Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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 California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

California

Enewetak (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, although the band being named after a place makes searching for information about the band more difficult. The references presently being used in the article are non-RS, such as an online review of another band's song, a webstore and MySpace. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Harris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lesser known actor and producer. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, California, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reynolds (political scientist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article originally created to promote this person; it has been toned down a little since then but it remains obvious that it is paraphrased from what was originally a self-authored bio. No evidence of notability. I'm tempted to tag A7/G11. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if it was self-authored or a fan who originally created the article back in 2011 but he is a professor which is usually the test when it comes to academics. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, South Africa, England, California, Indiana, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merely being a professor is not enough for notability. But a search of JSTOR found many reviews of his books [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by David Eppstein. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Subject has some well-cited works and has received media attention for his work on democracy. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Wolk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given this article was recently proposed for deletion twice by User:BarntToust before those were contested by User:Mushy Yank on the basis of this being "not uncontroversial", I figured this ought to be formally discussed. This article was only created back in April and covers an actress who has only been featured in two WP:RECENT films (one released this year) and two recent television series. It fails the WP:GNG because most of the sources are primarily noting the actress was cast in the media mentioned (most of which are a client page and a social media post). The article fails to establish significant independent coverage of this subject herself aside from purely noting her roles and some brief trivia on a college. If anyone is interested in expanding upon the contents, I would suggest moving this to the draftspace (where it should have been started) to allow for further edits to be made to establish potential notability, especially as many of their roles are fairly recent or still upcoming. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: While this may not be particularly relevant to this discussion, I think it is worth noting that this article's subject apparently took issue with the prior deletion proposal (seen here and here), and based on the comments from an obsessed IP here, I think it is suffice to say that there is some bias that exists but ignores Wikipedia policy. I don't think this would have any impact on this outcome here, though including for transparency. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Although I fail to see how Ivy Wolk could track down BarntToust (and thank goodness she has not put any identifying details on her user/talk page), openly threatening to SWAT someone (per above) can legally be put forth to authorities as threatening to do illegal calls to law enforcement is, BAD. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Yoda, I'm not concerned about it at all. the LAPD doesn't need the trouble.

