Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Billinghurst (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 21 June 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Marchi.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 20 June 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Marchi

Cristian Marchi (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)

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia (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)

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]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Canada. 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:
https://www.ted.com/talks/gabrielle_horne_how_a_doctor_used_medical_research_tools_to_survive_workplace_bullying?language=en
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:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-medical-school-mistreatment-harassment-bullying-1.6712113
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/medical-resident-mistreatment-study-dalhousie-1.7058488
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.
MrHaligonian (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    and per Fram. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:50, 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.
My first article got deleted too. I've since gone on to make many more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nova-scotia-medical-mistakes-registry-085610510.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/10318288/pictou-landing-first-nation-accuse-radiologists-secret-tests/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ambulance-service-emc-ehs-health-emergency-1.7131333
https://globalnews.ca/news/9396989/allison-holthoff-er-death-cumberland-regional-health-centre-ns/
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
2. Nova Scotia Health Authority Scandals (referring to the privacy/medical errors type of issues) MrHaligonian (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I've edited the article accordingly to prep it for a potential content split. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:48, 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]
Thank you for explaining, and I responded to your helpful explanation about synthesis above. MrHaligonian (talk) 23:52, 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, Liz Read! 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. Liz Read! 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 result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee-Haw Stables

Gee-Haw Stables (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)

I found no significant coverage, and the two references are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Mr Vili talk 06:41, 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.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

Zack Cooper (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)

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]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 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]
It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 13 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]
On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 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 [1] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 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]

  • Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 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, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your reasons? See the note on your talk page by Liz. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 July 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]
PS. I am 128.252.210.1 above. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 18:30, 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 result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Tae-song

Sin Tae-song (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Kwang-jun

Yu Kwang-jun (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 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 redirect‎ to Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chang-ha

Ri Chang-ha (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Tae-yong

Jon Tae-yong (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 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 redirect‎ to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Union Building (IUPUI Campus)

Student Union Building (IUPUI Campus) (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)

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]

Delete: per nom, though I'm not opposed to a redirect to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_21&oldid=1230160059"