This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).
Aprevious AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:
This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
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.
WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is as a city and county councillor, which is not a level of office that guarantees "inherent" notability to every holder of it -- politicians at the local levels of government have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on writing and sourcing a substantive article about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city/county, etc.) rather than just verifying that they exist. But as written, this effectively just states that he exists and verifies his local election results, while containing absolutely none of the type of content that is actually required to establish the notability of a local councillor, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and community hyperlocals within the county being cited only to verify that he campaigned for and/or won election to the job rather than analyzing his work in the job. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be written and sourced more substantially than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN - Vapid credentials, in the claim that he's won some low-level elections, but I can't find anything in the way of accomplishments. For instance (https://www smcgov.org/district-3), "We are working every day to improve the quality of life for all San Mateo Residents". Like what? What is he doing? Article was created by an IP's only contribution to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2024 (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.
Delete: Not meeting criminal notability, and the pro rock climbing career is rather non-notable. I don't see the required level of notability to have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had tagged this page as a WP:BLP1E while patrolling and planned to circle back to it. This subject has zero notability as a climber (i.e. nothing in mainstream climbing media per WP:NCLIMBER), and outside of this case, has no notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (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.
Delete: The fact that this person was interviewed by The Myanmar Times interested me, so I conducted a thorough search for sources, looking up every single movie he was involved with. However, I could only find one review from VarietyonThe Last Eve,[1] which the subject person made a glancing mention as one of four executive producers. In other words, his entire filmography consists of either unnotable projects or roles that were too minor to be considered significant contributions to the productions. I then saw that he was said to have debuted in Hong Kong action cinema, so I tried to look him up on the Hong Kong Movie Database (where information is generally well-preserved), but I could not even find him listed. With only one interview source and all their film involvement being insignificant, the subject person fails both GNG and NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）18:08, 17 June 2024 (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.
Newer article created in March 2024; sourced ok enough, but the information doesn't seem to be related to the subject very much. I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main category for this one would be nauthor, but the books do not seem to have had a wide audience (e.g. listed as #30K in the religious and spiritual category on Amazon, #300K in Christianity). One book seems to have an independent publisher ("Destiny Image") but the other (2 volume) seems to be published by the organization Fire and Fragrance which he is associated with. Lamona (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (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. To this point, those arguing to keep the article have pointed out correctly that WP:GEOFEAT extends presumed notability to nationally protected places; however, they are incorrect that presumed notability means inherent notability (see definition of presumed at WP:GNG). There is thus a very high burden of proof on those arguing to delete the article to show that the subject is not notable in spite of its presumed notability (this would be the same as coming to a decision that an article that had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" was still not "worthy of notice" in spite of the sources). Those arguing to delete the article have not convincingly demonstrated that this is the case (arguments about lack of sources are an okay start but nobody has addressed the Mercury News references). More convincing are concerns about a close paraphrasing, which this clearly is, but I think this can be dealt with outside of an AfD.
Even if I assign more weight to either side based on policy, I do not see or expect a consensus to emerge from further discussion, so I am closing this now. Malinaccier (talk)19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all places on the National Register are inherently notable. This article is primarily a paraphrase of the application form (which is neither reliable nor independent), and its only other sources are press releases and other paraphrases of the application form. I can't find any better sources for this, so it fails WP:GNG. – bradv16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create as stub. There's zero doubt that Situated within a 1952 urban expansion zone southwest of San Jose's early Willow and other phrasing is plagiarized and edited with an LLM to not be detectable as easily. A stub can exist about Fairglen, but the copy is problematic as is the sourcing. The latter is why I think it's TNT territory. StarMississippi16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long standing consensus that the documentation needed for a place to meet the NRHP qualifies those buildings for articles under GNG. I'm not sure I necessarily completely agree, but it does look like there is enough there for an article here. I haven't done a COPYVIO search on this one and it does need cleanup, but I don't see the problem with having an article. SportingFlyerT·C16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike possibly most here, I just finished reading that long ... long ... long NRHP form, word by word. The Fairglen Additions are indeed notable. I have no doubt of the notability here. However, it would be helpful if there could be more independent sources (newspapers, etc.) added. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: But doesn't this beg the question, is notability determined by wikipedia's criteria or by someone else's criteria for some other purpose? Even if that someone else is the US Congress. (I can't help but think that the argument that a body in any other country had designated something as notable wouldn't be so easily presumed to be the only argument needed). My read of WP:GEOFEAT is exactly that - a national body saying something is notable should give a presumption of notability here, but is does not necessarily in every case all that is needed. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I would like to emphasize that the only reason this addition is notable is because of Joseph Eichler, and his "Eichler Homes". Eichler is mentioned 110 times in this NRHP document citation [2]. The article, should be redirected or merged to Joseph Eichler or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is just that - an addition - to Willow Glen. The reason for its NRHP status is because of the mid-century modern architect/builder Eichler. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the presumption of notability means that there would need to be something overwhelming to prove that presumption wrong. For example, an archeological site on the NRHP, without any publicly available address and any published reports, is one of the few exceptions to this presumption of notability. For what it's worth, this can probably be covered in the Willow Glen, San Jose, article without any problem - we've done this for other NRHP districts as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which says they are presumed notable, which is not the same thing. This is the heart of the question: what would overturn that presumption in favour of notability? My argument would be a total lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS. If all that can be said about it is to paraphrase the (non-neutral) application form for such status, then I do not see how the presumption should apply. And if consensus is that they are notable, I would then agree with Star Mississippi that articles that merely paraphrase the application form should be WP:TNTed. Melcous (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to the mid-century modern developer/architect Joseph Eichler who is indeed notable (or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is a subdivision). It is the fact that Eichler was the architect/developer that is the key core of why this addition achieved NRHP status in the first place. I also somewhat agree with Star Mississippi that this might be a candidate for WP:TNT and stubbification, however I feel more strongly about the redirect. I also agree with Melcous's comment regarding WP:GEOFEAT; not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable, rather the entries are presumed notable not inherently notable. The lack of GNG and RS is key to that argument. Redirect seems like the best solution.Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, or at least "don't delete" per WP:GEOFEAT. As to the claim that "not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable", in practice almost everything on the NRHP is listed because it is notable for some reason; these reasons are given in the NRHP nomination form. However, given the copyright concerns, it may be proper to consider a WP:TNT rewrite, anyway.
As to the claim that the "application form isn't reliable", that's just plain wrong. Draft applications are not reliable, but final registration forms have been vetted by architectural experts and historians. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: The form itself is just basic information about what criteria it passed to be on the NRHP. To write an article about the property, the user must do other research, just like creating any other article. Some NRHP articles are written better than others, but the basic sourcing should be research beyond what is on the NRHP form. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66, thanks for the clarification. I have no other comments on the registration form itself, but I agree with you that articles should cite additional sources as well, not just the form. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per SportingFlyer and Eastmain. This has been discussed before. Places on the National Register are inherently notable. Lacking RS is not a reason for deletion because the article can always be edited/shortened if necessary. CFA💬17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda: is there a link available to a previous discussion where there is consensus that being on a/any national body's register makes notability inherent rather than presumed, i.e. more than reasons given in a discussion about a particular site? If not, I'd be keen for this broader discussion to occur as this would make literally millions of sites around the world qualify for an article even without WP:SIGCOV (or indeed any coverage). Personally, I can't help but feel the National Register argument is a little US-centric, and wonder if the discussion would be the same I started creating articles for the 20,000+ nationally heritage listed sites in my small part of the world, or if one of our friends from an Asian or African country did the same. Melcous (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2024 (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.
Article is technically ineligible for a G5, because it got hit by two different UPE socks editing in violation of their respective blocks, and technically ineligible for PROD due to being deleted by PROD before (and, before that, speedied twice).
Subject themselves does not appear significant- out all all the sources, [3] is an interview(by which I mean it's a scan or a print-out she filled in in blue ballpoint), [4] is a site selling her art, [5] is an interview, [6] is from a gallery displaying her art(she was their 'Artist in Resident' at the time of publication), [7] mentions her once in a list, [8] is a link to two interviews, [9] is an interview, [10] is the same as 2 (and still selling her art), [11] is an interview, [12] is her own site, [13] is a video interview, [14] is an interview, [15] is about her art installation, not her, [16] is about her art show, not her, [17] and [18] are the same interviews earlier, this time individually linked, [19] is about a different artist's exhibit that she painted fireworks for(not sigcov worthy fireworks), [20] actually has a paragraph on her (again, not rising to sigcov), [21] has a whole two paragraphs (best source so far), [22] is an announcement of a talk she will give, [23] mentions her work for about two sentences (but is mostly about other artists- but also the second best source), [24] is about an art exhibit, not her, and the Facebook events link is a link on Facebook for an event she planned. I have looked around for additional sources, and haven't found any that would help the subject meet the WP:GNG. And, given that there were two users blocked for likely UPE and socking looking very hard to find such sources, I don't see myself finding any they've missed.
She doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, because the three pieces about her work don't show that she's widely cited or influential, gotten known for originating a new concept, theory, or technique, that she has a major work (or body of works). Her work also hasn't been incorporated into any significant monuments, significant exhibitions, been in a permanent collection or garnered much critical reception. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN and all I can find is an article in her school's paper [25]. Source analysis above is good, I don't find anything extra we can use to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect the photo is a copyvio, but can't find anything else on the web about it. UPE and paid promotion seem to use copyvio photos here... Oaktree b (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2024 (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.
Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[26]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[27]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[28]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions. spryde | talk13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, basically. Just no notability. This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council, that one is not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is not notable, as councils, even with so many references (many of which are primary), are not notable to begin with. Also, there isn't much coverage on the topic. HarukaAmaranth09:27, 15 June 2024 (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.
Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. There is one secondary source, about a small fire in 2004, which does not make the council/camp notable--and one wonders whose bottle rockets they were. Councils/camps from the BSA or any other organization are rarely notable in their own right and this one is no expection. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (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 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 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.
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Quxyz✶02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (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.
Delete: I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [29]; regardless, it's a name drop. What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer. I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned). There's also this which I can't find online.
Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October
Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [30], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [31] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC, and probably WP:BLP1E as well. I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (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 sourcing that exists is very weak. Several are interviews with the app's co-founder/promoter, Joyner Lucas, who is a notable musician, but notability is not inherited from him. Other sources appear to be either PR-based; press releases reposted onto other websites. A few passing mentions. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, particularly if HNHH is not considered reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (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.
This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this, and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service. It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP. As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404. I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (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.
Delete It's hard to be notable as a poet, but even giving some latitude I don't think this person achieves notability. He has published books of poetry but all of the ones I can find were published by Cahuenga Press of which he is one of the owners. The books aren't widely held in libraries (cf WorldCat). He is an academic but I only found two articles by him and neither had any citations. Lamona (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2024 (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.
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.
This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch☎✎11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2024 (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. Neither of the two Keep views offered a cogent, P&G-based argument, and were discarded, leaving us with a unanimous consensus to delete. Owen×☎21:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject appears to fall afoul of WP:CRIM, specifically the criminal...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
I would contend that neither of these conditions is met. I don't think there's any argument that the motivation or execution of the crime itself was unusual or of historic importance, or that the victim was a renowned individual. While it was stated at RFUD that the subject is a high-profile individual, coverage since their fall from grace (i.e. post-2018) is extremely limited, and that which does exist ([32]) suggests that the subject is intentionally avoiding the limelight and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Following the guidance at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, I would conclude that Huddleston is a low-profile individual at this time.
Even before the indictment, significant coverage in RS is limited to the context of Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum; if we had an article on that topic (or if the biography of his father Floyd Huddleston, made any mention of Huston and/or we had a source to back up that claim) a redirect outcome would be appropriate, but we don't at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"On December 30, 1965, Huddleston married Nancy Adams, a commercial jingle singer, at the First Baptist Church chapel in Memphis, Tennessee. Huddleston died from a heart attack on September 27, 1991, at a hospital located in Panorama City, Los Angeles. Huddleston was survived by his wife Nancy, his son, Huston, and his mother, Hettye T. Huddleston." Miri1966 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please also note that Huston Huddleston has not been avoiding limelight and has been making independent films (hiring underage actresses) which he has posted about on his own social media. It does not seem relevant to include in the article but it is in context for why the article should remain. Miri1966 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say his notability is due entirely to being Floyd Huddleston's son, only that it is not true that Floyd's biography fails to mention him.
His notability is anchored in his own activities as a writer/director which are ongoing; the museum project which has had numerous news articles and financial campaigns; his conviction which merits documentation as he has continued to work in both listed areas. Miri1966 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a couple articles I don't think this guy deserves an article but he is attempting to open a museum for kids as a convicted pedophile. This is a developing situation in the media with a lot of coverage .Since it is in the public interest and ongoing , I vote keep. Bigwombat (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a perfect example of WP:ONEEVENT. The news stories picked it up for a news cycle, and then immediately didn't care about him. He wasn't notable before or after the short flurry of news coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an ongoing event for years between 2018 and 2024 and there are additional news sources that I can provide - additional information may still be pending. This information being captured here has been critical. Miri1966 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know AfD is not cleanup but in its current state this article is so incoherent that there is no credible claim to notability (basically what others have said above), which makes assessing sources for GNG kinda irrelevant. The two !votes to keep are unconvincing – the first doesn't seem to be based on policy at all, while the second says I don't think this guy deserves an article (not sure if that's argued on grounds of morality or notability) and seems to be taking a RGW perspective. Toadspike[Talk]19:21, 25 June 2024 (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.
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:28, 19 June 2024 (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.
This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items and trade journal mentions of this product. Agree that what's used now in the article isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2024 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of recently located sources, perhaps from the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a lot of buzz about a pine-tar incident (not to the point of 1E, but a factor in considering one of the smaller publications above), but I'm convinced that the TP-NOLA articles are very in-depth and secondary, and the WDSU coverage is suitably in-depth. Would it be better if there were more widespread coverage? Yeah, but I think this meets the GNG under a generous reading of WP:THREE. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]16:35, 20 June 2024 (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.
I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack ‡c (Researcher in security studies)". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [37]soWP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:
with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.
...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk(nest)01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The delete !votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading. Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances. Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is. Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting policy question. We have policies for WP:ANYBIO, which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". It isn't clear to me how we would determine that. Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR. That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...". Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field. One way is to look for citations, another would be awards. The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case. With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination? Lamona (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications. Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language. Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him. I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something)Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (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.
Nominating following PROD and refund request.
Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
Delete: No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [38], but not really about the organization. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (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.
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (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.
Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (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.
Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).
In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.
If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
Scott
p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found twobook reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found fourmorebookreviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!
Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.
If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.
Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.
Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