Comment I think if this page were to be deleted, the subject may get riled up more based on the above. Take that for what you will. BarntToust (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the same, although I'm overlooking their social media wining as insignificant. If they or one of their followers do make any threats on this site, a block can easily be issued. Anything beyond this site is out of our hands and quite frankly, none of our concern. I don't usually get involved in social media conflicts anymore, though I did take the liberty of reporting their swatting tweet, though I doubt it would go anywhere. I just find this person's whole shtick to be utter bullshit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up after Jealouse and Bub. Yeah, we don't need drama here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one source that covers Wolk specifically - the Variety article. All other sources only have brief mentions, or don't mention Wolk at all. The fact that half the information in this already short article needs better sources isn't encouraging either. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this definitely isn't a clearly notable person. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m a layperson/ casual wikipedia user and not sure how this works so apologies if this is not the correct place to post/not correctly formatted. I am replying since I don’t want her wikipedia page to be deleted. She is a comedian that regularly engages/reaches mid sized audiences in person/on podcasts/social media. I went to one of her shows and later was happy to see that she has wikipedia page with a bit more information about her and what she does, so I like that this page exists and I think it should continue to exist. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:18C8:4A9A:7D47:B0C3:109E:59E3 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, though I'm questionable that my vote is able to count, per above. Technically, even though I proposed deletion twice, I was not the one who opened this particular discussion. I did inform the nominator about the situation but I don't believe this constitutes a COI or anything similar in the context since Trailblazer101 made the call of his own evaluation. My input is based off of the fact that this subject seems to not have clear, established notability. Declaring this all now per due process. BarntToust (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of the Variety article, this comes up [19], only a brief mention regardless. Likely TOOSOON. I don't think drafting will help, there aren't any sources to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one source offers in-depth coverage from the article. This doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. There needs to be more reliable, secondary sources to write a biography of a living person. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted by consensus last month; G4 Speedy contested. Additional sources added by contester still don't appear to meet GNG as they are either results/routine coverage or interviews with the subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Wrestling, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Viva Van is currently active with AEW/ROH, the previous discussion was relisted however it was deleted before any additional discussion could take place, I've added an article from the Miami Herald, as well as several Fightful Select, Post Wrestling etc. links which we use on several pages concerning independent wrestlers. I think her role in the CMLL Women's championship match against Willow Nightingale is a good example of notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:59C0:5620:58ED:634F:B3D5:5673 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasoning as my !vote a month or so ago, just not enough to show notability. Match reports are about all that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Creator of the article here, my reasoning is similar to that of Thief-River-Faller. She makes recurring appearances in AEW/ROH (even if only as an "enhancement talent"), and has made appearances for both of Mexico's main promotions, AAA (appearing at their main event of the year, Triplemanía, in 2023) and CMLL (the aforementioned women's championship match involving Willow Nightingale), and as a result has been subject of articles from mainstream publications such as the Miami Herald. EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Post Card Co.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Part of a walled garden from a now-banned editor who churned out poor-quality articles en masse. The page history shows four of us who essentially agree the article shouldn’t exist, and the PROD was declined on procedural grounds, with no merit-based opposition. WP:BEFORE search came up empty. Courtesy pings @Graywalls, Netherzone, Somebodyidkfkdt, and GB fan: Left guide (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorsed the PROD, but because of technicality or something, it must now end up here. So, putting in my input. The company does not pass NORG and the redirect target initially chosen by an editor was not a good target. Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one's my fault, I thought the target seemed reasonable and I didn't know redirecting would interfere with PROD. Does seem to fail NORG.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable postcard company, fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS and WP:GNG. There does not seem to be an appropriate redirect for this. Source assessment table below. Basically, it's 3 non-independent newsletters and an advertisement in a newspaper. Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Branding Iron newsletter	It's a quarterly newsletter for members of a privately owned horse corral organization in Reseda, Calif.	hyper local private newsletter	two sentences	✘ No
Advertisement	An advertisement for postcards or samples thereof	commercial ad placed in a newspaper	not independent; paid for ad	✘ No
Postcard Club newsletter	trade newsletter for local post card club	? Post card club newsletter, probably for collectors of postcards	~ Article is about another company but has an illustrated section for this company	✘ No
Postcard Club newsletter	trade newsletter for local postcard club	? Post card club newsletter	mention that Mr. Newman was a VP of another company; one sentence about the Newman company	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

●Comment - I Found These Sources:

https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2006115839.html

https://viaf.org/viaf/156310443/

https://lux.collections.yale.edu/view/group/6be787e1-276e-4beb-aa6b-39ef9612f6d4

https://jenikirbyhistory.getarchive.net/topics/postcards+published+by+newman+post+card+company

https://www.cardcow.com/search3.php?s=&pubid=Newman+Post+Card+Co.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Postcards_published_by_Newman_Post_Card_Co.

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/postcards/1672/

https://emuseum.tempe.gov/people/1697/newman-card-company/objects

https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/search?f%5Bcreator_sim%5D%5B%5D=Newman+Post+Card+Co.&id=bb1230963d 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360, Three database listings, a blog, a postcard selling site, a commons link to the article creator's personal postcard collection and a few data base catalog listings that some libraries have some postcards issued by this company are not strong sources, and definitely not SIGCOV that would meet the notability criteria for WP:NCORP nor SIRS. Netherzone (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fact that this Whole Collection of postcards is in libraries is proof the subject of the article is notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There has to be coverage ABOUT the subject. Libraries have an insane amount of materials, and just being in the catalogue does NOT mean it's notable. Please review WP:GNG before commenting like this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)

@PaulGamerBoy360:, please take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:GNG. Blogs have absolutely no bearing on notability. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage on the subject, fails GNG and NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 17:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @PaulGamerBoy360:: This is an interesting piece of Western American history. It's unfortunate, there are no better sources readily available. There was a time when postcards were having a heyday this was a big one in LA. It lives on in library collections and reproductions in books. Somehow Henderson found information to write this version of the article, I believe sources probably exists out there somewhere, we just need to find them. (I am responding to Paul. I am not voting Keep, nor is this an argument to keep it says "Comment". I am aware that sources are required for AfD, not just the supposition of sources. Have a good day.) -- GreenC 05:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an in-depth source about the company, it appears to be the source Henderson mainly used when he wrote the article: Islapedia. Maybe it got deleted by someone or Henderson never cited it not sure. This source has been cited 25 other times on Wikipedia. It's a wiki, not public. The author is Marla Daily:

ISLAPEDIA was begun in 1973 by cultural anthropologist, Marla Daily, president of the Santa Cruz Island Foundation(1987-current). The Santa Cruz Island Foundation is the sole institution devoted to the cultural history, art, film and science of all California Islands. ISLAPEDIA is a continuing research work in progress—now in its 5th decade.

A cultural anthropologist has strong claims to reliability. Much of the article in this version could be restored with Islapedia as the source. -- GreenC 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXPERTSPS could be invoked about factual accuracy challenges, but I think they're pretty much useless on notability claims Graywalls (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duhaney Williams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Jamaican footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I came across was this. JTtheOG (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Jamaica, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Iowa, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of the 2014 Isla Vista killings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all of the article is copied and pasted from other articles like Elliot Rodger and 2014 Isla Vista killings. We do not need a page like this when the aftermath of Elliot Rodger's attacks can easily be put on the 2014 Isla Vista killings article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems like a very unnecessary content fork. The effects are part of the event itself and not really a discrete subtopic that lends itself well to splitting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there may be some usefulness in analysing copycat crimes/crimes influenced by Rodger, this could also be done within the 2014 Isla Vista killings page. Compared to incidents like the Columbine High School massacre or Christchurch mosque shootings, the copycat effect is not especially notable and inspired attacks can more so be linked to incel culture overall than specific homage to Rodger. Macxcxz (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary WP:FORK on a very contentious topic (i.e. 2014 Isla Vista killings is ECP locked). Any "legacy" should be part of the 2014 Isla Vista killings article; not significant enough to have a separate article. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: parts of this article should be merged with the 2014 Isla Vista killings article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.147.141.34 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. I think this is an important topic and there is info on the page that should be merged into 2014 Isla Vista killings. The article can simply be made longer though. And the title "Elliot Rodger effect" is definitely WP:OR. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information on this nominated article was directly copied and pasted from articles Elliot Rodger, 2014 Isla Vista killings, and incels. None of the work added on this article is new. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. If there's no information or facts that's worth keeping on another article, then my vote is to Delete. StewdioMACK (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think it is important to delete Elliot Rodger effect as WP:OR; it is the name this article was originally called (its creator moved it to Effects of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, but it was moved back, however, it still appears as this AfD title). Aszx5000 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely original research. I’m assuming it’s just a bunch of incels pushing there weird viewpoints of an evil mass murderer. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the page seems like it was a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia from what I can see. As I said earlier though if it's redundant info then that doesn't save it from deletion. StewdioMACK (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wood (soccer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I asked at WT:Football, but others struggled as I have, I honestly don't see how this footballer passes WP:GNG. The sources available are rather WP:ROUTINE. There was a suggestion of a redirect, possibly to 2022 Rochester New York FC season as he only played one season, but does the season even pass WP:NSEASONS ? The article only has two sources there! I propose this just be straight up deleted for failing GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't played for a major team since December 1 2022. I think it fails WP:GNG. Delete HYTEN CREW (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My searches only came up with database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Rochester New York FC season: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Unlike the nom, I do believe the season in which the subject played in is notable with sources such as [[20]] and [[21]] (the second source is from the NYT) covering the club so redirecting as a WP:ATD is preferable to deletion in this instance. Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EveryoneOn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [22], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [23], Blavatnik finalist [24], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [25]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [26]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [27] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [28], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [29].
Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.

Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Morley (soccer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this subject, an American former soccer player, to meet WP:GNG. The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I found was this piece from Circling the News, a site which does not seem to have a listed editorial policy. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hunter Salveson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ROTM film exec, going about her job, but ultimately not notable or even noteworthy (in fact, borderline A7 speediable, IMO). No evidence of notability per WP:PRODUCER, and with the possible exception of the first Variety piece, none of the sources even contribute towards, let alone establish, WP:GNG (and a BEFORE search finds nothing better). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United States of America, and California. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present, the references in the article are as follows. (The numbers are those given in the reference list in the article, but I have reordered them to put related references together.)

(1) An announcement on the website of Salveson's company about the appointment of a person to a post in the company.

(2) An article about the fact that although a U.S. tax benefit (Section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code) has "expired", some businesses are still able to benefit from it, because they did a small amount of production work before the expiry. It tells us that Salveson was responsible for enabling a number of businesses to benefit from this method. Significant coverage of one thing she has done? Perhaps. Significant coverage of her? Certainly not.

(9) An identical copy of the same article as number 2, on a different website. Not only does that mean it adds nothing whatever to evidence of notability, but it also strongly suggests that it is a press release, and therefore not independent coverage.

(3) An interview with Salveson.

(4) An article about a film. Near the bottom of the article is a list of eleven people involved in the production of the film. Salveson's name is included in the list; that is the only mention of her.

(5) Same again, for the same film, except that this time Salveson's name is in a list of thirteen instead of eleven.

(7) Same again, for the same film, except that this time Salveson's name is in a list of six.

(6) A page on Rotten Tomatoes, which lists the films on which Salveson has been an executive producer, the Rotten Tomatoes score, and the year of release of the film. Also for one of the films it gives the box office takings.

(8) An article about another film, which tells us that "The film is financed by Emily Hunter Salveson".

Obviously, none of this is evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense. JBW (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I was going to nominate this myself. There are some trivial mentions and a bit of coverage about a company she founded, but nothing in-depth about her. Just a run-of-the-mill business person – no real indication of notability. C F A 💬 00:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: JBW's source analysis is reliable. The nomination states correctly that Salveson is a WP:ROTM businessperson. I this as VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, WP:ADMASQ for a businessperson who fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I edited the article and added references, but her notability is related only to her role as an executive producer on the film Rust, which was not previously mentioned in the article. I'm commenting rather than weighing in because my only real opinion on the article is that it's a great example of the law of unintended consequences. JSFarman (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG per JBW's source assessment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mullen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references other than external links to the subject's own sites/publications. Reads like a resume of her career, as in the list of grants, and an advert for her published works. No examination or analysis of her work and significance, if any, nor independent discussion of her relationship to the pantheon of modern poets/authors. A WP:BEFORE search turns up just her books and news reports of one incident in Fall, 2023, when she resigned in protest over the Israel-Hamas war. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. As far as third party, independent publications about the subject, they are mostly limited to the one event mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Iowa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and keep: At least three books have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, which passes WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Books published by university presses seems to clinch that. There are sources about her: like this (which is in the article), which solidifies her notability. Lamona (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Karkera

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume/cv material. Nothing near even 1 GNG source. This closest thing to even 1 GNG source is an interview (reference #5 circa August 15th). Tagged by others for wp:notability since February. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find a bunch of PR items in my search, nothing about this fellow in RS. Sourcing now in the article is about patents and various funding announcements, neither of which help prove notability. Not meeting BLP requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, India, and California. C F A 💬 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and reads as resume. Nothing in the sources that help with subject's notability. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Hadden

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A quick search shows her notability does not rise appear to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can barely find any indication that she existed, and I find nothing that indicates she would be notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article so let me comment on this deletion action. There is indeed not much material about Ellen Hadden but there are not many portraits of women in WP:EN. Her work was presented during World' Fair and she was mentioned in Who's Who in American Art. She was a tapestry artist. As for the comments by Netherzone. The first 3 references are not employed to talk about Anne Hadden. Simply, the material about Ellen can be found in publications about Anne because they were sister, they had the same parents and came to States on the same ship (Inman Line in 1891). As for the Arcadia Press reference being of lesser quality because these are "picture books" for tourists. I know nothing about "mixed opinions" about these books. I searched now "google scholar" for "jeff norman" and he is referenced in other books on "Big Sur" as "local historian" with some reverence. Also, I agree that she is a local/regional artist but I do not agree that her WP entry should be deleted. Puncinus (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a short bio on AskArt. The AskArt bio is derived from the biography in Artists in California 1786-1940 https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx That gives a citation for birth and death. She is also listed in AKL Online (use wiki library) https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/database/AKL/entry/_00420827/html. The artist still doesn't seem to rise to notable. I will take another look for sources. I don't see how her sister's obituary can be proof of notability for Ellen. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly as she sounds like a very cool and creative woman. Unfortunately she is not notable by WP criteria and guidelines, but her sister Anne probably is. The current sourcing does not support notability, and an online BEFORE search does not reveal anything to support GNG nor NARTIST. The AskArt entry/Artists in California entry is not enough to convince me. For some reason I'm unable to view the AKL entry that WomenArtistUpdates found. Once I do read it if it influences my !vote, I'll add another comment. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Fix ping Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an embroiderer. Not notable as a decorator. AKL (De Gruyter) only lists

Further Names
   Hadden, Ellen
Gender
   female
Occupation
   designer; decorator; decorative artist
Geographical data
   Pacific Grove (California)
Country
   United States of America; Ireland
Place of birth
   Ireland
Date cited
   1939
Location
   AKLONLINE

I can't bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx	~		~ entire entry "Born in Ireland on April 2, 1877. By the 1930s Hadden had settled on the Monterey Peninsula. She studied locally with Ralph Johonnot. A spinster, she was a resident of Pacific Grove until her death at Palo Alto Hospital on Jan. 15, 1949. Exh: GGIE."	~ Partial
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-mary-anne-ha/127887175/			obituary of sister Mary Anne. passing mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=9MVxp7W0IjUC&dq=Anne+Hadden&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=Anne%20Hadden&f=false	~	?	topic is Mary Anne. not one mention of Ellen.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV whether using the sources cited in the article or searching for results over the internet. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wish I could find enough to keep this one, but there just isn't enough. I found a few books that list exhibits and that name her and list her art as embroidery, like: this, and this. None of it however fulfills notability for an artist. I am also disappointed that we don't know where her art ended up. Lamona (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Library Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This phone book like entry does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:NCORP , WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a stub that needs to be expanded. Please scroll to the page bottom and see the Library associations of the United States navbox. You will see this one listed along with all the other States. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After having looked at what's in them, I feel quite a few of them fail to meet WP:NORG, nor would they quite quality as WP:NONPROFIT given they're individual local association. Kind of like local business alliances. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The chapter connection to the American Library Association is minimal and insufficient reason to delete.

This organization is independent serving the development of library services for nearly 40 million people.Kmccook (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmccook How many people CLA serves is irrelevant; both the CLA bylaws and ALA website say that CLA is a chapter of ALA. Under WP:BRANCH, "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Such sources are not in evidence Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we have pages for sports teams that are part of a larger league?Kmccook (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but I'll WP:AGF: Sports teams are subject to WP:NSPORT and organizations are subject to WP:NORG. Different guidelines for different subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Library Association#National outreach, most likely, due to failure to meet WP:NORG. The California Library Association is a chapter of the American Library Association (see discussion of chapter status here), and that means WP:BRANCH applies here. The key policy: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." There's lots of news coverage with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the California Library Association, but precious little WP:SIGCOV, and none that I can find in sources from outside California. To answer Maile's comment above, just because a user has created articles on every library association and put them into a navbox does not meet they are notable. Some may be, and some may not be. Redirecting to the parent org is a good AtD for those that don't pass WP:BRANCH. Moreover, the nomination does not meet any of the conditions for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi and Dclemens1971:, Do you know if CLA is a branch/chapter or otherwise fall under the umbrella of ALA? If it is, I support re-dir, but otherwise, del seems more appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not independent but for verifying the simple fact, it's listed as a chapter on ALA. In CLA's governance (PDF), it references liaising with ALA and "The ALA Chapter Councilor serves as a member of The Board, and represents The Association on the American Library Association Council," so I think we're good on the connection @Graywalls. Star Mississippi 23:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted above. Far from N:ORG pass and no grounds for a speedy keep whatsoever. Star Mississippi 01:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve - As someone who did the work on some of these state association articles, and who knows that CLA is one of the largest state library associations in the US, I'll see if I can find multiple, reliable non-local sources which report on it non-trivially. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this was an early and large association, there are sources, like this: "The War on Books and Ideas: The California Library Association and Anti-Communist Censorship in the 1940s and 1950s", possibly this "The California State Library School" (I can't get more than the first page but the G-Books snippet was about CLA). There's this: Schwartz, B. (1974). The Role of the American Library Association in the Selection of Archibald MacLeish as Librarian of Congress. The Journal of Library History (1974-1987), 9(3), 241-264. - which has a statement about the role of the CLA. I'm not sure about this next one; it's from UC Press, usually a reliable source, but it seems to be typewritten. It still may have some useful information. I'm sure there's more if we dig enough. Lamona (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is by Cindy Mediavilla, who “has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president,” and thus is not independent coverage. The fourth item appears to be a trivial mention. The second item, by Josephine Kunkle, does appear to be SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source outside California per WP:BRANCH. That’s one—let’s find multiple. Open to switching my !vote if more adequate sources can be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at my desk now and can access the Wikipedia Library. The Schwartz source has a single trivial mention: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." No SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since we've had sources proposed in this discussion, I'm going to share a source table to evaluate them. So far, I see only one source that clears WP:ORGCRIT. Please feel free to add more; I'll change my !vote if we can find multiple sources that provide sigcov beyond California and that are secondary, independent and reliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED115285.pdf	Presentation at CLA meeting by a CLA member	Unpublished paper delivered at a CLA meeting
https://archive.org/details/riseofpubliclibr0000held/page/88/mode/2up	Book published by CLA's parent association, the American Library Association
https://www.svvoice.com/librarians-are-booked-at-california-library-associations-2018-conference/			Local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH
https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/call/; https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/trustees/; https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/lunch/	Official webpages of state government agency partnering with CLA on particular programs			Primary source
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/133533/Francoeur%20McCarthyism%20and%20Libraries--final%20draft.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y		Master's degree thesis; per WP:DISSERTATION, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25540574			A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40322191			Significant academic discussion (in a source outside California) of association involvement in starting California Library School
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/8110/bitstreams/27881/data.pdf	The author "has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president. She is a founding member of the CLA Library History Round Table (now Interest Group)" (see here)
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sVlE_oIAPzQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22California+Library+Association%22&ots=P-cGSOUu9W&sig=crmqU7JzA-EUlHvA-WPbkCilnFM#v=snippet&q=%22California%20Library%20Association%22&f=false			There is a single mention of the organization in this book.

Make-up Designory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable beauty school. Only stories available after a quick search on news.google were a handful of press-release-like mentions. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost completely non-notable and only referenced by the school's website. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete seems clear so far, but we need at least a little more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a private for-profit school and a related cosmetics brand, this one clearly falls under WP:NCORP. I do not find any sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and what is on the page certainly doesn't meet the criteria. We would be looking for multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS and the school website, the only current source, fails under three or all four of those criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once or twice, at most. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Out the Gate (film), in which he starred. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Jamaica, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand. It looks like there are some articles from NYT, WSJ, and Forbes about the company or its products. So, I'd say there are reliable secondary sources that are exclusively about the company. But, I agree they are not in-depth, so I could see an argument for deletion on those grounds. Niashervin (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niashervin, I agree there are articles in those publications but the question is, do they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, this Forbes article merely regurgitates this announcement - not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This other Forbes article is from a "contributor" and is not deemed a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability - see WP:FORBES. This in the NYT is a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided through an interview with the CEO and from the company itself accompanied by a test run of the service, it has very little "Independent Content" about the *company* and fails ORGIND. Finally this WSJ article is almost entirely about a different company with the topic company getting a mention-in-passing with information provided by an exec, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving