:NPOV as Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX. I respect that it's a contentious issue but ultimately, Wikipedia and specifically WP:BLP's are meant to be neutral and it's not a defining characteristic of most of these people and "celebrities" is completely arbitrary. This also sums it up well. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Scribestress, in addition to the issues Praxidicae laid out, there’s the fact that this page is basically an invitation for libel (ex. anti-abortion movie star gets added to the list with no reliable source and it doesn’t get caught for months) and pretty big invasions of privacy of living persons. I’m not commenting on the deletion per se, but you have to see that this list poses a ton of ethical issues considering Google will index it and we’re the fifth largest website in the world. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

TonyBallioni you say we have to see this article "poses a ton of ethical issues". Sorry, I don't see that, at all. A malicious vandal can try to sabotage any of our several million articles, without regard to whether or not we keep this one. Have there been occasions when we had to delete an article, on a completely notable topic, because we were unable to prevent it from being vandalized? I dunno. Surely semi-protection, or full-protection, should have been tried first. I don't think have ever heard of us deleting an article on a notable topic because someone claimed it MIGHT be vandalized. Geo Swan ( talk) 04:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I've replied to you below your comment so it is more likely to be read. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The fact that someone had an abortion is simply a fact about them, like being Irish or living in Canada. And creating a list is neutral -- it is simply listing people who share a common trait, full stop. I don't see an invasion of privacy concern or any libel liability here because each of these celebrities have openly stated the fact that they had an abortion. Truth is a complete defense to a claim of libel. Scribestress ( talk) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

And you've just explained exactly why it's unencylopedic. For the same reason we wouldn't write about when someone had their first pap smear even if they tweeted about it. It's trivial and WP:NOTDEFINING. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Scribestress, yes, but this is an open wiki, which means that anyone, not just you, can edit the list and add anything they like to it and there’s very little we can do technically to stop them. The fact that you haven’t libeled anyone or invaded their privacy doesn’t change the fact that the list itself is basically an invitation to all the malcontents of the world to do exactly that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Praxidicae I'm still baffled as to why this is WP:NOTDEFINING. When someone says "this changed my life," it is discussed in national news media (NYT, NPR, Forbes, etc.), and included in briefs before the US Supreme Court (see Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt), how can it be WP:NOTDEFINING? Scribestress ( talk) 03:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Scribestress, please don't privately email me to ask me to defend this page, especially when I don't think we've ever interacted on Wikipedia. Make your augments here, on the deletion entry. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

~~Merge~~ I don't think the list warrants its own article for reasons already mentioned. This could be merged into Abortion in the United States or Abortion debate along with context about individuals publicizing abortions. I also received a private email regarding this matter, and am concerned Scribestress may have canvassed users. Please do not do this. 9H48F ( talk) 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't see an issue with merging the list into either of the pages mentioned by 9H48F. It seems best to do this while the article is still small. What's the best way to do it? Scribestress ( talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would strongly oppose this as it's given undue weight and all celebrities aren't American and "celebrities who had abortions" is a pretty trivial topic. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree and would re-frame this article from "celebrities who had abortions" to "publicizing an individuals abortions" or something along those lines. The context as to why celebrities and regular individuals are publicizing their abortions is missing and just creating a list of celebrities who have had abortions is encyclopedic (as mentioned by others) but this could support information within the Abortion debate. 9H48F ( talk) 18:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, a single tweet with no other significance is giving too much WP:WEIGHT in even a generic or broad article. Unless the "celebrity" is somehow notable for their activism I don't see why we would include this anymore than we should include "this celebrity tweeted they had their first pap smear at 21!" Praxidicae ( talk) 18:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Tweets and any other citations from social media should be removed. There are some reliable sources on the page that could be used 9H48F ( talk) 18:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Can you point me to the standard for triviality? Thanks. Scribestress ( talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You can start with the links in my nomination as well as subsequent comments about defining characteristics, which also apply to lists and WP:WEIGHT. I strongly advise you to stop canvassing. And while we're at it WP:INDENT. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as unencylopedic. We don't need to know this about celebrities. Barca ( talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is a related page that goes into the context others have asked for, You Know Me movement. Propose a merger with that page. Scribestress ( talk) 18:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You are really missing the point Scribestress. There's nothing to merge, the fact that a dozen notable people tweeted they had an abortion while interesting is not inherently encyclopedic and just adding it on the basis that they said it is giving it undue weight, not to mention the massive WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Respectfully you're missing the point Praxidicae. It's more than a dozen notable people on Twitter. There are over a hundred women on the list. Many of them made a public declaration in the 1970s, either in Ms. magazine or the Manifesto of the 343 published in France. These were not flippant declarations or intended to be taken lightly. They are part of history. At the time they were taken seriously ... it's too bad that in 2019 they are being dismissed as "trivial." Scribestress ( talk) 05:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete not a defining characteristic, not encyclopedic. What Praxidicae says above. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of songs about abortion. That's a very similar topic but much more encyclopedic than a list of "celebrities". wumbolo ^^^ 19:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I just...what? How does that make any sense? Praxidicae ( talk) 19:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to know how you even came to this conclusion. -- Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't know how to explain that there are many WP:BLP problems with the current article. My proposed redirect target includes only those women who decided to put it into a song, rendering BLP concerns moot. wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

uh. No. That’s a list of songs about abortion and doesn’t mean that anyone on it had one. I don’t think anyone on this list is even on that one. Praxidicae ( talk) 21:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

~~According to that list, many of them had an abortion. And these are the only two lists of abortions currently on Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 21:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)~~ reply

I can't tell if you're being serious or not but that isn't remotely true and just a glance of the list tells you that. The bulk of the entries are about men or majority male groups and probably half are about pro-life stances. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have lost any patience here, and I don't care that much about a single redirect. Everything I have said is supported by the articles, but if everyone disagrees without reading the articles in question, I do not care. wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Changed vote since the article You Know Me movement exists already (what I was advocating for). 9H48F ( talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep After following the conversation, I realized how much more notable creating a list on this topic being that individuals announcing their abortions spans decades (almost 50 years!). In reorganizing the table, it's also apparent that having an abortion does affect the person and is not just a medical procedure. Individuals who have had an abortion often use the experience to engage in activism - both for and against abortion - AND/OR it affects their career (re: if they became a parent, they would likely not be notable) which is WP:DEFINING. It is also notable in the illegality of the procedure and signers of the Manifesto 343 and the Ms. campaign both risked being charged (as well as those who had an abortion prior to legalization). The lead here could be better written to reflect the notability of the list. The title, of course, needs to be more appropriate as discussed. Scribestress, I would recommend making use of draftspace or your sandbox in the future so flags aren't thrown on the onset and you can create a comprehensive article without unnecessary scrutiny. 9H48F ( talk)

Keep Yes, I'm going to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS this, but we have a whole Category:Lists of people by medical condition of people with health issues (and yes, having an abortion is a medical issue) that are not necessarily defining characteristics. List of people with hepatitis C is even a featured list, despite having this disease doesn't define these people and it is not what they are notable for. Having had the medical procedure of an abortion is no less encyclopedic than having had the medical procedure of an organ transplant. If these are not a defining enough characteristic for an encyclopedic article, then an RFC on these is certainly welcome. There is no doubt that there is significant coverage of people's announcements and ShoutYourAbortion, so some of the list could be merged there perhaps. At the least, it needs to be moved to List of people who have had an abortion since it's arbitrary and yes unencyclopedic to limit the list to "celebrities", which also has a negative tabloid connotation. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Reywas92: I'm interested in what you think of recent changes, e.g. to the title and adding categories. Other ideas on improvement welcome. Scribestress ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It's obvious you're new to Wikipedia - no other article in the project begins with "List of famous" and I don't know why you didn't use the name I suggested that is consistent with other articles ("List of women" would work too; limiting the list to those with articles implies only WP:NOTABLE people are included). It's unfortunate that "celebrity" has poisoned the waters as many others are seeing this as a tabloid and it appears too late to turn it around. But I thank you for your good faith contributions to the project and I encourage you to continue editing, perhaps by including some names in the related articles that have been mentioned. Discussion in a talk page could let you perhaps continue the list in the userspace after this is over. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Reywas92 Definitely new. Loving the warm Wikipedia welcome. There are a number of lists of celebrities actually (search "list of celebrities ..." and you'll find them), and the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is limited to "notable" people, so I don't see why that alone would be problematic. What am I missing? I take the comments here actually to point to a different problem with listing famous people -- privacy. We may be able to address that by protecting the page. Still, I'm happy to move the page again to remove "famous" from the title and simplify things. Can you tell me what you have in mind about "continue[ing] the list in the userspace?" Thanks. Scribestress ( talk) 02:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete – this would be inappropriate as a category per WP:DEFINING. As a list, it is both unencyclopedic and a potential BLP violation. Basically, I can't imagine how this information could be informative or put to good use, but I can think of lots of reasons why it is a Very Bad Idea. – bradv 🍁 19:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Kill it with fire and salt especially in light of the recent abortion controversy. Yikes! – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
A slightly more nuanced view: it is unfortunate that society attaches such a stigma towards abortion, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs of the world. Even if such a list is in theory encyclopedic, verifiable, and notable as a list, the potential risks and BLP disasters that would be in tandem with it make it more trouble than it's worth. A good comparison would be to infamous internet figure Christine Weston Chandler, who almost certainly passes WP:GNG at this point but whose article on here would attract too many trolls for it to be worthwhile and is therefore rightfully salted.

However, even neglecting all of that, a celebrity getting an abortion is either a) none of anybody's business, or b) announced by the celebrity herself, in which case it should be covered briefly on that celebrity's article and not anywhere else. Either way, it's not WP:DEFINING and thus isn't a good list topic. (NOTE:If this article is kept, it should be at least semi-protected to mitigate what Nate rightfully called a "BLP minefield.") – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Comment Certainly agree that if this does survive, semi-protection would be mandatory for the page. Nate • ( chatter) 06:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ John M Wolfson: I understand the concern about how the page could be used nefariously, e.g. if someone were added to the list who had not had an abortion or who had but didn't want to be outed. Guessing similar concerns apply to the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, List of intersex people, and the many lists of people by medical condition (bulimia, anorexia, ovarian cancer, etc.). How can we go about protecting the page to avoid this? Scribestress ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The LGB list is already semi-protected, though not the Intersex list. From what I understand protection should generally not be preemptive (I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's neither here nor there). An issue IMO is that abortion is not generally WP:DEFINING and is an operation rather than a condition. Having this list is much like having a "List of celebrities who are circumcised", it usually doesn't matter,^{Not that I care much for circumcision, but that's again neither here nor there} and to the extent that it does it matters in the wrong way (i.e., tabloid stuff). Perhaps the content could be incorporated into any recent social media movement emphasizing the importance of abortions in light of the recent bans, but this title should not redirect to that and should instead be deleted and salted to prevent nefariousness and mishaps. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

John M Wolfson Thanks for the quick response. Maybe we can get preemptive protection in light of the concerns expressed on this page. I'm still a little lost on the "tabloid stuff" point. Consider that in the 2016 SCOTUS case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 100+ lawyers signed an amicus brief stating "To the world, I am an attorney who had an abortion, and, to myself, I am an attorney because I had an abortion." The brief was discussed in the New York Times. In Wikipedia, there is a List of youngest birth fathers, a List of youngest birth mothers, a List of oldest fathers, a List of male underwear models, and a List of male performers in gay porn films. I would place having an abortion closer to the List of breast cancer patients by survival status. But if becoming a father at age 11 is WP:DEFINING yet not "tabloid stuff," why isn't having an abortion? I trust you have read through the list of citations on the page (not suggesting you haven't). The news media thinks this is noteworthy. It's being discussed before the Supreme Court. I don't get why it's too trivial (or sensationalist?) for Wikipedia. Scribestress ( talk) 03:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The attorneys signing the brief aren't usually notable enough for Wikipedia, and if they are it's for different things. Youngest birth fathers and mothers are important because that's the cause of their notability within Wikipedia, and the list of underwear models and porn performers are defining because that's their occupation. Abortion is a very commonplace procedure and per WP:MILL anyone getting one doesn't automatically qualify for an article. Anyone on the list with an article is on Wikipedia due to other factors, so the abortion list is just adding WP:UNDUE weight towards a fairly minor characteristic, (As said earlier in the thread, it wouldn't make a good category.) and it is such undue weight that gives the list a sort of perceived tabloid feel to it. I appreciate your good-faith efforts to salvage this article, but in the end I just don't think it's worthy of Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Appreciate you continuing the conversation. Have you taken a look at the many lists of people by medical condition? I don't see how this is distinct from the List of organ transplant donors and recipients and the List of baseball players who underwent Tommy John surgery. Are those lists not addressed to a "minor characteristic"? Scribestress ( talk) 05:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Good intentions, but a WP:BLP minefield which will easily be misappropriated by non-encyclopedic folks (see the infamous vandalism of List of burn centers in the United States for an example of why this is a very bad idea). Nate • ( chatter) 22:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mrschimpf: I see the concern. Perhaps we can pre-empt the issue by requesting protection for the page to avoid this issue. Thanks for your thoughts. Scribestress ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Strong delete Strongest. My God... this is a new low on the quest to turn Wikipedia into tabloid toilet paper.... Next it's gonna be "celebrities who have eaten at In-N-Out Burger", "celebrities who pseudonyms at hotels", and "celebrities who wear glasses as a fashion statement yet otherwise have fine eyesight". I mean who really gives a damn? This is absurd. Stop trying to turn momentary controversies into click bait! Abortion is one of the most common procedures in the world. Millions get it. What makes a celebrity different? Next it's gonna be "celebrities promoting diarrhea-inducing "Flat Tummy Tea". Trillfendi ( talk) 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Trillfendi: Gentle reminder that Wikipedia policies discourage attacking other editors. Let's also assume we're both acting in good faith. I get that you think this is either unimportant, sensationalist, or both. Time, Fortune, the BBC, and The New York Times think it is news. It is also, apparently, of interest to the U.S. Supreme Court (see Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Scribestress ( talk) 02:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Scribestress: But did I lie? Wikipedia is not a BuzzFeed listicle–but lately that’s the direction people want it to go (see the so-called Tati Westbrook “controversy”). This randomly assorted list was created as a knee-jerk reaction. This isn’t of Wikipedia quality. If anything this is WP:GOSSIP. And just because a publication covers it doesn’t make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi ( talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment And even worse... The page (of horrible quality may I add. No context. No categories. Just a list of alphabetized names.) was created today out of: a hashtag? This is bad. This is very, very bad. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete- unencyclopedic, tasteless junk Reyk _YO! 13:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. WTF?! Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete--agree that the potential for vandalism is too high to balance out the merits of this particular article. We don't have "list of rapists" or list of rape victim" articles in similar manner.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Epiphyllumlover I see the concern. Another editor suggested addressing the vandalism concern by protecting the page, which as been done with other articles. What do you think about this approach? Scribestress ( talk) 02:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I just assumed it was already protected due to it being about abortion... but then I checked and there is no talk page. I would encourage you to go about fixing this ASAP, even though I still think in favor of "Delete," it may change other people's minds in your favor. Page protections on Wikipedia are more about preventing edit wars than preventing subtle, slanderous hoaxes from being added. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is incomplete, and I expect there are others still waiting to be found. In theory a page like this could possibly be policed for libel if there were more people constantly working on it, but quickly checking the edit history, it seems like it is pretty much just you. Trying not to be creepy, I checked your edit history to see how active you are, and it seems like you were pretty active in 2019, but not in the past. This might be splitting hairs, but what I expect is that in a few years, this article will be dormant and open to abuse. I double checked for other controversial "Lists of people" topics. We have some on mental health, but they are not limited to say, ethnic/national groups. Abortion is one of the topics Wikipedia fights the most about.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Epiphyllumlover Appreciate the advice. I created a talk page. The policy on requesting protection discourages making a request "as a method for continuing an argument from elsewhere." Everyone on this page who has weighed in on the issue seems in favor of the article needing protection, there's no argument. Then again, the "argument from elsewhere" could be whether to outright delete this page. Thoughts? Scribestress ( talk) 04:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think you violated the "continuing an argument" provision.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ugg. I just had the most horrible thought. Sometimes I think of articles and speculate, what would be another name for that article from the other POV, and would also be a POV fork if created... the non-existent POV-fork counterpart for this article is List of aborted celebrity fetuses.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hmm, not great. This reminds me that I moved the page so that it is now called "List of women who have had an abortion." Pretty sure most people are not looking at the page itself, just this AfD page. Can I just change the title at the top of this page to conform to the current title of the page? That would make it accurate, and maybe people would get past the sensationalism issue. Scribestress ( talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Is there a List of Governors with Vasectomies? List of people with odd numbers of moles on their noses? There are enough useless lists on Wikipedia as it is. Specifically, what use is this list in isolation? This has naught but the appearance of The Scarlet Letter and all the BLP concerns that go with that. Shenme ( talk) 04:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Funny you should mention the Scarlet Letter--I was just thinking of creating List of people with an Alabama "A" on their left butt cheek. Drmies ( talk) 04:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I just compared this list to List of youngest birth mothers. Perhaps you can tell that I favor it because it has more detail. If for some reason this article is not deleted, extra categories could be added as in the List of youngest birth mothers list.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Epiphyllumlover Not a bad idea. I'll have to think about what details could be added (age, maybe?) Scribestress ( talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Number of abortions, age during abortions, age, size, and weight of fetus, identity of father and his relationship to the mother, age of father, method used to abort, whether there were multiple fetuses or not, location or facility where the abortion was performed, legal aspects (rape, incest, instances of coercion of abortion, whether the abortion was legally performed or not), any medical complications, and whether the mother or father approved of the abortion or later expressed remorse or mixed feelings. I suspect that if the article contained these things some of the medical/legally interested editors would be coming here and voting "keep" and people would be less likely to view this article as tabloid material because it would appear serious. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Bradv I saw that you moved the page back to its old title, which the group finds problematic. What's the deal? Looking for a solution and operating in good faith. Thanks. Scribestress ( talk) 06:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Scribestress, moving a page while it is at AfD should not be done, as it changes the question that this discussion is supposed to answer. Wait for the AfD to close first. – bradv 🍁 06:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Bradv Interesting. I think the policy says that you can edit a page while it's AfD. No one participating in this discussion advocates keeping "celebrities" in the title, so it was not a controversial move. Scribestress ( talk) 06:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Trivia, unencyclopedic and in very poor taste. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep This is not just about the You Know Me movement, and is not just a list of women who have said in 2019 that they had an abortion. WP:LISTN states that "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". On Wikipedia we already have several articles about movements of women stating publicly that they have had an abortion, eg: Silent No More, founded in 2003 in the US (women (and men) who regret their abortions); Manifesto of the 343, a French petition calling for the legalization of abortion, published in a weekly magazine in 1971; ShoutYourAbortion, started in the US in 2015 "for the purpose of “destigmatization, normalization, and putting an end to shame"; You Know Me movement, US, 2019. There are other projects in other countries in which women have also made public the fact that they have had an abortion, eg The X-ile Project in Ireland ('Reviewed Work: The X-ile Project', Review by: Katherine Side, The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, Vol. 40, 2017). There are reliable sources discussing these movements/petitions of women publicly naming themselves as having had an abortion, and many of these sources also name and discuss some of the women.

I also searched within Wikipedia articles for "had an abortion". Among other women who have WP articles of whom it is noted that they had abortions, but who are not already in this list, are Mary Hamilton (lady in waiting) (d. 1719); Els von Eystett (15th C); Susana, Lady Walton (d. 2010); British MP Heidi Allen; Alix Kates Shulman; Suze Rotolo (d. 2011); Christine Keeler (d. 2017); Katharine, Duchess of Kent; Hazel Hawke, wife of a former Australian PM (d. 2013); and many others. In these biographies, the abortions were considered significant enough to be discussed by the sources and to be included in the article, and thus the list can easily be expanded by finding them and adding them.

I think that those editors who consider this topic unencyclopedic or trivial, comparable to stating when notable women had their first pap smear, who has a mole on their nose, etc, are missing a major point (whether deliberately or through ignorance): abortion has been or is illegal in many states/countries/situations. Some women for whom an abortion is a notable fact in their lives were charged with obtaining one (and sometimes named in newspapers etc in relation to the charge and/or sentence), or risked being charged by publicly stating that they had had one. So abortion is/has indeed been WP:DEFINING. (I have to say that many of the Delete !votes appear to be strong cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)

I agree that the name of the article should not include the word 'celebrities' - I think just 'women' would be appropriate (and following WP:LISTPEOPLE, "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources".) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The articles you mentioned generally have relevance to the person having an abortion. Your standard BLP does not, just by virtue of having had an abortion. Also wrt legality, pot is illegal in many places, but we don't have an article about People who got high or People who once smoked pot. Giving an abortion more weight just because someone had one is an extreme violation of NPOV for the same reason including a tweet from Celine Dion saying "I smoked pot in college once" would be irrelevant and contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia. (And I hope this doesn't need to be said, I was just giving an example, I don't know or care if CD ever smoked pot.) tl;dr we don't need every factoid about someone who is notable just because it's verifiable. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Praxidicae It's super interesting that to me that there are two competing concerns emerging from this discussion: one, that the fact of having an abortion is so provocative it creates a risk of vandalism or abuse, requiring pre-emptive page protection before any vandalism has occurred; and two, the fact of having an abortion is so uninteresting, trivial, and irrelevant that it doesn't merit a Wikipedia entry. You can't have it both ways, and the contradiction suggests what RebeccaGreen said may be true, i.e. the delete votes may really be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Scribestress ( talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

RebeccaGreen Appreciate you chiming in. Your comment that this is about more than just the current moment is exactly on point, and it goes to whether the list is encyclopedic or not. Also goes to weight. The list is a collection of historical, noteworthy facts about notable women, no more no less. Also I wasn't aware of the Silent No More movement, the Irish project, or the other women you named. I'll add them in. Scribestress ( talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually, Praxidicae, we do have List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use and List of British politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

If you read biographers and journalists who talk about political figures who have been well known to have scandalous political lives, they sometimes state that "they don't find the affairs interesting" with the exception of affairs that may have changed them politically. The "not interesting" votes are coming from people who lack prurient interest, or are virtue-signaling that they lack such interest, but maybe are still struggling with it. In our modern day, the women who have the most to lose by vandalism are those who are either pro-life/anti-abortion, or whose supporters tend to be religious or conservative. People worried about vandalism either are people who 1. worry about Wikipedia's reputation 2. have dealt with hoaxes in the past and/or 3. are concerned about preventing scandal to the sort of women I mentioned above. There may be some overlap between not liking the content and being concerned about scandal, but not liking it doesn't make the concerns irrational or illegitimate. As I suggested above, the article could be improved so that the non-prurient interest types find it interesting. However, the editors who are worried about vandalism probably will not be brought around. But this isn't necessary to win a delete fight like this.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-encyclopaedic trivia and a potential time sink for editors and admins alike trying to keep BLP violations out of it. Sometimes, an article is just a bad idea and this is one of those. Neiltonks ( talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Went ahead and reorganized content, added tables. Removed references to tweets and instagram. Added in the information about the individual's abortion that I could find, but doesn't have the level of detail that Epiphyllumlover suggests although a column for legal aspects would be fairly easy to add. 9H48F ( talk) 01:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The reorg looks great. Since legality is tied in with what makes this list encyclopedic and the procedure itself defining for some, I'll go ahead and add in a column for it. Scribestress ( talk) 18:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Per several comments above. This is a non-defining characteristic. Listing people who happened to have had a medical procedure is beyond banal and entirely not worth noting as a distinct list. In some, rare, cases I could see mentioning it in an article, but there's no way an arbitrary medical procedure bears building a list around.-- Jayron 32 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment 9H48F, thank you for reorganising this list into tables. (Do you still maintain your Delete !vote, even after reorganising it and adding lots of information?) I have added some of the names I linked to in my !vote above, and will continue adding more. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, changed above. 9H48F ( talk) 12:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Not sure we're being encouraged to talk about (or avoid talking about) celebrities or about abortions here. So presumably both. And either way, facts are more useful in a mission to inform than inherited mantras, and if a celeb comes out and says she's had an abortion, that's a potentially powerful fact. (Even if she's lying ....) Abortion has been a live political issue for decades and - maybe slightly oddly - it still - or again - is. We (almost) all have opinions on abortion, and some of us have very strong views. The passions unleashed above bear testimony to that. It's also intriguing that so many "celebrities" feel moved to speak about their own personal experiences of what you might have thought a private matter between those directly involved. And the way the laws criminalising abortion, and interpretations of them have flipped back and forth over the last hundred years or so in our different countries makes it hard to argue that people aren't interested. I guess you can argue that we shouldn't really be that interested in celebrities in the first place, on the ground that it only encourages them. But clearly we are interested in celebs. They even elected a movie actor as president of the United States a few years back, and some folks seem to think he didn't do such a terrible job. And celebrity's one of the things that keeps the media and several other bits of the economy ticking over, like it or not. Charles01 ( talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Famous people get ample coverage for talking about this. It easily passes the general notability guidelines. Everything on the list is referenced. The list should only be those who have spoken about their abortions, otherwise its an invasion of privacy and should not be on this list. Dream Focus 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I am continuing to add names to the list that I have found by searching Wikipedia articles for "had an abortion" - ie, biographies where the fact of a woman having an abortion is significant enough to her life story that sources have discussed it and it has been included in the article. I am nowhere near finished going through the search results. (There are also plenty of articles about fictional characters who have had abortions - it would be easy to create another list for them.)

Scribestress, are you aware that you can also !vote, by placing Keep or Delete or whatever as the first word in a comment, in bold (either use the B key in the editing toolbar, or place three inverted commas at each side of the word)? I think it would be quite clear to a closing editor that you support keeping this article, but it doesn't hurt to make your position clear - and including references to supporting Wikipedia policies helps too. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 19:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't understand why there has been all this focus on WP:DEFINING because, in Wikispeak, "defining" is relevant to categories, not lists. The WP:DEFINING information page says "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." (that is, preferred to having a category). Likewise, the WP:NOTDEFINING guideline relates to categories. So, what is relevant for a list article is not whether anything is "defining" but whether WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY are met. Thincat ( talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete It looks to me that WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability are met (or at least editing could readily produce this situation) but I really don't like having this article here at all. However, WP:N and WP:NOTCENSORED expect me think up which policy is being broken. The best I could find was WP:BLPCAT which arguably prevents "lists ... (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Because of time or jurisdiction some of these people may have been breaking the law and so there could arise the more general suggestion of a poor reputation. No, I don't find this too convincing but it is the best I can think up. Thincat ( talk) 20:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Solidly sourced list women sharing a noteworthy element of their life history. Pam D 23:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - Whilst I personally think it doesn't merit a Wikipedia entry, obviously there are those who strongly support keeping it. It has been brought up above about possible future BLP and vandalism issues. I have seen previous AfDs where editors have passionately fought to keep an article, then done nothing to maintain it. I would suggest if the article is kept, then it is without prejudice to renomination if the article is not maintained. -- John B123 ( talk) 08:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Undecided - This is a difficult one, for sure, so I'll share my thoughts and will probably come back as the discussion continues. First of all, how is half of this page dedicated to a guideline that's only about categories in the Wikipedia sense (WP:DEFINING)? A list article doesn't have to be based on a defining characteristic. More to my own opinion, though: My initial reaction to this was in line with the delete !voters: "no, obviously no." There's clearly huge potential for BLP problems here. Also how do you set an inclusion criteria based on "celebrities"? Thinking about it more, however, I'm coming to some of the same notions that RebeccaGreen articulated above. Most importantly, that there have been several movements involving women coming forward and making a point about wanting it known that they had an abortion. There's no BLP issue at all there. My sense is that if kept, the inclusion criteria should involve, in some way, a restriction to just these women, and not literally every notable woman who someone has said had an abortion at one time or another. ...But then if we do that, maybe we might as well include them in the various articles like You Know Me movement rather than have a stand-alone list. Tough one indeed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename as List of women who have had an abortion. My initial reaction to the idea of such a list was one of scepticism, concerned perhaps about some sort of "abortion shaming" agenda somewhere in the background. And the use of "celebrities" in the title rather than "women" may have contributed to my concerns. Having read the debate and the article, and seeing how many notable women have come forward to self-identify, such a list could contribute to the destigmatization and normalisation of what has been something of a taboo subject for far too long. Edwardx ( talk) 01:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment One further thought. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (also still too often a subject of shame in much of the world) has survived since 2001, with no deletion discussion, so any BLP and privacy issues about the women on this abortion list should be far from insurmountable. Edwardx ( talk) 01:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete - Oh, this is like Nixon's Enemies List, except this one is targeting women. This smacks of political agenda. Is there a companion article "List of celebrities who have had a vasectomy"? How about "List of male celebrities who have had penis enlargement"? For many things listed at WP:NOT. If it's important to mention about the individual, then include it and source it in their Wikipedia article. Given the political divide in the United States right now, this could easily be viewed as a political hit list, a check to blacklist, a list for political purposes at rallies. Lists can be useful, but they can also be a handy print off at rallies targeting public individuals. This list is not encyclopedic. Either direction, this list has an agenda for existing. — Maile ( talk) 02:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep First, I am not in any doubt that this is a notable topic, and the list seems well-documented.

In response to all those who assert that BLP requires deletion, I suggest BLP cuts both ways. Claiming that BLP requires deletion to protect privacy actually achieve the opposite when individuals chose to sacrifice their privacy because of strong personal beliefs.

Are there women who had abortions, later regretted it, and subsequently went public to offer their example, their regret, as a cautionary tale to those considering having an abortion? I am pretty sure there have been some. Any individual who is already notable, who has offered their abortion as a cautionary tale, also merits an entry in this list.

The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. I don't believe it is being used for advocacy. It seems that most of the women named on this list voluntarily chose to make public that they had an abortion.

BLP has special provisions to protect the privacy of previously unknown people, who got unwanted coverage, by accident. However, none of the women on this list is a previously unknown person. So, the protections we offer to previously unknown people don't apply here. Geo Swan ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, yes, there are some women included in the list who talk about having an abortion to discourage other women from having one, or to campaign for more restrictive abortion laws, eg Jennifer O'Neill, Alveda King and Molly White. There are others who have said they regretted having an abortion, though they may not actively campaign against it, such as Sharon Osbourne and Jennifer Roback Morse. I have included those 5 in the list, with whatever position is stated in their WP article or their sources. If there are other notable women who have spoken about regrets or against abortion, having had one, they should certainly be included. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: Geo Swan, I'm at a loss for words over your waving away the major ethical issues involving actual living human beings, and if I addressed that I'd likely say something I regret. I will address your misunderstanding of our policies around deletion, however, and argue for them in this case. Thank you for motivating me to cast an actual !vote.
Notability is not a policy. It is a guideline. We routinely delete notable things. In fact, not being notable is only 1 of 14 reasons we delete things according to the actual deletion policy. Reason number 9 on that list is the BLP policy. Since notability is not the reason being advocated for deletion, the closer should ignore arguments based on notability since they do not address the very substantive policy reasons for deletion.
In terms of other measures, I am 100% confident that even with extended confirmed protection deletion would likely be necessary, and in cases where the very probable issues cannot possibly be removed, deletion followed by discussion about whether or not to allow recreation is the norm (see WP:BLPDELETE).
That is to say, while deletion is still a last resort, when there is an argument that it is needed and other measure will not suffice, the burden of proof under existing policy shifts to those who want an article to achieve consensus to create it. Notability doesn't matter one iota
In this case, we have an article that is all but certain for all other technical measures to fail. It's creation and subsequent sourcing to Tweets is a BLP violation by an autoconfirmed user. Anyone will be able to tell you that we have plenty of 500-900 edit accounts that have no clue how the BLP policy works. The only option under current policy is for an administrator to delete this article and for creation to be disallowed pending affirmative consensus. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. You shouldn't let your personal feelings influence you in this. Anyone can check references to make certain the person spoke about it. There is no reason why anyone would add someone's name who hadn't had one, and if someone did vandalize the article it could easily be reverted just like any other article. The information about their abortion is already in their main articles also. Dream Focus 05:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Dream Focus, It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. This is a completely inappropriate comment. Please retract it. – bradv 🍁 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Read the first sentence of what the editor I replied to just said. Read through all the other comments people have made. It seems to be that some of those who wish to delete this are doing it for personal bias. Dream Focus 05:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Dream Focus, you never addressed your objectional statement. You said It seems those who want to delete this article are anti-abortion. Now you say It seems to be that some of those who wish to delete this are doing it for personal bias. You labelled me in your first statement, and didn't exactly unlabel me in your second statement. And I'm most upset because you wrongly labelled me to begin with. Which shows your statement came from emotion/suspicion and not from a supposed insight into people's biases. You should retract it.

The whole topic is poisonous and must be most carefully approached. I'm against exploitation (of anyone by anyone) and which this list cannot escape. Shenme ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I never mentioned you. I still believe some are against abortion and that their reason for deletion, while others may have other concerns, or at least claim to. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. Dream Focus 23:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You and I have never interacted but I think you need to sit down and stop casting aspersions because your insinuation that delete voters are anti choice is absurd and offensive. Praxidicae ( talk) 01:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Dream Focus, I think you misread what I wrote. I do not think I have once revealed my personal views on abortion on Wikipedia, and I do not ever plan to. My first sentence was referencing the very real ethical issues of Google indexing this and having a list of D-list celebrities who most people will likely have forgotten in 10 years have the fact that they had an abortion show up as the second Google search result. The ethics of abortion has nothing to do with this. The ethics of Wikipedia and how it interacts with the subjects we cover because of the existence of Google very much does. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
TonyBallioni, have you actually read the article? The sources include Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC News, and books published by the NYU Press, Hachette, Penguin, Simon and Schuster, etc. There is ONE source which is a tweet. As for BLP violations - nearly half of the women are dead. And as another editor has already explained, the WP articles about these women already include their abortions (or if the articles are stubs, their names are already in the articles about the public statement they signed about having an abortion). In other words, this information is already on Wikipedia. (As for D-list celebrities - I have no idea who is D-list, Z-list or anything else. Do they have an article on Wikipedia? Yes? Then they're notable. The use of the word 'celebrity' was unfortunate, and the creator agrees, but it can't be changed during the AfD.) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, I did. Both under the new and old versions this is how it originally looked. You did good work cleaning it up, but when it isn’t under intense scrutiny it is all but guaranteed to return to that state for many entries. This is a walking BLP nightmare. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing this out! Wow, my hats off to those who expanded the article!
So, Tony, do you think we should ping everyone who voiced a delete opinion prior to the expansion, to see if they still hold a delete opinion? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- TonyBallioni, in your first comment you asserted "...this page is basically an invitation for libel..." I asked you to explain this. Am I missing something?
- In 2005, when I was a newbie, who had never seen an AFD before an apparently widely admired contributor s said something like "The wikipedia shouldn't provide any coverage of Guantanamo, because it is an inherently biased topic, which will only serve as a platform for POV America-bashing."
  I gave this comment some thought, and asked her if there really could be "inherently biased topic".
  Neither the topics of Guantanamo, or abortion, or flat-earth, or anti-vaxxers, is inherently biased. Any topic, that has valid references, can be covered here, using a neutral voice, if good faith contributors work together to follow our policies and guidelines, that tell us how to write from a neutral point of view.
  
  Neither you, TonyBallioni, or anyone else, has pointed to a single sentence in this article that lapsed from neutrality. Even if a vandal swooped in, and added an unreferenced claim that Jane Doe, or the Queen of England, had said they had an abortion, our normal vandal fighting robots and quality control volunteers would had excised that claim.
- I am going to repeat myself, TonyBallioni, can you name a single other well referenced new article that was deleted because it MIGHT be vandalized? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - I’m aware of several. We typically don’t publicize them for the reasons that they involve privacy issues, just like this one, so I won’t be listing them because that would defeat the entire point of having them deleted. And no, you shouldn’t engage in a disruptive mass ping. The BLP policy and the deletion policy are 100% clear on what the outcome should be here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

TonyBallioni We? Who is this we?

I know the WMF reserves the authority to make the very occasional secret unaccountable action, but is only supposed to do so in very exceptional circumstances. When the NYTimes asked Jimbo Wales to suppress from the wikipedia any coverage of the kidnapping of David Rodhe he formed a team of a dozen trusted administrators to police that article. The justification for this action was that Wales was convinced Rodhe's life was at stake, and that his life would be even more at risk if his kidnappers saw his capture was the subject of news coverage, that the NYTimes convinced him that every major news organization had already agreed to a blackout on reporting Rodhe's capture.

This is what I think of when I think of the WMF clandestinely taking unaccountable action. It had the justification that those involved honestly believed someone's life was at risk.

So, are you a trusted senior WMF staff member, or member of the WMF board? Are you a past or present member of the ARB committee? If not could you please expand on why you think these other deletions should be kept withheld from those of us weighing in here?

You wrote above "The BLP policy and the deletion policy are 100% clear on what the outcome should be here." If that was really true then it would be a trivial matter for you to quickly link to and summarize the relevant passages. Why haven't you tried to do so?

I see you linked to WP:BLPDELETE - as if that justified a delete opinion today - ignoring that the 2nd paragraph of that section says

"Page deletion is normally a last resort... and "...deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard..."

It seems to me you are telling us we should skip all the collaborative discussions, on Talk:List_of_celebrities_who_have_had_an_abortion, where good faith discussions of which RS were of value, which wording was neutral, and go right to the position where we decided that good faith contributors failed to produce a truly neutral version? Aren't you telling us we should jump right to this decision in the face of the very respectable efforts to produce a well referenced neutrally written version, today? Geo Swan ( talk) 19:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Claiming a use of the BLP policy "protects" individuals, when its use really damages them

Some of our contributors make extensive use of the clauses in the BLP policy, intended to protect individuals in a way that actually damages them. I first encountered this phenomenon in the case of Mrs A, a grandmother in Georgia, who found herself subject to Georgia's draconian sex offender laws, due to a Kafka-esque nightmare. Her crime was letting the father of her future grandchild move into her home, so he could save money to marry her daughter. Her daughter was under the legal age of consent, and, under Georgia's laws, letting him continue to have sexual relations with her, made Mrs A a sex offender. No, I am not making this up. BLP advocates claimed that BLP rules required the article on Mrs A to be deleted, because it was damaging to her for the wikipedia to repeat that she was on the sex offender list.

Wow! This BLP claim was extremely insulting to Mrs A. Unlike all the other people on the list, who weren't actual sex offenders, for any reasonable definition of sex offender, Mrs A sacrificed her right to privacy, went public as an advocate for reforming Georgia's sex offender laws, and used the details of her case, and how it affected her as an argument for reform. She'd been doing so for a decade, and had appeared on national TV and in international news magazines.

Why were people claiming BLP required "protecting" Mrs A by deleting her article? I'm sorry, but I am afraid I couldn't help concluding that some of those claims of protection were a smokescreen. I am afraid some contributors wanted to continue to see Mrs A suffer in silence under the old law, not because they thought she was a genuine sex offender, but because they thought she was a sinner, for encouraging sex prior to marraige.

Is something similar happening here?

Are people who want to silence those who advocate a women's right to an abortion, using specious claims that they are protecting the privacy of the women on this list as a way to covertly push an anti-abortion POV?

When someone chooses to sacrifice their privacy, to make a point, using BLP's privacy provisions to keep them from making their point is highly disrespectful and, I believe, a violation of NPOV.

If all of the women on this list voluntarily made public the information that they had an abortion I think it is highly specious of us to try to protect them from themselves. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Abortion is still a procedure that carries considerable stigma in religious areas such as the American Bible Belt, because a large number of people equate it to murdering a baby, and the doctors who perform it and women who have it done as murderers. As long as this attitude exists, there is a potential for discrimination against the women, precisely why this topic is so controversial. This differentiates it from other medical procedures like the aforementioned kidney transplant, which fewer people would argue against, or be horrified by, if it was needed. People do not face the same judgment for the latter but certainly are discriminated against for the former. I don’t believe that every woman in this list voluntarily made the information available, (do you think all of the dead women or their families would’ve been comfortable with them being in this list?) and some who did had absolutely no intention of doing so prior to the current climate in the US due to abortion laws changing. I know that part of this argument is that the public revelation of women’s abortions to remove the stigma from them is what some feel is the whole point of having a list like this, but I do not see how it positively contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia outside of being an activist campaign, I see it more as a fighting point for editors and vandals, as well as - for lack of a better way to express my thoughts - the same kind of derision as slut-shaming. I have no problem with the information being put into individual women’s articles as they choose to reveal it, I just feel that a collective list could be more damaging than positive; I can easily see the collection of names becoming part of Christian online magazines or extremist websites which could be used as a blacklist or even cause physical harm to the people on the list, or possibly affect employment. I also agree with ToniBallioni’s various points. For the record, I’ll state that I’m a pro-choice non-denominational Christian, so please don’t make assumptions or accusations about anyone’s vote. LovelyLillith ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- LovelyLillith, several other people have voiced essentially the same argument that you did, that BLP requires deletion, to "protect"' these women from the wikipedia reprinting that they said they had abortions. But aren't those BLP provisions intended to protect previously unknown people, who had potentially damaging information published about them, through some kind of accident, or reasonable equivalent? First, all of the women on this list were notable enough to already have standalone wikipedia articles; second, they did not openly acknowledge they had an abortion by accident. I'll bet every one of them, with the exception of Billie Jean King, gave this a lot of thought, and they all decided that their higher interest lay in openly acknowledging that they had an abortion.
  Are you really arguing that these women need to be protected against themselves, against their own considered decision?
  Note: RebeccaGreen noted here that some women openly acknowledged they had an abortion so they could encourage other women to not follow their example. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, yes, I'm ABSOLUTELY erring on the side of do no harm in this case. I have yet to see an argument from you outside of essentially "because they outed themselves for the good of pro-choice" or to "speak their truth", or WHY it makes Wikipedia better, or WHY it is NOT SUFFICIENT to have the information on the women's pages and/or the various movements. Being against this list does not empower me with the ability to "protect them against themselves", because the information is out there, just scattered. If the women want to say they have abortions, more power to them - but I also believe "As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity." The list may do great things to end stigma, it may grow cobwebs, or it may provide harmful consequences, but I cannot vote to keep something that has the potential for extremist (or just misogynistic) abuse to living women. LovelyLillith ( talk) 18:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

LovelyLillith I've been giving a lot of thought to your comments, which I take to be 100% in good faith and out of care for women who could potentially be harmed. It's an important perspective. W/r/t the need for sensitivity and good judgment, which of course should influence our actions here, I will gently point out not the paternalism of your argument (which I think you see) but instead the flipside to the potential for extremist and/or misogynistic abuse. Question: why do the women who have publicized their abortions do it, in spite of the vitriol (and possibly worse) they are sure to get? It's not just about trying to change (or keep) laws. And it's not just about speaking their truth. Sometimes it's also about letting other women who had abortions, for whatever reason (voluntary or involuntary), know they are not alone. Hearing that -- especially from someone famous, respected, or otherwise holding a position of status -- can be powerful. What I'm saying is, it can be deeply sensitive, at great personal cost. Respecting that choice by compiling their stories into a list (or at least not denigrating it by deleting the list) strikes me as showing very good judgment. Scribestress ( talk) 18:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Scribestress There are MANY books (even shown in the list as references), marches, activist groups, news articles, social media, fundraisers, support groups and so much more that reflect how many women feel and that they are not alone. Wikipedia is not about being a soapbox, nor has it been demonstrated HOW does this IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. My "paternalism" is not usurping anything from these women - they didn't participate in the various movements with the aim of being defined on a Wikipedia list, and not having the list is not taking anything away from their positions or oppressing them or their voices. The list didn't exist a week ago, were the women's voices any less persuasive or active? If so, Wikipedia lists have far more power than I was aware of. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

LovelyLillith We might be speaking past each other. I wanted to address your concern that the list is inconsistent with the need for sensitivity and good judgment. I don't think the impact of the article on a social movement or activism is the right analysis for a deletion discussion. As for how the list improves WP itself, it adds to the organization of "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" (i.e. WP:PURPOSE) -- something I think we are all on board with. Scribestress ( talk) 20:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Scribestress Fair enough, we are all here to try to build a better encyclopedia - we simply disagree on how that can be done, in this case. LovelyLillith ( talk) 20:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relevant to the most recent turn in the discussion, I've drafted some additional language for the intro to provide the context that women have deliberately spoken about their abortions for different reasons. It's on the talk page. Similarly, it would be helpful to more fully address whether to limit the list to only women who have spoken publicly about their abortions. Now open for discussion on the talk page. Scribestress ( talk) 22:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge

Imagine this list was given for educational purposes to women and men, boys and girls, to learn about how many women in the public eye they know have had abortions (for whatever reason), to teach abortion isn't that uncommon, and that we all 'know a woman who had an abortion'. In such a situation it could be used to erase stigma, as an educational tool for safe sex, but as well as a tool to demonise these women, depending on the context the list is used in and by whom. Lists of information on individuals can be used for good and bad, and depending on your idea on abortion in this case, you can decide for yourself what is good and bad. However, this comes down to choice again: these women (as far as I can tell) spoke out about their abortion, and they have that right. Deciding for them their words cannot be repeated for whatever reason (for example to protect them), in a list that combines all their voices, while they spoke the words themselves, seems to diminish their independent voices and choices, and doesn't acknowledge the pattern of social change and influence all these women have had on recent social movements, such as the You Know Me Movement.

I would like to bring Chaos Theory into this: 'Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.^[1]'.

While 1 voice alone might seem insignificant initially, in the long course, it can have a great impact. The impact all these women have had together these last 50 years, is undeniable when you merge their stories together, because look where we are now in 2019: the You Know Me Movement. The origin and history of the #youknowme movement is intertwined with all the women who spoke out before; the wheel wasn't invented for the first time by Busy Philipps for sure. Recognising that, shows Wikipedia recognises history and the influence of many 'past' voices that have influenced change in the present. Considering all the above, I would suggest keep or merge with the You Know Me Movement. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) ( talk) 00:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Right up down there with List of celebrities with face lifts, List of celebrities with nose jobs and List of celebrities with boob jobs. Because enquiring minds want to know, right? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The time when such a list would have been acceptable is the 1950s, when abortions were notably scandalous. Not now. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Clarityfiend, it would be hilarious, if this wasn't a serious discussion, how your position is 180 degrees opposed to some of the other delete opinions voiced here. You didn't read LovelyLilith's delete opinion, that immediately preceded yours, did you? She argued the opposite of you, that abortion is MORE scandalous now, than it was in the past. She argued that we had some kind of moral responsibility to protect women who openly acknowledged having abortions during a time when it was less scandalous, who never foresaw how dangerous their positions would be. So, do your 180 degree positions cancel out one another? Geo Swan ( talk) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, actually, no, I never said abortions were "more scandalous", nor did I say anything specific about time, other than the reworking of abortion laws recently. I said within certain religious swaths of the US, a large number of people greatly stigmatize the procedure and its participants, and that stigma is more than just attempts to shame, it has lead to deaths and violence. It doesn't matter if other editors have differing reasons why this content should not be here, what matters is we agree on the fact that it should not be here - and be WP:CIVIL about it instead of trying to pit people against each other. LovelyLillith ( talk) 17:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Many of the Delete rationales seem to me to be examples of one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - WP:HARMFUL, which says "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable." Some of the deletion arguments suggest that because of some people's attitudes to abortion, having a list like this might put women included on it at risk. As I have said before, this information is already in Wikipedia, and easily findable elsewhere on the internet. Many of the women who spoke out about having an abortion did so when it was still illegal, and when publicly speaking about it made them susceptible to criminal charges. They accepted that very real risk. The American women who have publicly spoken as part of recent movements, when abortion has been legal in the US, know that many people are vehemently opposed to it and that there is a real risk of Anti-abortion violence (and has been for over 40 years). They have taken that risk. To say Wikipedia should not compile a list of names, many of whom volunteered to be included in a list of names published in national newspapers or magazines (eg We've had abortions! and Manifesto of the 343, both in 1971), because it might be used by anti-abortion extremists (who, according to that Wikipedia article Anti-abortion violence, "are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the United States Department of Justice"), seems to me a classic example of invoking the invalid deletion argument WP:HARMFUL.

Also, WP:NOTCENSORED says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Some of the arguments made here use words like 'scandalous', 'toilet paper', 'we don't need to know this', which suggest that editors using such arguments find the content objectionable. That is not a valid reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 10:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Another list relating to health conditions and women's health. Sourced and encyclopedic. Dimadick ( talk) 10:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply
'Keep - While the topic of having an abortion was solely tabloid material many years ago, today it is a pivotal political topic (i.e. encyclopedic) and many women are candidly talking about their abortions and how they affected their lives. I would be more inclined to delete if it weren't solidly sourced, but I think as long as we enforce vigorous high-quality sourcing, there should be few BLP concerns. Kaldari ( talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment If anything, just leave that information on their respective pages. But this "list" obviously wasn’t created for encyclopedic purposes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for destigmatization. Trillfendi ( talk) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Trillfendi says its obvious this article "...wasn’t created for encyclopedic purposes." Well, if it is "obvious" it should be a completely trivial matter for you to find passages which weren't written from a neutral point of view. RebeccaGreen, 9H48F and Scribestress did a phenomenal job fleshing this article out, and writing it using a policy compliant neutral voice.
  Trillfendi, I challenge you, I challenge anyone who claims there is a political agenda behind the contributors to this article, to quote a a couple of passages you think you can claim lapses from a neutral point of view. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I said what I said based on the condition it was when I saw it, not what others have tried to do to it in the meantime. But since legality is always going to be a factor, hence these ridiculous, draconian laws; the question is can it ever really be neutral (yet...wasn’t Scribestress canvassing people about this?) Trillfendi ( talk) 22:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I've read through the article and it is interesting reading. But this seems like private information and it shouldn't be compiled and offered through Wikipedia in such a nice and tidy package. I know abortion is a legal procedure but this is a very personal and private choice. It is one thing if a woman has come out about her own experience, written about it and taken a position on this divisive issue. But I think with some of these deceased "celebrities", this information is obtained through biographers and, personally, this seems invasive to me. I know BLP doesn't apply to the no longer living. But in Category:Lists of people by medical condition we don't have lists of celebrities who died of AIDS or lists of people by immigration status. Personally, I think we also should delete List of HIV-positive people which also seems like private health information. But I know I might not be in the majority here and my objections are primarily that it seems like an invasion into privacy (for those who haven't come out in press). Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Liz, this is exactly one of my concerns as well, which I didn’t mention previously due to the fact that the rules are different for the deceased, and Wikipedia regularly publishes “uncomfortable” information anyway. Case in point - Maurine Whipple. Out of curiosity, I tried to find mentions of her abortion, and found only two, almost as an aside, from two biographers. While it is true that I didn’t do an exhaustive search, I did give it a try to see if I could find much else about it and could not. BLP rules state that information should be commonly known amongst RS before being added, but I don’t think two mentions would count if she was alive. As her writing audience was the Church of Latter-Day Saints, I seriously doubt this was something she would have wanted to be listed as a defining characteristic - but privacy concerns for the dead are ignored here. Just something to think about. LovelyLillith ( talk) 12:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:TNT, which isn't a policy or guideline, but the deletion policy does leave some room for the deletion of totally unsuitable content in the last point of WP:DELREASON Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Endogeneity in multinomial response models

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

I had listed at PROD for the reasoning "At best, an article on a niche problem in discrete choice that's better handled there. At present, it's barely coherent and riddled with typos, making it useless." To elaborate: everything duplicates discrete choice except the final section starting "However, in many practice...". That section doesn't make sense: the revised equation is identical to the previous equation, and the text contradicts discrete choice#Only differences matter. Therefore, there's no useful content here. Wikiacc ( ¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc ( ¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc ( ¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm tending to agree that this is unintelligible, but I'm not seeing that this duplicates discrete choice. That article does not discuss endogeneity anywhere. Can the nominator please explain where that is covered in the page. Spinning Spark 15:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It’s not, but this article also doesn’t discuss endogeneity until the incoherent final section. Everything here up to the first log likelihood assumes exogeneity. I don’t see any content here that could usefully be turned into a discussion of endogeneity at discrete choice. Wikiacc ( ¶) 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. This page was created by a now-blocked paid editor, apparently for the purpose of an academic experiment to test the effect of having one's papers cited on Wikipedia. It was not created with improving the encyclopaedia in mind. I also note that it was moved to mainspace after being rejected at AFC without any improvements being made in the intervening time. Not worth wasting any more effort on this one. Spinning Spark 17:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- If the intentions of the creator are going to be used as arguments in a deletion discussion at all, then we might as well be clear about them. The creator, Carolineneil, was not a paid editor, but an academic who commissioned (and yes, paid) other academics or graduate students to identify gaps in wikipedia's coverage of econometrics and then write up articles to fill in those gaps. Yes, this was in the context of a study, but its aim was to gauge the influence of these wikipedia articles on subsequently published academic papers (not the other way round). I'm the editor who accepted the AfC draft, what I took account of was the fact that the previous rejection was completely spurious, and the circumstances of the creation of the article itself – if an expert an a given field with which I'm not familiar has decided there should be a wikipedia article on a certain topic in this field, I'm willing to accept their judgement. – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - Two comments:
  1. Take a look at the research paper by the study designers; it was part of the experimental design that User:Carolineneil added many new articles, while never editing or expanding existing articles. Anyway, judging that the topic deserves its own article requires both knowledge of Wikipedia and knowledge of the subject matter. It appears that the authors selected topics by picking sections out of the Wooldridge graduate textbook, which isn't a great guide to Wikipedia article scope.
  2. If there should be an article on this topic (which I doubt; check the incoming links and JSTOR) I'd argue that WP:TNT is apt. The current material is unrecoverable. Wikiacc ( ¶) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete The content is bad enough, with buggy equations (the last two log likelihoods seem identical) and prose that is nearly a word salad, that this should be deleted per WP:TNT. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 10:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per Mark viking's point regarding WP:TNT. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like later in the discussion, some uncontested references to her were provided. Move or merge discussions can be had if there are still questions about whether the coverage is about the individual rather than the unit/photo Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth L. Gardner

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

Not seeing any real evidence of notability. A ~~few~~. A lot of trivial (in the extreme, most being just a photo anbd a caption, the same photo and caption) mentions, a primary source used twice ()but form two separate places, one facebook), and at least one source that does not even mention her. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject is notable, having received the Congressional Gold Medal with her unit. See other additions/recent edits to article. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 15:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC); TeriEmbrey ( talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

She did not, her unit did. If she did provide the citation. Note the above has been altered since I replied to it, to answer the new version. Members of units are not considered notable for an award awarded tho their unit, they are only notable if it was an award made to them alone. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

As a reference to TeriEmbrey, notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Courageous but I dont see anything noteworthy over the thousands of other WASPs that dont have articles. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge into WASP article. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect name and Merge into WASP article. Otherwise, not anymore notable than the other WASP members who were courageous, as mentioned above. Kierzek ( talk) 13:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Which of course could mean another 300 entries added to that article. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge Not notable for a stand-alone article. Mentioning her name with a few lines and a source in WASP would be enough.-- Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I thought WASP meant White Anglo-Saxon Protestant? Trillfendi ( talk) 15:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 16:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 16:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Her WASP career is not currently notable compared to other WASP members. However she stands out from the other WASP members because of the picture. Samples currently online:

She is recognizable compared to other WASP members, she stands out from the rest in some way, which is in spirit the meaning of notability, and in technical terms per WP:GNG she has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green C 18:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

perhaps it's the photo that is notable. Is this the case of back formation of an article - a person's name appears in Wikipedia leads to a brief article and then further facts uncovered and wrapped around the stub to build up its size. The initial article creation seems to have been centred on the image. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - This article in Life and this reference in American Women and Flight Since 1940 suggest she's notable. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - courage or lack of articles for other WASP pilots should not be deciding factors. Per User:GreenC, she appears to have been chosen for the photograph and her story has captured attention and now again of interest perhaps because she was among the few that lived into another era - the new murals that have led to greater interest should make the article important enough to have here. We do not AfD articles like August Landmesser for similar reasons. Shyamal ( talk) 08:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly noted already. WP:Not paper. The issue is whether this article meets WP:GNG. As the present article amply demonstrates, no compliance with WP:Before, and the sources are there now to prove it. That other pilots could merit articles is irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. See Fallacy of composition. Straw man fallacy. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per Parsecboy references ...and subject is WP:GNG prominently called out in publications and in addition her unit received the Congressional Gold Medal Lubbad85 ( ☎) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep The general notability guidelines are now met with the Life magazine article and other coverage of her. Dream Focus 16:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I've worked on a number of WASP biographies. It's true that not all WASP were notable. Some served and then went back to quiet lives. Others continued to be in the media for various reasons. In this case, the photo of Gardner is iconic and there should be an article. There's enough info about her to write a good bio and the improvement to the article should be commended. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's important to remember that notability — the existence of in-depth coverage, specifically about the subject, in multiple reliable sources — is different from significance, and may occur for entirely contingent and insignificant reasons. In this case, it appears that being a WASP is not alone enough for notability but that the subject achieved notability because of her appearance in the publicity photo. We don't have to judge whether that's a significant accomplishment in order to recognize that the sources in the article clearly demonstrate a pass of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. There's the Life magazine article and the iconic photograph. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:HEY. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep -- Being the subject of an iconic photo should make her notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect name and Merge into WASP article or refactor as an article about the photo. There are many benchmarks of notability. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". "The first to ..." ect are benchmarks of notability, but not the benchmark adopted by WP. The photo is iconic and notable but does not necessarily confer notability on the subject. We have an article for the V-J Day in Times Square but not for the sailor, George Mendonsa. Many of the comments to "keep" refer to the notability of the photo and even acknowledge that Gardner is not/may not be noatable independent of the photo. Of the Life article, the subject is the crash and not Gardner more specifically - it does not address Gardner "directly and in detail". The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the unit and not Gardner, except as a part of the unit. Most unfortunately, the article also has the impression of being something of a WP:COAT for recognition of WASPS - with 7 references (and 6 of the first 7) referring to this. That there is strong support to keep the article suggests that there is something wrong with WP:GNG. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment: Cinderella157 What a strange thing to say, "That there is strong support to keep the article suggests that there is something wrong with WP:GNG" It undoubtedly says the opposite...But thanks for voting. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Not so strange. Many of the comments to keep infer notability through the notability of the photo. The mention of Gardner here is only passing: this reference in American Women and Flight Since 1940. It is difficult to see that Gardner meets the criteria of WP:GNG (see parts I quoted above). The evidence offered, such as the reference in American Women and Flight Since 1940, appears quite weak (IMO). Yet there is strong support to keep - despite this. Hence my observation. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The sailor in V-J Day in Times Square is a bad example, because the sailor's identity is not known for certain. However, the woman, Greta Zimmer Friedman, does have an article. (Kinda funny that she had no idea who that guy was.) – Leviv ich 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Even if not "definitely" the sailor, his association with the photo is mentioned in multiple reliable sources - including articles on his death eg and this search The Greta Zimmer Friedman attributes the kiss to Mendonsa too? It may not be a perfect example but it serves the purpose, I think. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep – Article has been WP:HEYed, with lots of good references (and there are a ton of search results). Meets WP:GNG with Life and Rockford Register Star. A Congressman writing in Medium refers to her as One well-known WASP. Was interviewed for StoryCorps. Probably meets WP:ANYBIO 2. There were 1,000 or so WASPs; they're not all notable; but she is one of the notable ones. – Leviv ich 01:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. Note for HEYers - WP:REFBOMBing the article with lots of sources with passing mentions (or with no mentions at all) does not help !voters at AfD assess this (and is an indication, actually, of lack of notability). Subject is dead, so no BLP concerns nor is PROMO a big issue (given she's been dead for a few years). The photograph itself is possibly notable per itself (and having a Photograph of Elizabeth L. Gardner seems silly (we could - but it would end up being the same thing - describing the individual in the photo - so might as well have have the bio if its one individual)). There does seem to be some coverage e.g. - rrstar, life, this book. There's a bunch of snippet view hits in google-books (some of them from periodic war-time newspapers). Sourcing level here isn't great - but there does seem to be quite a bit of it. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Fortune favours the photogenic apparently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner. Bombs Away. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

According to one of our cited sources, she was featured in a "1991 special section of New York Newsday". I don't have access to it, however. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I looked and also could not find 1991 NY Newsday archives online. NY Public Library might have it. – Leviv ich 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to lean towards deletion. I did see Yagasi's comments, but they didn't convince anyone and most of them aren't addressing the deletion rationale provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael Zinigrad

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

This is a seemingly well-sourced, albeit somewhat promotional, biography of an Israeli-Russian academic. The most recent expansion was done by a single purpose account, with perhaps a whiff of WP:UPE. Given the efforts that have gone into this article to make this person appear notable, this is going to be a long nomination, for which I apologize in advance. There are also several long discussions on the article's talk page and on the talk page of WP:PROF (since archived). I start with the criteria of PROF.

PROF#1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"): Zinigrad has a Google Scholar profile here. Even ignoring the fact that GScholar often overestimates citation rates, no paper has more than 87 cites, and with 800 citations in total and an h-index of 14 we are well below what we generally take as meeting this criterion, especially in a high density field as materials science. (Also note that the Web of Science, as mentioned on the article's talk page, gives much lower citation counts and an h-index of only 5). Hence: Fails PROF#1.
PROF#2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level") can be claimed to be met by two honorary degrees from the Russian Academy of Sciences and the South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University, not a major institution to say the least. However, there was agreement here that these honorary degrees are too doubtful to meet PROF#2. There are also some a few memberships of the editorial boards of a few (non-notable) journals, but even if those journals were notable, there is a longstanding consensus that such memberships do not confer notability. There is also an (unsourced) "Outstanding Scientists Award 2014" bestowed by the Israeli Ministry of Immigration and Absorption (from the page of this photo on Commons), but this does not appear to be the kind of prestigious award mention in this criterion. Hence: Fails PROF#2.
PROF#3 ("is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor") does not appear to be claimed. Hence: Fails PROF#3.
PROF#4 ("The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions") does nott appear to be claimed either. Hence: Fails PROF#4.
PROF#5 ("The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"): Nope. Hence: Fails PROF#5.
PROF#6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"): Zinigrad has been dean (which does not confer automatic notability) and currently is Rector of Ariel University. The latter, however, is not the "highest-level", because at Ariel that is the president. Hence: Fails PROF#6.
PROF#7 ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"): no such claims are made nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#7.
PROF#8 ("The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area"): Again, no claim in this direction is made, nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#8.
PROF#9 ("The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC"): is not applicable here. Hence: Fails PROF#9.

Finally, there is the possibility that a person, while failing PROF, meets WP:GNG. However, among the ( currently) 36 references and 4 "further reading" items, all are either not independent or not in-depth. In conclusion, this biography fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per the above, and this discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 15:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per the discussion on the article talk page. I think the easiest case for notability would be through PROF#1; however from the discussion at the talk page I don't believe this threshold is met. Ajpolino ( talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per Randykitty's well-reasoned argument. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. The careful analysis here confirms my impression in the earlier discussion that he is below the threshold on all counts. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete for reasons amply explored on talk page. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC). reply
Note: Randykitty, your accusation of WP:UPE violates WP:AGF. I was never ever paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. I want you to withdraw that accusation and apologize. Yagasi ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised that you took this remark so personal: Are you a SPA? No? Well, then that remark obviously was not intended for you and an apology is not needed. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

So probably an apology to me is not needed. But WP:UPE not supported by proof can't be an argument for deleting, mentioning it here was irrelevant. Yagasi ( talk) 05:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. While there was a discussion on the article's talk page Randykitty stopped participating in it and answering me. Only now I have learned that he started another discussion here, but I was not aware of it. Anyway, I provide here a copy of my last edits on the article's talk page (that were not answered) and expect comments from the Community:
- Before applying criteria 6 we should pay attention to general notes which state: "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule... It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." Isn't it successful to hold a post of a university rector? Israel has fewer university rectors than Nobel laureates. Yagasi ( talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
- During the mass emigration from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s Israel received a significant number of immigrant scientists, but the state's university infrastructure was not sufficient to integrate too many of them. Hundreds of immigrant professors and doctors could not be engaged neither as scientists nor as higher educators. But unlike all those Zinigrad was among the most successful. Yagasi ( talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
- Moreover, while some Israeli universities tried to prevent Ariel from becoming the eight university of the country, Zinigrad founded The Materials Research Center, which included research teams and five laboratories. Isn't it a significant impact in the area of higher education? Why should we appreciate the founders of the Technion, the Hebrew University and the Weizmann Institute and underestimate the impact on the Start-up Power made by the Arial founders? Yagasi ( talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
- Emigrant scientists of the 1990s emigration received many appointments in higher education institutions around the world. But can the Community remember any other emigrant scientist from the former Soviet Union that achieved the post of a university rector? In the hundreds of American or Germany universities? Yagasi ( talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
- Before applying any criteria (that can be done later) the Community should think out of the box. What does that mean: "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice..."? Yagasi ( talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Yagasi ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Those arguments seem to me to be WP:RGW, rather than based on WP policies and guidelines for notability. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This is not a part of the article's page but of discussion pages. Citing here a WP guideline is not a WP:RGW. Yagasi ( talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Cmt Look, if there is sourcing about an entry, let the entry stay. I'm not going to pretend I got into the weeds with regard this one. I'm speaking in general terms. We shouldn't be worried about identities of editors. We shouldn't be straining at gnats with concern supposed independence of sourcing from its subject, when no one's questioning the sourcing's reliability as far as statements of fact. (Most of you're going to think my comments off-topic make that insane, meanwhile I muse to my own self A-a-are these guys o-o-out of their freakin' minds? <sighs> But: If we are going to get into petsonalities, what it is that I'm always musing to myself is this: How does an entire group of individuals who swarm about these type of discussions come to be so utterly obsessed with status? And rank? Well--it stinks <pun intended>! Know what RANK's folk etymology ouht be? With regard such-as-Mr. Zinigrad's Wikibiography, seat-of-the-pantsedly ah ah ah "Red-linking Academic [sic] Not Korrikt-ness." How is the entire doubleyew-pee's Pee-aR-Oh-eF guideline's freaking ediface not "original research"? In its effect of enjoining advocates-for-whatever-coverage also to argue subjectively about who / what "is important"? Enough of this already.)......-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Selection box

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

Very poor article, created by @ Alpha Quadrant: in 2011 - no sources, poorly written, non-notable. Prakshit Rangasamudram ( talk) 12:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Nomination seems to be based on the current state of the article, rather than on any view of the topic. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. I added some references. The term is used more in the United Kingdom and Ireland than in North America, but many British or Irish editors will have given or received a selection box (perhaps a non-chocolate one) as a gift. Original research: Eating the contents of a selection box at one sitting is bad for you. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. An everyday item in the UK, as common as bananas. As Andy said, unsourced does not mean unsourceable. Editors are required to do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating which clearly wasn't done in this case. And "poorly written" does not mean "non-notable". That is an entirely fixable issue per WP:ATD; If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Spinning Spark 15:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. The nominator is mistaken that the article was created by Alpha Quadrant, he only created a redirect to an unrelated topic. The article was actually created by User:Macc190801 and much of the poor writing is due to subsequent additions, some of which I have now removed. Spinning Spark 17:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Wooden toy train. Randykitty ( talk) 14:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Choo Choo Track & Toy Co

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:CORPDEPTH Found a few passing mentions, a Facebook page and a blog. Kleuske ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because it has the same issue, even less sourcing, and a similar likely solution: Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - the article seems promotional in nature for a non-noteworthy company. Orville1974 ( talk) 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge to Wooden toy train

Whittle Shortline would seem to have just the same problems (so I'm going to WP:BUNDLE it, even though it's a few days later).

I don't see these smaller makers as notable. However the wooden track system of model railways for very young children is, I would claim, a notable and also encyclopedic topic rather than just being a business directory. We have our persistent problem of articles on insignificant rappers and self-promoting businesses which convey nothing in an encyclopedic sense, but have enough minor mentions to make them unassailable by the letter of WP:N. BRIO's wooden track system though is both notable and encycloepdic: it's widespread, it has been around for decades and it is produced by multiple manufacturers. There is also a prominent Thomas tie-in. We can embed a list of these smaller makers within that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Shahed Amanullah

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

Promotional article by non notable "public influencer". All the references cited in the article are his own biographical statements in various places. Google News shows several times where he has gotten himself quoted, usually as one among several others, as part of an article on something else. None of them gives any exact specification of his claimed "senior advisor for technology" role in the State Department, nor is there anything in his bio to indicate he would be qualified for such a position. . He has founded two non notable startups, and publishes a restaurant guide. He also published one paper in an academic journal.

The contributor says in the edit summary for the first edit "Updated sentences with a stronger source, reviewed article for any other changes." I can not identify what earlier version that may be referring to. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. He is "co-founder of Affinis Labs and former senior adviser for technology at the US Department of State." Assuming he didn't lie on his resumé, this should be enough. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 21:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Assuming this is the same guy, he is also "an engineer and editor in chief of the Web site alt.muslim," according to The New York Times.' BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

1) I do not see any evidence he is the senior advisor (I looked, for if I had found it , I would not have nominated the article for deletion) -- using the term does not mean "the principal advisor" ; rather, if it is not mere puffery, it would mean that he is of the many people who hold a position with that name as the higher rank of "advisor"--

2) Affinis Labs does not seem to be notable

3) nor does alt.muslim.

4) and I don't seem to find that NYT reference. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It's here: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/us/muslim-women-seeking-a-place-in-the-mosque.html?searchResultPosition=1 BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

CNN identified him as a "senior adviser" at https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/opinions/trump-ban-xenophobia-disguise-amanullah/index.html. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Removing the primary sources, and primary-sourced information from the others, would yield nothing notable. Orville1974 ( talk) 13:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)\ reply
Delete Being a serial founder of non-notable companies ≠ notability. Delete as PROMO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Mona Lisa ML Blay-Miezah

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

The article's sources are press releases and other less than reliable coverage. I wasn't able to find anything better online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Pure promotionalism. Possible speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like consensus is against a deletion but some consideration of a merger discussion might be appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Come-along tool

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

Per WP:N. Maybe a redirect to something else, at the very least? Comatmebro ( talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge Reliable sources confirm this is a real thing. Police equipment would be a good redirect target if a section was made there for previous gear they used. Dream Focus 05:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. The sources already in the article seem to be enough to expand this well beyond a stub. There are further sources discussing this in many martial arts magazines, especially in connection with the nunchaku. See for instance, "Weapons of control: the nightstick and the nunchaku" in Black Belt magazine. Spinning Spark 12:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - per sourcing. and per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 18:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep the taser part can be expanded into its own section, I don’t think people are going to stop inventing new forms of these tools any time soon either. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 22:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge to Arrest. Present article is a tad close to DICTDEF. The topic is possibly notable, but this is really just a term/jargon for a number of tools/weapons (each of which may have a wider use than just police) police make use of when restraining someone. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Faye Webster

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

A handful secondary sources that are either espouse-like or cover very recent releases. Seems WP:TOOSOON for her on BLP based on multiple criteria in WP:SINGER. Comatmebro ( talk) 03:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Coverage in Rolling Stone, NPR, Pitchfork (one article from them is a whole feature just on her), Vice, Consequence of Sound/ Yahoo!, Paste, just to name a few. Also signed to a notable record label, Secretly Canadian. Passes WP:GNG by well over a mile with the coverage and being signed to label with an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andise1 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Andise1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: I know this singer-songwriter is still up-and-coming and it might seem WP:TOOSOON, but I think there's already enough sources to justify an article. In addition to the Pitchfork [2], Rolling Stone [3], Consequence of Sound [4] and Paste articles [5] mentioned above, we have an AllMusic biography [6], and reviews of her new album in AllMusic [7], Consequence of Sound again [8], Exclaim! [9], and in the UK it's also been reviewed in this month's issues of Mojo and Uncut (and I'd put money on it being reviewed in the next Q magazine, too). Richard3120 ( talk) 13:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Yeah, it may be TOOSOON in regards to genuine achievement, and the coverage is fairly run of the mill/promotional, but it's widespread enough among a number of quality publications/websites, cited above, that based on that alone it would be a "weak keep", but quality of the sources reviewing the newest album, plus being released by a notable, albeit small, label put it cleanly over the top. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Typically I would err on the side of deletion but I think there can be room for improvement on this stub with more sources. Trillfendi ( talk) 14:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Carlo Ledesma

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

WP:NARTIST fail. No WP:GNG hits online. Of the sources in the article, Rappler is a PR-wash (press release published by a newspaper without real editorial oversight) and Lunaplina festival a 404 (but probably a non- WP:INDY source regardless, festivals will routinely list a short presentation of the films they screen).

It is not clear to me what the 2007 award was. It is not the Short Film Palme d'Or (which would likely grant notability), and could find nothing online (e.g. "carlo ledesma" site:www.cannescourtmetrage.com returns no hits).

Ping: FromFrank who raised the "award" thing on the Teahouse and David_notMD who answered there. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC) edited Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Idk, it's my first time dealing with this type of situation but i added a couple references and he is notable for The Tunnel which is a very good movie (100% Rotten Tomatoes) idk i dont think the article should be deleted. -- FromFrank✎ Talk♬

Sorry for the deep dive, FromFrank, I will edit my nomination to make it less WP:CRYPTIC.

Well, we don't care about his movies being good, we care about whether enough reliable and independent sources have written at length about him (and his films). I don't think a 100% RT really matters (basically, see WP:GHITS), but the underlying newspaper reviews would matter. None of your sources are really good (Spoiled Mummy is about his wife, Visayan DS and SBS "horror festival" article are WP:ROUTINE), but they lead to [10] which starts to look more interesting (interviews are not WP:INDY sources, so not sufficient, but at least they show that the journalist actually did some work). The 10k€ award itself is irrelevant but it might have lead to coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Yeah, now that i think about it, it's not a good article at all filled with some bad references so i think it should be deleted as you stated above this one. -- FromFrank✎ Talk♬

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rajko Lotrič

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

A WP:PROD was contested with the rationale, ""Olympians are automatically notable". While there can be a "presumption of notability" ("This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page") I think many policies and guidelines echo If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. These include Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable" and "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (article tagged since 2015). "The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons". With the added WP:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (also part of the "Five pillars"), as well as, Wikipedia is not just a stat book listing, I don't see any Wikipedia improvement to having a pseudo biography that is just the listing of a name and stats in the external link. Otr500 ( talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 03:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article is a stub, but it can be expanded using the articles in the Slovenian, German, Swedish or German Wikipedias. There are lots of Google News hits at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Rajko+Lotri%C4%8D%22+-wikipedia that you should be able to read with Google Translate. Someone with the same name (perhaps the same person) is listed as a co-author of Aljaska : izkušnje v snegu in mrazu https://plus.cobiss.si/opac7/bib/237345024 ISBN 978-961-6177-19-1 Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Added a few sources into the the article. Subject was born pre internet era, there would more sources in print from Yugoslavia media. Pass WP:NSPORT and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 04:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I haven't checked the sources, nor has any aspect of being a pseudo biography been addressed, but I removed the 2015 unsourced and the "External links" tags.

Keep Plenty of sources available and passes WP:NOLY. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jukka Kalso

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

The subject fails all notability guidelines, WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSPERSON, and WP:NSPORTS, as well as violates other policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and "What Wikipedia is not". Otr500 ( talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Otr500 ( talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. If the International Ski Federation says that someone finished in the top three of a top-level competition twice, that is enough to establish notability. That athletic accomplishment means that the person doesn't need in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Reply: With all due respect this is not the "International Ski Federation". The above is not according to any policies and guidelines anywhere on Wikipedia, especially concerning a BLP and significant (in depth) coverage, nor actual current community consensus. A "presumption of notability" does not guarantee automatic inclusion. There should be "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". A "push" to change policies and guidelines should be on those pages so we can all be on the same page. I do see there were sources added (didn't check yet) so I removed the unsourced tag. If consensus deems the sources are acceptable regardless of being a pseudo biography there will at least be an improvement not seen since 2015. Otr500 ( talk) 03:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. MB190417 ( talk) 09:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Admittedly the sources found are a bit on the weak side, but that's hardly surprising for a Finnish athlete active in the 80s; most of what was written about him will not be easily accessible online – expected also for someone notable. Anyway, this is an athlete who competed in the World Cup for years and got to the podium a couple of times, with articles in eight other languages. I've tried to make this a proper stub, rather than just one short sentence and an infobox. / Julle ( talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE (although not by much). Two podiums in the World Cup, and ski-jumping is an Olympic-level sport. He didn't participate in the 1984 Sarajevo olympics, but he was 23rd in the FIS Ski Flying World Championships 1983 (the German article is better). The source added by Julle also mentions he was the personal coach of Olympic Winner Jani Soininen so that's fairly notable as well. Obviously there's not a plethora of online sources for 1980s ski-jumping. -- Pudeo ( talk) 13:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mighty Raju. Randykitty ( talk) 14:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Mighty Raju vs The Great Pirate

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

Film I'm trying to find any notability for. Apparently there are more in this franchise, but none of them expect one (that was actually released theatrically) have a page. Either delete or redirect to Mighty Raju be the best. Wgolf ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Chhota Bheem or Mighty Raju. There is little doubt that the franchise is notable, so a pointer to it is appropriate. There does not appear to be sources to support the individual notability of this feature currently, if it is found it always can be broken out again. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sergei Lapshin

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

The subject fails all notability guidelines, WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSPERSON, and WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as violates other policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and "What Wikipedia is not". Otr500 ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Otr500 ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Otr500 ( talk) 01:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. I added some references. For a Russian coach, it helps to search for the Russian spelling of the person's name. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep has played and/or managed in WP:FPL ( Russian Professional Football League at very least]], probably higher but I can't read Russian!), so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Also likely meets GNG based on sources already provided, with assumption there are more out there. Giant Snowman 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - article about professional footballer and football manager who had a journeyman's career, but played at least 2 seasons in the Russian First Division (second level) with FK Amkar. There is some online Russian-language coverage of his playing career, and more of his recent managerial career. Article satisfies NFOOTBALL and likely satisfies GNG (although there is a banker with the same first/last name, so my google searches are pulling a mix of sources). Jogurney ( talk) 15:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I just realized Lapshin played two half seasons in the Russian Premier League with FC Krylia Sovetov and FC Chornomorets Novorossiysk - I've added references to the article - which is the highest level of professional football in Russia. Jogurney ( talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Thomas A. Marting

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

This autobiography fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:BIO. There is almost no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the award that the subject received does not appear to be sufficient to confer notability. I accepted this through AfC about a year ago in the hope that it could be brought up to standards, but that hasn't happened, and at this point doesn't appear possible. – bradv 🍁 00:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. All we seem to have here are some minor local awards and one published academic paper with a mere 15 citations in Google Scholar from other publications. It's not enough for WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other form of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Delete 15 citations for an article that is 3 years old in an emerging field of study like Biomimicry represents a lot of influence, it is not “mere.” If you search all papers published in the entire field of Biomimicry since 2016, only 6 other publications have more citations. ^[2] The work is influential across the US, being written about by Great Lakes Biomimicry in Cleveland, Ohio and the Biomimicry Institute bases in Missoula, Montana. This meets the wp:NACADEMIC criteria “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” The Maurice Holland Award is a well known national award going back 37 years, as is the environmental and energy leader 100, these are not minor local awards. This meets the WP:BIO criteria “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.” The subject was also the topic of an academic case study published by Case Western Reserve University School of Business, which demonstrates notable “influential in the world of ideas.”

— Tmarting73 ( talk) 12:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)TMarting73 — Tmarting73 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

After further study of of WP:NACADEMIC , WP:PROF#C1 and in particular WP:WHYN I’ve come to concur, within the bounds of these guidelines the article doesn’t meet the qualifications and should be deleted. An edit to Biomimetics should be considered instead. Tmarting73 ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

References

^ Boeing (2015). "Chaos Theory and the Logistic Map". Journal of the Optical Society of America B Optical Physics. 3 (5): 741. Retrieved 2015-07-16.
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Biomimicry+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&as_ylo=2016&as_yhi=2018

Google Scholar search for biomimicry finds Benyus 1997, 2943 citations; Passino 2002, 2805 citations; Esfand and Tomalia 2001, 1619 citations, etc. In contrast, Marting's paper (on which by the way he is not even first author) has a mere 15. Normally we require multiple papers with triple-digit citations in order to pass WP:PROF#C1. One paper in the low double-digits, when the field has several with quadruple digits, is clearly not enough. In addition the fact that these citations go back 20 years puts the word "emerging" in context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Google Scholar search for biomimicry since 2016 produced 222 results and finds Dumanli 2016, 73 citations; Aziz 2016, 29 citations; Paul et. al. 2017, 29 citations; Dicks 2016, 21 citations; Blok & Gremmen 2016, 20 citations; Kennedy & Marting 2016, 15 citations (they were described as co-authors when presenting their research as keynote speakers at the 2017 IRI Summit and Conference^[1], neither one was identified as a lead author) which means the work is within the top 3% in terms of influence within the last 3 years. Comparing citations for an article published in 2016 in a peer reviewed, technical journal to Dr. Benyus's groundbreaking popular book written in 1997 launching the current field of study is not a fair comparison. WP:PROF#C1 is the wrong criteria for assessment, that's intended for professors and professional academics which the subject is not, there are no guidelines in WP:NACADEMIC or WP:PROF#C1 about triple digit citations. That seems very arbitrary criteria anyway, especially when considering the amount of research varies wildly from field to field (search Scholar for "quarks" produces 11,600 results, 50 times the amount of research volume as "biomimicry" over the same time period, and naturally a higher number of citations for each entry). Also considering the subject is not a professional academic or part of any full time university research program makes the achievement of co-authoring an influential study and winning a nationally recognized prize all the more noteworthy, not less.

If notability requires a 25 year waiting period to rack up hundreds or thousands of citations in an emerging field (as biomimicry is often described^[2]^[3]^[4]) to determine, then only retirees will be notable rather than people active in the fields of research. If it takes decades for a subject clear the hurdle for notability you are doing Wikipedia as a digital platform a disservice, as it loses it's immediacy and real time value over old fashion printed encyclopedias. - Tmarting73 ( talk) 01:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

References

Even for that self-servingly specific time range, if I search only for papers with "biomimicry", "biomimic", or "biomimicking" in their titles, I get citation counts 79 (Zheng et al), 73 (Dumanji & Savin), 56 (Liu et al), 41 (Lin et al), 30 (Blok), 29 (Paul et al), 29 (Aziz), 22 (Song et al), 22 (Chen et al), 21 (Dicks), 19 (Popa et al), 19 (Wybon et al), 17 (Buck). So the Marting paper is much farther down in the rankings even of these recent papers than you claim. But it doesn't matter; even if it were the top-ranked paper in that cohort, one double-digit paper would not be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Adding those additional search terms increases the number of results to 356, still putting the Marting paper in the top 3%. The question is how many of those papers you identified won a national award like the Maurice Holland Award? Still, if your criteria for notability takes 30 years to achieve, there's no value to having a digital platform, might as well print books again. - Tmarting73 ( talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, etc. Tmarting73, who created this autobiography, now insists an award he got makes him notable. Delete the article and block the editor for wasting our time perpetrating this sham. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The Maurice Holland Award is a significant national award, there is no case for it's exclusion to meet Criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Tmarting73 ( talk) 14:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I've made a fact based argument based on the criteria established. You are perfectly welcome to contest my points, but making personal remarks and calling for me to be blocked simply because you disagree the the logical points I've made demonstrates an unwarranted personal bias on your part User:Chris troutman. Tmarting73 ( talk) 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tmarting73, editors tend to have less patience for people who are here for self-interested reasons than to generally improve the encyclopedia. This is the behavior that Chris was commenting on and reflects that some editors who cause disruption while focusing on a single topic end up blocked. You've obviously got a different perspective on this but his comment about what we call single purpose accounts (spa) reflects the feelings of many (probably even most) regular editors. This is separate from whether the article about you is notable (which he also commented on). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I apologize to Tmarting73 for what he perceived to be a personal attack. I have no enemies and I don't seek to persecute anyone. What I should have said is that our volunteer editors write this encyclopedia and get nothing, not even thanks from the home office in San Francisco, for their work. I hate to see our encyclopedia jammed up with promotional dreck and resent our editors' time being wasted cleaning up messes that should have never existed in the first place. I wish newcomers to this website would respect our volunteers enough to first do no harm. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted. I understand that there is a frustrating element out there who are out to use this platform for self promotion or whatever. I'm not selling any books and I don't have some kind of consultancy, so there's no profit to inclusion. I genuinely believe the work has significance and that it meets the established criteria for being influential, and the award is significant. Through this discussion I've come to see the criteria as it is being applied here as biased, it is obviously intentionally designed to be applied to professional academics or professors at universities who are researching in and publishing full time in well established fields, and so contributors outside of academia who are making contributions in emerging fields like biomimicry are being disadvantaged. That's unfortunate because a lot of very important work is happening in the private sector and those contributors are apparently being excluded. If the process plays out and the consensus is deletion, then fine. It's likely that if the work continues to be influential those thresholds may be passed in the future. But if nothing else, the process bias against contributions outside of academia should be obvious through this discourse, and consideration should be given as to how to improve the system. Tmarting73 ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:NPROF is what's called a SNG (Subject Notability Guide). It acts as a kind of shortcut - in most instances - to whether something is notable. If an article passes one of the criteria of an SNG most editors believe there is adequate sourcing to support an encyclopedic article and that the topic is notable. However, a person can establish themselves as notable under the broader General Notability Guideline (GNG). In this case the shortcut for non-academics is more closed off but the broader method of showing the sources themselves remains open to those outside formal academic structures who become notable through their work. As for re-examining NPROF, that has been an very active point of discussion recently. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I concur with Epstein and Troutman. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. Thsmi002 ( talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete A "best paper of the year" award from a journal isn't significant enough for WP:PROF#C2. 15 citations (by the permissive standards of Google Scholar, at that — Web of Science reports only 4) isn't "highly cited" by any stretch of the imagination. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or even WP:GNG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC). reply

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

[bo1-1] Boeing (2015). "Chaos Theory and the Logistic Map". Journal of the Optical Society of America B Optical Physics. 3 (5): 741. Retrieved 2015-07-16.

[2] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Biomimicry+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&as_ylo=2016&as_yhi=2018

[3] ttps://www.pathlms.com/iri-learningcenter/events/960/video_presentations/89205

[4] ttps://expinstitute.com/what-is-biomimicry/

[5] ttps://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-bioshift-your-organization

[6] ttps://www.entrepreneur.com/article/314248

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook