Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Utah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wcquidditch (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 22 May 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_English (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Utah. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Utah|~~~~}} 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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
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 Utah. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Utah

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin English

Justin English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP appears to be of a reasonably successful but otherwise ordinary early-career professor. I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG. Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1. Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, New York, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nomination. He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present. I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission. It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain (talk · contribs) and Qcne (talk · contribs). Adam Black t • c 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping @Adam Black GB. I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC, and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles. Happy to defer to consensus in this case. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work at AfC. For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h-index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers. I'm surprised this got through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale. At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines. Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable? The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself. Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1. In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles. If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The comments above citing WP:Too soon are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlassian (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to clarify a thing here. WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style, and explain what purposes of lists are; it now a way to determine notability, which can only be done through WP:NLIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is a list article relating to a notable hobby (stamp collecting) and with notable members (stamp clubs)—although arguably the latter is not a requirement for a list topic; you could have a list article even if none of its members are individually notable. It is not necessary to find a reliable source that says, "the following is a list of stamp clubs in the United States", but any source that does something along those lines may be cited, even if it is A) a directory—Wikipedia is not a directory; that doesn't mean that directories cannot be used as sources—or B) it only lists some of the clubs mentioned in this list. It is unnecessary to cite a source to say that a club whose name identifies what it is is a stamp club. At most, individual items that are identifiable as stamp clubs by their name just need a source to show that they exist (or did at one point), and for that purpose a directory is fine. Even this is unnecessary for items that link to articles about notable clubs, which are documented in the linked articles. Satisfying these requirements should be exceptionally easy... P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited as many of the entries as I could find at least a directory or event listing for in general philatelic literature. And to repeat, WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here; it is well-established that items that are not individually notable may be combined into list articles. Stamp collecting is clearly a notable topic, and as mentioned above there is indeed considerable literature on the subject, including stamp collecting societies, their history, membership, and publications. I have cited a number of examples to verify the stamp clubs listed; there was of course much more activity and many more publications in the early twentieth century, when social clubs and their publications were a staple of American life.
Most of this body of literature is not freely-accessible online, but enough is available in previews and snippet views on Google Books to verify the existence of most of the stamp clubs mentioned, along with their location and some other details—and for the purposes of this article, which is merely a list of philatelic societies in the United States, that is sufficient to warrant their inclusion. Many more could be added if the literature on the subject were easier to access, or someone spent more than a couple of days poring over such periodicals at the library. P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Utah&oldid=1225039722"