Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs
Contents
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
Alison Green
- Alison Green (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)
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS 💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS 💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html | Newspaper of record | ✔ Yes | ||
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851 | ~ Basically just quotes. | ~ Rather short section of the article. | ~ Partial | |
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/ | Routine. | ✘ No | ||
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 | paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2 | ? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine? | ✘ 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}}. |
TLAtlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source
article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS 💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)- I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source
- The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?
- Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep: if these are the same person [1] and [2], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article
self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green". GSS 💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) - Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating. 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article
- Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than
just quotes
and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)- @GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS 💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [3] [4] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.
- Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS 💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [3] [4] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS 💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [5]. And this: [6]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District
- Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District (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)
No secondary sources and few appear available. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
List of Five grains in world culture
- List of Five grains in world culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This isn't really a list article: it's someone's theory about how the juxtaposition of the number "five" and whatever gets translated to the English word "grain" is somehow significant. I think we would need a source for that significance, rather than a list of things chosen by the author in a fit of original research. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
KMAC (FM)
- KMAC (FM) (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)
Small town station on air for less than a decade. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete with a possible redirect, if this is ever created, to Oklahoma Catholic Radio. This network of stations owned KMAC and probably ran it as a rebroadcaster of their statewide service. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Largest Data Breaches of United States Citizen Data
- Largest Data Breaches of United States Citizen Data (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)
Fails WP:LISTN and WP:CROSSCAT. I don't see significant independent coverage of this specific categorization. While List of data breaches clearly passes LISTN, and a theoretical List of data breaches in the United States might pass LISTN, I don't think this one does. While the sourcing is good, they're all about specific data breaches, not this grouping. ~ A412 talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. ~ A412 talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Burkhard Garweg
- Burkhard Garweg (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 think that this article should be reverted to its pre-existing redirect to Members_of_the_Red_Army_Faction#Third_generation_Red_Army_Faction_(1982–1993) on WP:BLPCRIME and GNG considerations. In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime. Coverage is fleeting, exclusively in the context of suspected activities in the third-generation RAF, and the stronger of the cited sources, Der Spiegel solely frames criminal charges against Garweg beyond association with the third-generation RAF in attribution to the authorities rather than as statements of fact, as well as stating that little is known about Burkhard Garweg
(Über Burkhard Garweg ist nur wenig bekannt
). signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Terrorism, and Germany. signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I disagree, this is certainly of interest to researchers of the Red Army Faction and their activities post-1998. Seeing as there has recently been news related to the attempted arrest of Garweg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/german-prosecutors-urge-red-army-faction-suspects-to-surrender, and he remains on the EUROPOL "Most wanted list" https://eumostwanted.eu/index.php/garweg-burkhard, there are enough sources online to make this article worthwhile. As for this page being deleted on WP:BLPCRIME, I'll point out that many of the people "at large" in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists have never been convicted in court either and have similar amounts of news coverage as Burkhard Garweg. WintermuteKnows (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The sources you've linked contain basically no biographical information about Garweg other than the fact that he is wanted by the German authorities. The same cannot be said of the entires on FBI Most Wanted Terrorists that have their own articles. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I disagree, this is certainly of interest to researchers of the Red Army Faction and their activities post-1998. Seeing as there has recently been news related to the attempted arrest of Garweg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/german-prosecutors-urge-red-army-faction-suspects-to-surrender, and he remains on the EUROPOL "Most wanted list" https://eumostwanted.eu/index.php/garweg-burkhard, there are enough sources online to make this article worthwhile. As for this page being deleted on WP:BLPCRIME, I'll point out that many of the people "at large" in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists have never been convicted in court either and have similar amounts of news coverage as Burkhard Garweg. WintermuteKnows (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify - I can only check one of the three sources since two are paywalled but can AGF when Rosguill says there isn't much significant coverage and there isn't much on the two sources supplied by WintermuteKnows. This may change in future so I don't think delete is the best option, which leaves me at draftify so as to remove from public-facing space. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect, or at least draftify until it's been rewritten. Most of this article is about actions of the 3rd generation RAF that he may or may not have participated in (the article literally says he probably joined the RAF, the cited source does not mention him by name, and the article also says it's unclear who actually did what with the RAF). If he's notable for being on Europol's most wanted list, then the article should be about the robberies and whatnot he's wanted for, and not contain a bunch of info on politically motivated killings that he may or may not have been involved with (you'd need some serious sources to meet BLPCRIME for assassination when his Europol listing is for aggravated robbery). As it stands, this really feels like an article about several people and the terrorist group they (probably, using the wording of the article) joined, not the actual subject of the article. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Prove has today been published linking Garweg to Daniela Klette see here. (Apart from that he is a personality in the international media with detailed information.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like significant coverage:
In het huis van de gearresteerde RAF-terrorist Daniela Klette zijn sporen gevonden van twee andere gezochte RAF-terroristen; Ernst-Volker Staub en Burkhard Garweg. Dat meldt de recherche in Nedersaksen. Een foto bewijst dat Burkhard Garweg in het appartement van Klette in Berlijn is geweest. Op het beeld is te zien dat hij bij haar thuis op de bank zit tussen twee honden in. Waarschijnlijk onderhielden hij en Klette nauw contact.
- I would be persuaded by sources with biographical information about this subject; the above is circumstantial evidence and speculation. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This article proves that they are linked. That’s what I’m saying 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not to the satisfaction of WP:BLPCRIME:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
Your comments here largely underline the importance of abiding by this policy and converting the article back to a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note regarding the rationale of the nominator
In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime
—> Klette is also not (yet) convicted. But please correct me if I’m wrong. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note regarding the rationale of the nominator
- Not to the satisfaction of WP:BLPCRIME:
- This article proves that they are linked. That’s what I’m saying 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like significant coverage:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Spaghetti Taco
- Spaghetti Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This doesn't deserve it's own article- It only appeared in five episodes and has no notable significance. I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance.
- I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability. Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE. What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. I believe there's just enough material for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:Notability, even if a light one, and no ideal merge target suggests itself. If the sources are felt as being to brief, a merge to the suggested Yakisoba-pan might be ok, based on e.g. this article, which suggests a loose connection. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge This doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even so, it's a WP:NOPAGE situation where there isn't much to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge per Shooterwalker. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and oppose merge or redirect to Yakisoba-pan. Meets WP:GNG, including the 2010 feature article in The New York Times which was widely syndicated and the 2022 Mashed article which also helps to demonstrate that there has been WP:SUSTAINED interest in spaghetti tacos as a dish over time. I have added a few other sources to the article, and there are oodles of recipes available on the Internet; I've cited the "Fiesta spaghetti taco" recipe on the Betty Crocker website. None of these articles mention "yakisoba-pan" which is why I'm opposed to that particular merge (and FWIW, I'm not convinced the quality of the sources in the other article are necessarily better than the sources cited here). Finally, if this article is kept, it should be moved to "Spaghetti taco" with a small "t" which currently is a redirect to iCarly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [7] and the Pocono Reocrd [8]. Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Gan Kofim
- Gan Kofim (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)
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG Falls a mile short on references much less GNG references. Of the 7 references, 5 are the IMDB pages of participants, on is a facebook page, and one is about the person that the film was inspired by with nothing about the film. So zero references about the film. Accordingly 98% of the article is a wiki-editor-created plot summary . North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems to have been nominated for awards [9], so there is a strong possibility it's a notable film, but I agree with the nom; sources used now in the article aren't valid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:NFILM, a film meets notability if "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The film received full-length reviews in a number of national publications in Israel, including Calcalist, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla, and Mako. These should be added to the article, but for now are enough to establish GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Dan Keen
- Dan Keen (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)
First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)