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.
Agreed thank you. I wrote articles, about various organizations in NER region, to fill the gap between the region and Wikipedia. I agree that more sources would be needed Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 24 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 or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find Wesea and any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 24 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.
Previous draftified by Wikishovel and I — returned to mainspace without any improvements that show notability. Essentially a WP:MILL business person. No SNGs apply here and there is no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search only returns his Linkedin and a Google News search returns nothing at all. I've manged to find one 2008 NYT article (referenced in the article) which trivially mentions his name once in a quote/interview and that's it. CFA💬17:24, 21 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. This was virtually certainly heading for deletion anyway, but there's no point wasting further editor time on it, because in addition to the other reasons for deletion, it qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G5, as the article was created by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:57, 23 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.
Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92Talk01:12, 24 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 speedy keep. I unfortunately don't believe that this is likely to result in deletion at this point. This withdrawal doesn't foreclose future nominations, nor does this mean that I agree with any rationale presented here. (non-admin closure)HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was dePRODed in 2010 for being a "possibly valid combination article" -- however, this article consists of original research (in particular, it features a user's feature testing), and cleaning that up would amount to blanking the page. I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation? Relevant diffs would be helpful.
The latest substantive addition ([1]) appears to be sourced. Is it not? How so?
The only editor you notified hasn't edited in over a decade. More productive I'd think to notify active editors who you say introduced WP:OR into the article, since that's your basis for your claim that the only alternative to deletion is blanking the page. If they disagree I'd like to know why.
WP:STARTOVER would waste tens of hours of work that have been put into this article.
You're not going to find much in terms of WP:RS citing whether a JavaScript editor supports feature X or Y.
This Wikipedia page is the most impartial, reliable, visible, and easy to find place to collaborate on this work. Please let those willing to put effort into it, do so. You're welcome to join and improve the article. -- Dandv05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All of the reasons listed are not valid reasons for deletion — everything can be fixed through editing. We don't delete articles just because they are unsourced. WP:TNT is irrelevant here (and should not be used for cleanup reasons like this anyways) because everything here can easily be fixed: References can be added, unverifiable statements can be removed. This is not a BLP so not everything has to have an inline citation. And if we were to TNT this, who's going to recreate the better version, especially when this version is already written and detailed? This is completely pointless and I suggest the nominator withdraw. CFA💬15:13, 22 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [2] and [3]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [4] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLeap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I lean towards trimming the page and leaving the basic information. Redirecting to another page is not optimal either. The person has a basic level of notable media coverage and is generally notable. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have both Torch (company) and Leap Motion, I think there's a reasonable argument to keep this for the same kinds of reasons we keep authors of multiple notable books, painters of multiple notable paintings, etc. But I don't like it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 12 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.
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.
Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:40, 21 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. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympia article is a dead link, it doesn't lead anywhere. I believe this article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV either. Sourcing of BLPs have to be precise. The ones that Broc added seem to have more coverage of it, but is it significant enough to have the article stay on Wikipeida? Normanhunter2 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how the La Stampa article does not show WP:SIGCOV? This is an article on national press, entirely dedicated to the subject who just won the national tournament of his sport, detailing his previous career achievements and his personal life. Broc (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the personal life section, it says he studied at a university, this is too broad, and it won't stand even with a reference without a specific pinpoint of what university the person studied at.
Can you explain what you mean by "it's too broad, it won't stand"? And how is the content of the page related to the notability of the subject? The article content does not determine notability, see WP:CONTN. Broc (talk) 21:22, 22 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.
There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 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. Does not meet WP:NGYMNAST criteria and fails WP:NSPORTS without independent coverage. Sources in article are limited to competition results and a profile in her alma mater's publication (thus non-independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit12:21, 21 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 has this page been submitted for deletion? It features an international touring artist, Sean Taylor and all of the references and resources are correct. I received an email from someone working from Wiki Crafter saying the page was scheduled for deletion ...
"Not the best" is remarkably charitable. The former reference is an interview with the subject; the latter is mostly written by the subject. Rather than "not the best", perhaps "feeble". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources (incl. the ones found by Oaktree b) don't meet WP:GNG, and there's nothing in the article to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. Haven't done a BEFORE, I assume OP did that, but happy to reconsider if someone presents some evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found name checks (lists of artists who performed at a festival) and sales sites, and his own site (which has an identical paragraph to the opening one here). I do not know how significant the UK Blues Award is - I do find references to it in a search - but being nominated but not winning is surely not enough for notability. Lamona (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention that Oaktree b has found the best sources I've seen so far (which is not unexpected for this editor, whose contributions here on afd are among those I find most useful). Those sources are rather chatty and read more like interviews or conversations than true independent sources. They don't bring this bio up to GNG but I could be convinced that we're seeing TOO SOON. I still don't think we can keep this one as currently notable. Lamona (talk) 23:46, 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.
Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [11][12][13][14][15][16] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 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.
Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma That is a 476 page book in Azerbaijani, not Russian. It mentions this battle in passing on page 105, and the glowing phrasing combined with the provenance (published by an Azerbaijani publishing house, by a professor at an Azerbaijani state university) makes me doubtful of its reliability (here is a paper by Ceylan Tokluoğlu explaining the significant unreliability of Azerbaijani academia on these topics, a subject also touched on by Svante Cornell in his various writings on the NK conflict). signed, Rosguilltalk17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [17]. I have opened a SPI case [18]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 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.
This article was created [19] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [20] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: ? I guess... This exists [21], [22] or [23]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 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.
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sourcing is PR items or non-RS. I don't find any other sources we can use, SALT so this doesn't come back in a month. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find articles that he has written, and he has been on Fox News. The main source about him regards a lawsuit he filed against a former employer. That would not be sufficient for notability. I tried shortening his name to "James Fishback" which is what I mostly found in the sources in the article but that brought up mainly false hits. The article is ref-bombed and if the excess were removed it would be a very thin article indeed. Lamona (talk) 05:30, 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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Delete - Not notable, per searches. This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website. Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the "our brands" section here [25] which lists a couple of titles but not this one. If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid not, no. It would not be an independent source. I merely drew attention to that lack to point out that even the publisher does not provide information from which a page could be created. But to be notable for an article, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. At this stage, none appear to exist. If you are in a position where you could change Reflector media's coverage of this on their web page then it is likely that you would have an undisclosed conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 24 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 fails WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)03:05, 21 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.
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]
Redirect to Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 11 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.
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.
Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Commentary in relation to WP:NALBUM number two and the new information that this EP charted in Japan? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the target mentioned above. Prolonged discussion and scrutinty has produced relatively little. The reason it needs to be merged is that the discography page currently claims that Foot in Mouth did not chart in Japan. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 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.
Draftify: I agree that this article should be draftified. More coverage needs to be sourced from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. AstridMitch (talk) 4:40, 19 June 2024
Delete – All coverage to my eye is either not independent of the subject, or is a WP:TRIVIAL mention. Fails GNG on this basis. My search was unable to turn up sources to prove notability, however they may exist in non-English languages. I am not opposed to incubating should there exist interest in improving the article in that namespace and demonstrating notability either via GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Bgv. (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no hits on ProQuest and only trivial coverage elsewhere, and it's unlikely there will be SIGCOV in the near future if nothing has come up in the two weeks since her medaling, so I don't see a reason to draftify. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 23 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. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage. Only 2 sources on the page and that are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:26, 24 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 article was marked in 2013 as requiring better citation, and has not progressed with citations nor with clear information about activity in the field. Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been deleted on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurstsDrewth01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS showing significant coverage. Plenty of promotional articles in dubious sources repeating always the same information. Broc (talk) 07:48, 22 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.
Another referral from WP:BLPN. This article is a product of original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:
If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:
And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".
As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.
Delete Hello MrHaligonian, and welcome. You, me and everyone else are compelled by the rules of the project. Some of these scandals may be notable in and of themselves, but creating an article listing them all under a common banner is a form of synthesis called original research, which is disallowed. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the volunteer willing to make the necessary improvements has withdrawn. Keep because we have an editor willing to Split it into two My knee-jerk reaction is that this is probably notable enough to keep. Now to read with care... Okay, the main complaint is OR, right? The first two sources cited look RS at first blush, but they do not actually state the information they're cited to support. The source has to say the thing! Continuing... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, I did a source sampler on the article talk page. I propose that we Refocus the article to "Medical professional scandals at Dalhousie University": 1) The article's sources are mostly RS, but I did not see any that said "We're talking about the specific concept of medical professional scandals in Nova Scotia." The claims made in the lede that NS has a pervasive culture of harassment need to be backed up by sources that say exactly that or almost exactly that, and the sources just don't say that. 2) A big chunk of the article focuses on scandals that happened at Dalhousie University specifically and almost all of the statements made by sources do support what happened there. A few explore why in good detail. The case can be made for notability. I say we snip off that section at the bottom about the health service and repurpose these editors' hard work as a DU article. I didn't go into as much depth on the sources covering the Health Authority, but if the sources are of the same quality, then we could WP:CONTENTSPLIT the article in two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to read the sources and come up with a creative idea that allows my hard work to be kept. I agree with you that it's mostly Dalhousie University problems, because as far as I can tell, everything that happened at Nova Scotia Health Authority also happened at Dalhousie University as all were employed as trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) at Dalhousie, or they were doing research there. The only part that has nothing to do with Dalhousie is the part about repeated privacy breaches, as the news media only says it was healthcare professionals looking at hundreds of records that they weren't authorized to, and the lawsuit had NSHA pay out $1 million with a new lawsuit & allegations of negligence as of last month. I would be good with having the majority of the sources moved into a Dalhousie University article by someone who knows how to write this better/quote the sources better (maybe you, Darkfrog24) and I don't know what to do with the NSHA-only parts.
For the record, I originally had another section on private practice scandals that someone felt violates BLP so it was removed. That further pigeonholes this article into being mostly about Dalhousie and less about the whole of Nova Scotia. MrHaligonian (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell,
There's your kicker. It's not about what you can tell or what I can tell. It's about what professionally published sources can tell. The article has sources that say "medical scandals are a specific thing in Dalhousie" and "medical scandals are a specific thing in the Health Authority," but it's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to add that together as yourself-the-Wikieditor and say "therefore they're a thing in Nova Scotia." Even if you are a professional investigator of this specific issue IRL, you have to wait for a pro to publish. That's true throughout project Wiki: Chemists aren't allowed to write chemistry articles without sources even though they're experts. Historians aren't allowed to write history articles without sources even though they're experts. We all need sources, and those sources have to say the thing that the article says or strongly implies.
The kind of source you'd need for "Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia" would be something like a newspaper article analyzing multiple scandals and talking about what it is about Nova Scotia specifically that made them happen or made them happen the way they did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thank you. It is possible such an article exists and I just haven't found it yet. I did find, in another search, 4 more articles about serious scandals in Nova Scotia Health Authority. So this would provide more material for an NSHA article if we were to proceed with splitting a Dalhousie University medical scandals article off from an NSHA article:
I think the entirety of my article up to, and NOT including, my last paragraph about privacy breaches, can be transitioned to a DU-specific article, since everyone in the paragraphs above the NSHA privacy breaches were training or doing research at DU and DU is therefore significantly involved even if NSHA ended up being the one getting sued. For example, the Dr. Horne case involved her doing research at DU and older colleagues demanded to receive undue credit on her research, which is very much a DU culture problem, but NSHA suspended her privileges so it was NSHA that got sued. The fact of toxic culture issues at DU remain in that case though, along with all the other cases where DU was involved. I am actually now starting to realize that the toxic culture issues are primarily a DU problem, and NSHA problems are of a different nature entirely, more along the lines of disregard for privacy and medical mistakes, rather than being a "toxic workplace" issue. My goal with this article was to primarily comment on toxic workplace issues because that's what we constantly hear about from medical professionals in this province.
So I'm thinking to split the articles into 2:
1. Dalhousie University Medical Scandals (or some such name to refer to the toxic workplace issues that repeatedly recur) and
As this relates to article deletion, I think we can all take this as evidence that there is a Wikieditor willing to do the legwork. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two I don't know if I can vote on my own article, but of course I vote to keep it. If it helps, I understand the opening sentences were seen as "synthesis", so I took the feedback from Darkfrog24 that the sources have to specifically say the thing, and I reworded the opening to specifically say the thing. Also noting Dalhousie University is the largest university in the Maritimes (covering 3 provinces - NB, PEI, NS) and that would add to the notability. It's also one of the oldest universities in Canada, though I didn't add that because I am not sure if that makes any difference. MrHaligonian (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) • Note: Double vote stricken by de-bolding in favor of newest vote. JFHJr (㊟) 02:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder how to make it a "list article", so that it's basically a summarized list of all the scandals, instead of "original research" and "synthesis". I don't know what the criteria are for making it a list. As it stands now, with the opening sentences revised, I feel like this is just a list of scandals at Dalhousie, and a list of scandals at the provincial health authority, and both of those fall under the realm of "Nova Scotia". If it's considered "synthesis" to combine them in 1 then I understand the content split argument, though the 2 articles separated would be basically stubs, and also there is considerable overlap between the two as it's not possible for someone to be a medical trainee at Dalhousie without also being a Nova Scotia Health Authority employee, and most NSHA employees involved in the scandals were also training or doing research at Dalhousie. But the privacy breach scandals with a $1million class action lawsuit payout and a new class action lawsuit pending seem to have no link to Dalhousie. This is why I think it's good to have them both together under 1 article, but if it is "synthesis" to identify that Dalhousie and NSHA together fall under the umbrella of Nova Scotia, then I guess splitting is the only option... MrHaligonian (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list article requires discrete events to list that have articles (are independently notable by themselves). They generally stand in the same WP:CATEGORY in some way. It substitutes for a genre-type article where no source (presently) supports one. What we have here is an article that's knitting together topics from apparently one or more discrete categories without the IRL support for tying them together. Completely unsarcastically, MrHaligonian would be a great journalist, and I bet local publishers would publish a synthesis like this. It's okay for them to do that, just not us. It takes three or more willing publishers though, so perhaps save this article's raw code locally and bring this to media attention if you care about the issue. FYI I usually ravage BLP related articles especially, either before or during AfD, but I didn't here in case you wanted to sandbox or WP:DRAFT this. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and the compliment. We did end up removing the BLP-related private practice one and I haven't brought it back in. The scandals listed in the article now are less about living people and more about the institutions. The living people are just being quoted/mentioned, very similar to the source material and not synthesizing them. If you're going to ravage this at some point, please compare with the original articles and be gentle. The point I was trying to get across was what the institutional/cultural problems are, not biographing living people. There is a lot more to say about Dr. Gabrielle Horne per information about her online, but I'm not biographing her and just included the news article information about how DU/NSHA did her dirty. MrHaligonian (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for this AFD to take its course before considering offering a scalpel or cleaver. Thank you for your efforts in addressing the BLP concerns. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally allowed to vote. You're what we call the "first major contributor" to the article. That means you get to set a few precedents for the article going forward, but other than that it's not treated as yours per se. (So you get to vote and aren't treated as inherently biased just for having made said contribution.) I like to think of it as as soon as I hit "publish changes," I've given the content to the Wiki as a present. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is allowed, welcomed, and reasoned (which is important, thank you!). You can also change it if you want, or add a "Strong" or "Weak" if you're feeling so. Decisions here are ultimately by WP:CONSENSUS, so generally comments and votes here get considered according to what you say and not who you are. Deletion is a drastic question but we aren't drastic about it I hope. JFHJr (㊟) 04:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus. The closing options in AFD are limited to Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. This can't be closed with an order to Split this article as editing is voluntary and a closer can't order an editing task to occur. So, if this article is to be Split, you first have to vote to Keep it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Based on the above discussion, I suggest we keep this with a plan to split into two: Dalhousie University having their own page on their medical scandals, and redirect the NSHA-specific redirect pages to Nova Scotia Health Authority by copy & pasting the small section on NSHA scandals into a new small section on scandals at the bottom of that existing Nova Scotia Health Authority article. Alternatively, if it's not felt that Dalhousie University Medical Scandals should be its own page, then the same can be done with the DU scandal material by copy & pasting that section into the bottom of the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine article as a new scandals section - which may work out better if JFHJr will continue with the threat to take a "scalpel or cleaver" to the material and thus shorten it significantly. Note that if removing BLP-related content, please try to maintain as much of the scandal-related material as possible, even if removing names of the people involved. The only hitch on this is that the Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, while technically falling under the umbrella of a "medical" scandal, is its own faculty separate from the Faculty of Medicine (it's the Faculty of Dentistry) so if all of that is being redirected to Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine then some rewording would be necessary to point out how the Faculty of Dentistry scandal is closely related but from a separate faculty that appears to not have their own Wiki page. --MrHaligonian (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up, you've made it look like you voted twice. That's not that big of a deal since both statements are signed, but this paragraph belongs in the thread with your original post, right under J's comment about not being drastic. This way, people reading the thread quickly won't mistake you for two people. (Feel free to remove this statement of mine when you move this post.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I voted again is because this was relisted because of no consensus. My original vote was skewed toward "split into two" and that is apparently not an option. Your vote was also "split into two" and I think they're saying that they want something that is either Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. I get the sense that we should both remove our original votes and put a firm, allowed vote here below the relist? I removed my original "keep" and just left the incorrect "split into two" for the arguments there, but my final vote is Keep or Redirect with the material being split. MrHaligonian (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrHaligonian, you can't "vote" more than once. Please strike the vote you no longer have or another editor might strike out one of the votes on your behalf. It's better that you choose which one. LizRead!Talk!06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See where I went back and changed the bold text of my vote? Do that. You can make a crossout by writing "strike" in format like this: <strike>Split into two</strike> Keep. It's okay that it's located above the relist notice. People know to look for it there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrHaligonian: Relisting just means the voting period was prolonged. It doesn't mean we all (get/have to) vote again. AfD would be even more of a madhouse. If you don't do so yourself, I'm inclined to strike your first vote because your second one appears to be a somewhat substantive departure from your original vote, and appears intended as an update or refactoring. I'd like to have this discussion represent your position accurately but only once. Please revert me and strike tour second vote if I'm wrong. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bow out of editing on Wikipedia. If the ultimate decision is to keep or redirect, hopefully someone else will do it based on whatever the consensus is on the best way to move around the material! Ciao. MrHaligonian (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can be frustrating and you're not the only person to decide that your time and energy are better spent elsewhere. Good luck and maybe see you later if you change your mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 2 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.
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 [29] so WP: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.
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.
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.
A search of sources including historical newspapers has not uncovered anything that might assist this subject to meet WP:GNG. Assertions of historical significance that might contribute to WP:NBUILDING are sourced to a student newspaper, which per WP:RSSM cannot contribute to notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:43, 21 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.
