Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.
Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:
AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of location.
Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. 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|United States of America|~~~~}} 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 United States of America. 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 Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
This was already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking[1] etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I take the opposite position as above. I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from List of Internet challenges. The list merely defines "gallon smashing" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact. I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted. I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I would propose to split the article into different subsections of science; i.e. one for psychologists, one for biologists, one for chemists, etc, and make this article a list of those lists, sort of like Lists of celebrities. Mjks28 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
This would be an effort completely unrelated to the existing page, as it would not be a simple WP:SPLIT but would require a complete re-evaluation of all entries in the list. Creating lists by topic could be done by simply using categories as a starting point, without needing the existing list. In my opinion the suggested "split" is not feasible. Broc (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete While creating new lists for American chemists, etc. may be an appropriate narrowing of topics, I see no need use the existing list in any way. Recreating it as a "Lists of" or other navigation page is welcome, but again it's not necessary to use any of the current page as a starting point. Reywas92Talk15:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete no substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. — YoungForever(talk)23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [2] and [3] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
In the article, it's written: melter and refiner at the Philadelphia Mint, appointed by Washington. Perhaps it can meet GNG due to his role in the primacy of the Philadelphia mint and the early currency development of the United States. O.maximov (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing present in the article, not of the subjective significance of their job title in and of itself. So getting him over GNG would be a matter of finding adequate sourcing, not just of asserting that he had a prominent role without properly sourcing its prominence. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Redirect per above argument, and per nom. No point having a disambiguation page that just redirects both uses to the same article. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Comment they had quite a few charted songs, see [4], including biographical bit that could be used as source. Broc (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete unless sources can be found that prove the article meets WP:N and is not WP:OR. I find it hard to believe a "musical derivative" of a band not deemed notable enough to have its own article (Found Free), is itself notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.
Information about the trial
The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.
Information about what the IAP
I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.
I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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.
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator (CNBC, AP). And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete. As of now, even a redirect is premature. Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep - It's obviously clear that it's notable because the company's incorporation has been extensively covered by at least a dozen highly reputable news organizations, such as Bloomberg, The Verge, Axios, CNN, AP News, CNBC, New York Times and others. The article is worthy and notable to exist merely as a stub. Redirect does not make sense, as other notable people are involved in the organisation, including former Apple AI lead, Daniel Gross (entrepreneur), and former OpenAI researcher Daniel Levy. Additionally, Ilya having co-founded OpenAI carries significant credibility Mr Vilitalk04:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep - It's been mentioned in many of the most reputable sources and the founders are very notable. If you don't keep it at least as a stub, then the Wikipedia pages about the founders have nothing to reference. It's just a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously if it's WP:TOOSOON, it can be deleted and added back later, but it seems wiser to leave it as a stub at this point. Kfein (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The question as to whether it can be deleted is what is being discussed now. Saying it is discussed in sources does not help at AfD. We need to discuss the actual sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Your argument appears to be we should keep it because maybe we will have more time to think about it in a month? What is the policy reason to keep it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
My point is that more reliable sources may write substantive pieces about the company within the next month, expanding the scope of the article and putting to rest some of the concerns about notability. Even if this question were revisited in a year, no harm would be done. The article as it is now is perfectly appropriate and likely of value to users of Wikipedia. Kfein (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
If this, for some reason, becomes notable in a year, then any editor may apply for a WP:REFUND to get this page restored, and to develop said article. How valuable that would be is a matter of opinion. There is not really much in this article that could make it into the article of a notable version of the company. The sources here would not make the cut, and what makes it notable will be quite different from what we have now. It would be the CORPDEPTH sources that drive the creation, not these 5 sentences. But in any case, that offer is there for all deleted articles. Nothing is really deleted, it is merely tucked away safely and can always be refunded should a non notable topic one day gain notability. That being the case, there is no reason to keep this published in mainspace in the hope that one day this just may possibly be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the explanation of the restoration process. But there is plenty of reason to keep this article intact. People researching the founders of the company may want more details on the company itself, and people researching the company or competitors would find the article of value. This is a topic of great interest lately and Wikipedia offering in-depth coverage is of great benefit to Wikipedia users. The fact that so many major news outlets covered the founding of this company is proof of the widespread interest. The fact that there is a complete and detailed article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is further proof. That article could be improved by linking to this article, for instance, in the Aftermath section. Kfein (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever. I don't see any evidence this meets GNG or NCORP; the coverage so far is enough to support inclusion on Sutskever's page but I found no in-depth coverage of the company beyond the announcement of its founding. I'd be open to reassessing if the editors arguing to keep would present some of the "extensive coverage" they are arguing exists; all I see is outlets picking up the press release on its founding, and every article I looked at was essentially the same as the two linked by Walsh90210. Since there is coverage with respect to Sutskever and the company is mentioned on his page already, I don't see any issue with a redirect. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
In my opinion, this organisation's founding has independent notability due to the events related to the temporary firing of sam altman leading up to the resignation of key people at OpenAI, such as Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever
Which are discussed in various sources including examples below:
This isn't a routine company incorporation. There's a lot of history behind it that should be noted, as well as the other cofounders all having strong crediblity and notability themselves. I vote that the article remains a stub for the time being, or at worst case, drafted. A redirect here does not make sense. Mr vilitalk18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
That isn't going to pass muster for an NCORP AfD. You are saying that the startup inherits notability from notable founders. It doesn't. Under NCORP we need WP:SIRS - significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. For significance you need to consider WP:CORPDEPTH which says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
pretty much every news source is significantly covering the incorporation beyond WP:MILL, they are all talking about the history of events leading up to the incorporation which is not a usual scenario. Mr vilitalk18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS aside (and that's important, actually, because we need secondary sources), no such sources have been shown to exist yet. The above two certainly are not at CORPDEPTH. Not even close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep - The founding of Safe Superintelligence Inc. is recognized on a world wide level. One major reason is the history of Open AI, which is deeply connected to the founding of this company, see temporary firing of sam altman and the intense discussion about AI safety. Some additional sources are:
1. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But in any case, suffers as for 2-8 below
2-8. WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Someone announces they are doing something. That is a primary source. The notability of the founder is not inherited by the company. Note that all of these are the same. Just an announcement that someone notable intends to do something. These do not meet CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever per above until something happens such that this has established notability, without prejudice against recreating if this ends up being a thing. jp×g🗯️07:31, 27 June 2024 (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.
Undecided Given his career their should be more sources available. Current level of sourcing is borderline for notatability in my opinion, but more closer to delete than keep. Mn1548 (talk)
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 will help to have a much more detailed rationale. This TV has evidently ceased to exist as of about May 31, 2024, in a very low-key discontinuation. The only way people realized something was up was when it started disappearing and being replaced with other diginets by affiliates across the country. Their affiliate list was already out of date, and they had abandoned all social media in late 2023. The closest parallel is that we delete categories for defunct TV networks by affiliate, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 23#Category:Twist (TV network) affiliates). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete Even though the closing has yet to be sourced outside the few that follow such closings on YouTube and Twitter (there's not even any proper news or even a note from an affiliate noting the channel's owners are no longer programming it and what they air now), for all intents and purposes this list isn't really needed any longer and was long better handled by the category system. Nate•(chatter)18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Fairly, I can see why, I would wait for confirmation of closing from somewhere before nominating a category; the last thing we ever want to do is remove something that is still a going concern before we confirm it isn't. Nate•(chatter)20:35, 21 June 2024 (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.
Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
KeepCategory:Military planning shows plenty of lists like this with this naming convention. I don't know why, but there should be a discussion somewhere about this. The items on this list are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so this is a valid navigational list, far more useful than a category since additional information is listed. DreamFocus08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep I would argue that it is not out of date since less than a month ago there has been a big update with new auterized ships added. Otherwise I would also agree it could be renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy as mentioned by Reywas92. 102Legobrick 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC+2)
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:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: Congraph and Bloxter come up as sources, so this is more crypto-spam. I don't see this individual being covered in any RS and this reads as a fluffy resume. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Why did you remove the crypto section? Are you just anti-crypto or is there a Wikipedia policy against crypto? I am sure if I remove the writing section from Stephen King, his article would be fairly strange also. Adding it back. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete for a slew of reasons:
nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.
Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.--Escape Orbit(Talk)14:40, 26 June 2024 (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.
Scouting council is an organization, thus is expected to meet WP:NCORP which the organization in question fails miserably. Hyper-local branch of a larger organization. WP:BRANCH. I suggest delete, and re-direct to target if suitable one can be found. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin(talk)16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]
WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."
The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."
The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."
Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest230077014.
The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""
The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."
The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"
The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."
Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check. Orientls (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.
[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[8] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep for now. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.
FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.
But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.
Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHORThe person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG(talk)13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[12]
And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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 ([[[13]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[14]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[15]]]), 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)[]
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)[]
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23talk to me12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."
The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."
The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."
The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."
The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."
The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."
The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."
Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Quxyz✶02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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.
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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).[]
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)[]
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)[]
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 [16] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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 Racism by country#North America and merge relevant content to other racism-by-country articles, as applicable. There is a rough consensus that while the content is notable, bundling under "North America" is not adequately supported by sources. Owen×☎17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try relisting this one more time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete. There are many sources that discuss racism in Canada, racism in the USA, and racism in Mexico. I highly doubt there are many sources that discuss racism across the entire North American continent, especially as a distinct geographical entity from Latin America/South America. This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole. Astaire (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The last three sources (Wong Hall, Wendt, Wilkinson) appear to be using "North America" as a shorthand for Canada and the US, with little or no discussion of Mexico. The first source (Smedley) is overwhelmingly about the US: it only uses the word "Canada" twice in the text, and Mexico is only mentioned glancingly in the context of colonial exploration. Sources that are actually about "racism in North America" should at a minimum discuss all three of the continent's largest countries.
The second source (Russell) is the best, but it appears to be discussing the separate countries in isolation, rather than as a coherent "North American" unit. See e.g. "Chapter 4: Immigration", which has sections on "European Immigration in the United States", "Anglophones, Francophones, and Multiculturalism" (in Canada), and "A Dearth of Immigrants in Mexico". Or "Chapter 5: Race Mixture", which has sections on "México Mestizo", "The Canadian Métis", and "Racially Mixed and Socially Black in the United States". Or "Chapter 9: Racial Contours of North America", which has sections on "Legacies of Slavery, War, and Colonialism in the United States", "Mestizos, Indians, and Criollos in Mexico", and "Visible Minorities and First Peoples in Canada". So using this source would result in the same WP:SYNTH issues that the article currently suffers from.
Keep: 2 of the 3 articles indicated as overlapping with this one were created after this one was. I think it's a matter of coverage depth and I do see reasons (content, coherence) to keep this one while having the others cover each country more specifically. Other articles such as Racism in South America, Racism in Europe, etc, exist. I don't see why this one should be deleted because North America is comprised of only three countries. Edit: please note that "racism in North America" is mentioned 867 times as an expression in Google Scholar. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2024 (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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: