Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

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

The result was merge to Phillip J. Roth as a WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Down

Falcon Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I am surprised that a film with a decently famous line-up received so little coverage, but my searches also came up empty. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB's external reviews listed this Danish review, also there's an Australian site which I'm not familiar with. In Germany where it was called Todesflug in Eismeer (Death Plane in Ice Sea), there are some hits. These two are duplicates: [1] [2]. These two don't look like reviews, more like writeups. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, it's a weak keep for me, per the above and WP:NPOSSIBLE. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the director Phillip J. Roth due to the lack of available sources. Polyamorph (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Phillip J. Roth, per Polyamorph. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I placed little weight on Bgsu98 'vote' and suggest that they review WP:JUSTAVOTE. That aside, I see consensus that there is insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Drum and Bugle Corps

Music City Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to be a major organisation and I'm finding enough articles online from a variety of sources that I believe this passes WP:GNG, I've added some references to the article. I don't see any problems with the article itself. NemesisAT (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please hint a few of those. WP:SIGCOV do not appear to exist·Misasory (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--another bugle corps from the DCI walled garden: promotional writing, excessive detail, no secondary sourcing establishing notability. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bgsu98 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete far from satisfying WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing independence in the sources. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pronuntiatio. ✗plicit 23:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actio

Actio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-standing dictionary entry, could not find sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pronuntiatio. There are plenty of sources so I'm not sure how comprehensive your search was, and its not a dictionary definition. The sources confirm this is simply the Latin word to describe the Pronuntiatio rhetorical discipline. But being the term used by one of the languages in which rhetoric was practiced, its a logical search term. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Stalwart111. Polyamorph (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrystna Bhagascara

Chrystna Bhagascara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Liga Indonesia and BeSoccer confirm the WP:NFOOTBALL failure. The only source currently cited that provides more than a trivial mention of Bhagascara is Tribun News Wiki; this source is derived entirely from the player's own Instagram and Transfermarkt pages, neither of which are WP:RS, therefore we must disregard the source entirely. An Indonesian search and a Google News search came back only with trivial second tier match report mentions of him. I can't find any examples of Bhagascara being addressed directly and in detail in any sources that could be considered reliable and independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not pass NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The only mentions I can find of the subject are non-substantial, routine coverage such as when he's played in games (e.g. here and here). GauchoDude (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rumbino

Charles Rumbino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has never played in a WP:FPL and lacks coverage in WP:RS. The article cites Tribun News Wiki which is completely unacceptable as a source as it's derived from Transfermarkt. An Indonesian source search and a Google News search failed to yield even one example of the significant coverage for WP:GNG; only squad list mentions and passing match report mentions were available. Soccerway has no appearances for him and neither does Football Critic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not pass NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find anything of substance on the subject. GauchoDude (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cervantes

George Cervantes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable volunteer and matchmaker, the author of which myself and other users have attempted to explain sourcing, tone, etc. to. He has disregarded our advice, and the sourcing in this article is either all advertorials, too sparse to be useful for this subject, or of dubious origin. BEFORE returns jack shit (string: ["George Cervantes" matchmaker]), something which the author was told last time (several months ago) and which still holds true today. Mercenary suspected; the author has consistently disclaimed any association with the subject but has edited little else. Article was created in mainspace directly by author after previous drafts were all unambiguously rejected and the previous draft - which was of similar substance and tone to this one, with virtually identical sourcing - was deleted as G11. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They created a page COI a few days ago and I fully declared that I know Mr. Cervantes and he attends the same church where I go on Sundays. I am not getting any payment as I mentioned on the COI page that was created a few days ago. I am simply stating the facts with sources to back up anything that is on the page. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page becuase TimTrent told me to start a fresh/brand new page. I was following his advice.--Marcorubiocali (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Trent's actual advice included " I wish you had not moved it to mainspace. There it is vulnerable to a deletion process. The review process would have helped you a great deal." Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what he said after I posted the article live. It was too late then. I am sorry for that. I will let you guys decide what you are going to do with the page. That's all the information that I have for Cervantes. Thank you! --Marcorubiocali (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not satisfy general notability. A review of the references teaches as much about the matchmaking business as about the subject. The matchmaking business appears to provide a lot of vanity awards (like publishing, and like distilled spirits). The subject may be famous for being famous, but that is not clear. The subject uses social media effectively to publicize himself, and the matchmaking business publicizes its people. There are 17 references, but, on review, 0 of them are independent secondary sources. Most or all of them are interviews, or messages encouraging people to volunteer and help animals, or press releases, or vanity awards. (I meant to include this statement prior to the analysis of sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cervantes was awarded by the state of New York and publicly recognized for his effords to assist with the city's overcrowded animal shelters. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Comparing the "About George Cervantes:" sections at the end of refs 18, 19, and 20 it is clear that they are all based on the same press release. This article is obviously just intended as promotion of the subject, and not based on independent sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is insufficent independence in the sources. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources have no relationship to Cervantes which makes them ALL independent. There are always going to be online magazines and publications covering his stories. He opened an animal shelter and helps animals in need. Society views such individuals as local heros and magazines and online publications love covering those types of stories. --Marcorubiocali (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You've already made an argument; you don't get to make another one unless you're changing the whole premise of your argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of micronations. Sandstein 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Angyalistan

Empire of Angyalistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N due to not having enough independent sources.^[1] Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think all the articles about nations-inside-people's-heads that have come to AfD in the last year or so have been deleted, but I don’t know how to search for the discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My first thought is that this is comical rubbish. Even their Instagram has only 378 followers. Twitter is a little better with 758. Yet I find references: 1, [2], 3. Apparently they have an Embassy and sign treaties? WITW? Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment our coverage of micronations appears to be severely lacking and variable. This and the Principality of Sealand are categorically different sorts of places. This? Maybe a merger to a list at best. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - agree with this. There must be some sort of article or list on micronations that this sort of thing can merge into, and if there's isn't, it should be created as a catch-all for all the many made-up micronations inside of peoples' heads. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - with four sources, I think it qualifies for inclusion as a "notable micronation". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BEFORE gives nothing, but there is a chance sourcing exists in other languages (French?). If so, ping me if good sources are found and I'll review them, if machine translation/etc. works well enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the one who created this original article. I should have mentioned following extra sources: the book "Mikronationer – På besök i hemgjorda länder" of Jakob Joellson and "Royaumes d'aventure: des premier atlas des micronations" of Bruno Fuligni. I created the article after a large publication in Le Monde about French micronations: https://www.lemonde.fr/series-d-ete/article/2021/08/18/l-empire-d-angyalistan-mallarme-et-pierre-dac-pour-boussoles_6091687_3451060.html --Delle89 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of micronations, where the topic is already mentioned; individual notability not established with significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There we go - that will do! Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangga

Mangga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the entries on this page are known solely as "Mangga", and so this page does not meet MOS:DAB guidelines, and inhibits Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a dictionary definition (see WP:DABDIC), and all entries are partial matches (see WP:PARTIAL). There is currently a summary of mango cuisine at Mango#Cuisine, but this does not belong on a disambiguation page. --Bejnar (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Footgolf. ✗plicit 01:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buschball

Buschball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet WP:NSPORT. Fade258 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It may not meet NSPORT but could meet GNG. It seems most sources, if they exist, can be in German. It would be good to hear from German speakers on the source review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted on the talk page, this article was created by the sole edit of one wp:single-purpose account, Buschballer (talk · contribs), and expanded as the sole topic of interest of another, K-Martrix (talk · contribs), who also created the linked German article de:Buschball.

Last year I added some third-party citations, but notability is marginal. The German article has not been substantially edited since 2012. This one should probably be merged and redirected for now into a section of the article Footgolf as a variant. – Fayenatic London 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Footgolf per Faynatic London's suggestion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnamala Adarsha High School & College

Barnamala Adarsha High School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent coverage found. The Banner talk 13:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep without prejudice to a good faith nomination sometime in the future. The nominator is a block evading sockpuppet and has no standing here. Their opinion is discounted and there being no other arguments for deletion, the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gachua Adarsha High School

Gachua Adarsha High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At WP:RX I've requested pages, that may contain significant coverage, from a US charity's 528 page study on the education system of Sandwīp Island: Mohammad, Hasan (2012). Sandvīpa : śikshā-samīkshā সন্দ্বীপ : শিক্ষা-সমীক্ষা (in Bengali). Chittagong: Sandwip Education Society. ISBN 9789843345400. OCLC 835623433. As WorldCat's only entry in subject "Education -- Bangladesh -- Sandwīp Island", it's a fairly obvious place to look for information, but since the nominator nominated 10 schools in the space of 30 minutes or so, I doubt that they consulted the book as part of their WP:BEFORE. As amazing as the Resource Exchange is, it's unlikely that they will be able to provide the pages within the time frame of this discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (procedural) Bad faith nomination, without proper WP:BEFORE, by now blocked sockpuppet apparently upset that the article they authored about their own school was deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep without prejudice to a good faith nomination being made sometime in the future. The nominator is a block evading sockpuppet and has no standing here. Their opinion is discounted and there being no other arguments for deletion, the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkarhat N. R. High School

Sarkarhat N. R. High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (procedural) Bad faith nomination, without proper WP:BEFORE, by now blocked sockpuppet apparently upset that the article they authored about their own school was deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Poh Choon

Gui Poh Choon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non-notable and run-of-the-mill police officer from a batch created by the same user. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, literally an average person who has received no coverage in secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find third party sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 01:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cirex

Cirex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not seem to be all that notable. Very large number of quite dubious sources. It looks like the subject of this article has made use of paid publicity to get the article accepted into Wikipedia. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly right now I have to vote delete. (This s the 1 percent vote where I go delete, haha) there is nothing in the news I can find about him, and if he was notable in Puerto Rico, as a musician, at least El Nuevo Dia, Metro, El Vocero or Primera Hora would have something on him!Antonio Nancy Downs Martin (dale) 06:48, 29 September, 2021 (UTC(

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Al Rajhi

Bader Al Rajhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. Merely being an executive or chairperson does not make one notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAthens

OpenAthens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not see a clear case for the notability of this software. The only provided sources are either primary or related to patents, and there is little evidence of substantial secondary coverage. The article itself is a disinteresting stub. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jisc which appears to be the organization that runs it. Even though the Jisc article does not say much about OpenAthens? Indeed, the OpenAthens article only has sources about the trademarks, and I could only get one of them to work. Or delete if that is the consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - There is a brief mention of OpenAthens on the Jisc page under "services". Iskandar323 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, albeit not even a full sentence and no source for that. W Nowicki (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone please click on the word "scholar" above and comment on what is found there? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nobody took up my suggestion above, so I must do so myself and say that there are very many independent reliable sources with significant coverage readily available. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are pages and pages and pages in google news search for OpenAthens, and they're pretty much all this org. Most are trivial mentions, but there are more indepth things such as https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/how-efficient-tools-showcase-library-s-impact https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/evidence-services/journals-and-databases/OpenAthens etc. Kathlene Smoot (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is one of the two main identity services providers to most of the universities in the world. The other one is Shibboleth Single Sign-on architecture. -Hatchens (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ispahani Public School & College, Cumilla

Ispahani Public School & College, Cumilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline. (but I'm not sure whether it meets with any other guideline.)  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 12:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 12:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NHS Schools are notable and should be kept. - 103.4.65.218 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep met WP:NHS. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NHS is a historical artifact that has no bearing on current AfDs. What does is GNG and NORG. Both of which this article clearly fails to meet the standards of. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability or sources. School have to prove their notability by this RFC: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability The Banner talk 13:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamrai Hardinge High School and College

Dhamrai Hardinge High School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline. (Ref no.1 is reliable but not significant coverage.)  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A basic search found Bengali news articles about the school allegedly charging four times the allowed fee[3] and about the visit of a 10-member World Bank fact-finding delegation.[4] The later is not significant coverage itself, but suggests a search of World Bank reports might bear fruit. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'm not particularly strong on them charging a high fee or the thing with the World Bank being indicators of notability. I'm not sure what else exists that would make it notable either. So, I'm going with delete. That said, it's on the weak side since there is some coverage. I just wish it was better. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the page for deletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Model School and College

Chittagong Model School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A government owned school that is clearly notable.-103.4.65.218 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep without prejudice to a good faith nomination being made sometime in the future. The nominator is a block evading sockpuppet and sockpuppets have no standing here.Their opinion is discounted and as there are no other arguments put forward for deletion, the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sitakund Government Model High School

Sitakund Government Model High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NHS Schools are notable and should be kept. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.132.185.223 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the real threshold is this: RfC on secondary school notability. The Banner talk 13:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (procedural) Bad faith nomination, without proper WP:BEFORE, by now blocked sockpuppet apparently upset that the article they authored about their own school was deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: do the guidelines say anywhere that nominations by socks have to be procedurally kept or is it more of a norm then an actual policy? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is covered by WP:SKCRIT #4. The nominator was a sockpuppet evading a previous block, so they should not have been able to nominate the page for deletion. Also, the nomination was in violation of behavioral guideline Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. They made it immediately after 5-6 school articles they created were deleted as non-notable. Nominations made for the purpose of disruption are covered by WP:SKCRIT #2. On top of that, the nomination was in bad faith. They nominated 10 schools in the space of 30 minutes or so. Given the rapid fire rate, it's unlike that they performed a WP:BEFORE or considered alternatives to deletion. The essay section Cleaning up after a sock puppet is blocked also talks a bit about the best way to take away the reward for violating policy.

All of this is not to say that the subject is notable or that someone else can't nominate it for deletion. Six months down the road I might nominate it myself. But I hope anyone who does, heeds the advice in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "When considering the nomination of a black high school in the United States that existed for 100 years but closed when segregation ended around 1970, consider that it might be worthwhile to search black newspapers that aren't available online before trying to delete it." This topic, a 100+ year-old rural school in a place where they speak Bengali and internet connectivity is a novelty, presents a similar situation. I hope it first would be tagged with {{notability}} to bring the problem to the attention of editors who might be able to help. Then, if no offline Bengali sources materialize after a reasonable amount of time, I hope alternatives like merge/redirect to the enclosing community would be considered before deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aude Moreau

Aude Moreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The French article linked by Patapsco913 has much more information. Moreau was in the St Etienne team that won the Coupe de France Féminine de Football and has clearly had a long career in top-level French women's football. The article should be tagged for refimprove and it needs development, not deletion. Passes GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @No Great Shaker:: What article, exactly? Patapsco913 hasn't linked anything here from what I see. Also, a long career with St Etienne and a Coupe de France Feminine win doesn't give any notability if the player doesn't pass WP:GNG with reliable, independent sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vaurie. Look at the French Wikipedia linkage banner at the top of the article, which was placed by Patapsco913. There is much more information about the subject in the French Wikipedia article. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Did you look at the French article! It's empty! There is no prose and no references apart from 3 profiles! If anything the fact that the French article is empty helps reinforce that this article should be deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is lacking prose, true, but there is a heap of info which indicates a long-time top-level player. My vote stands. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in my searches, the three best sources seem to be Eurosport, Foot d'Elles and Le Progres. The Eurosport source is quite clearly WP:SIGCOV but I'm on the fence about whether the other two contribute towards GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment, Spiderone. IMO, the Foot d'Elles source can't really be considered a secondary or tertiary source because it's an interview directly from the subject itself. The other one is practically WP:ROUTINE because it is just talking about who won the Saint Etienne player of the season award. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WCM_email 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established with significant coverage in sources. The French article also fails WP:NOTDATABASE, hardly evidence that this one should be kept. Avilich (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I agree with Paul Vaurie's analysis of the sources that I found. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is achieved. Seems to be notable. With a voice like that, who wouldn't be. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Salgueiro

Teresa Salgueiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP - only reference is her own website. Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Portuguese article links to the honours page (you need to follow the instructions to search, but it works) which confirms her getting the Order of Prince Henry in 1995, equivalent to a knighthood. The article on the band Madredeus includes several good sources such as this and this and some NYT ones I can't access. Clearly notable. PamD 10:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one solid source to keep her out of BLPPROD territory. Article needs better sources, but I suggest withdrawal or speedy keep as she is clearly notable. PamD 10:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to withdraw this. Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• She may well be notable for other reasons, but membership of the Order of Prince Henry is not one, and is certainly not equivalent to a knighthood. It is more equivalent to an MBE. She would have to have one of the higher ranks in this order to come anywhere near meeting WP:ANYBIO on that basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For her work with Madredeus, I found Portuguese Group Gives Fado a Modern Twist (NYT, 1995, "They went in search of a "Portuguese voice" and discovered Teresa Salgueiro, just 17 at the time, singing in a bar."), Lisbon Story (Variety, 1995, "Originally commissioned to make a docu [...] Wenders decided soon after hitting town to transform the project into a narrative feature"), Portugal’s Madredeus: The Model of Simplicity (LA Times, 1996), POP REVIEW; Sublime Sadness of the Portuguese (NYT, 1997), A City, a Sound and the Cinema in Mutual Thrall (NYT, 1997), HOME VIDEO; Collision Ahead For Disk Players (NYT, 1998), Tainted love (Guardian, 2007), Madredeus: Faluas Do Tejo (Jazz Times, 2019). Through the Wikipedia Library, I also found an 'appreciation' from the Delegation of the European Commission (McArthur, Samantha, Europe. 1996, Issue n355) that includes in the abstract "Portuguese musical history was created when Madredeus band members invited Teresa Salgueiro to join their band [...] Teresa Salgueiro is hailed as the successor to Amalia Rodrigues, Portugal's 'fado' diva". For her independent work, I found O Mistério Review by Mariano Prunes (AllMusic, 2012), O Horizonte Review by Mariano Prunes (AllMusic, 2016), Patrick Watson Unveils New Video For 'Can't Stop Staring At The Sun' (BroadwayWorld, 2021). Through the Wikipedia Library, I also found a 2012 review of her solo performance of O Misterio: Derrocha Teresa Salgueiro su Misterio en la ciudad (via Gale), a 2008 report from UPI Chile (via Gale) describing a shift in her musical style, and a 2008 review from Music Opinion 2008, Vol. 131 Issue 1462, of a performance of Silence, Night & Dreams, so it looks like there is support for WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can find articles about her in every major Portuguese news outlet... Added a couple to the article, passes WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now almost all major Portuguese outlets are represented once in the article, plus Folha de S.Paulo and La Repubblica. Ping me if you need me to demonstrate notability further. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that that will be necessary. The nominator withdrew and there are no other "delete" opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiers

Benjamin Spiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Refs are to dubious sources like gowithyamo.com: "Whether you are a creative, artist or gallery, gowithYamo can help you grow your online presence". Promotion. Vexations (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources do nothing to support notability. I'm not even sure there is a claim of importance here. --- Possibly ☎ 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article for an artist who does not meet our notability criteria GNG nor NARTIST. Just wondering...possible UPE/PR? Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Samnik

Jacob Samnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Samnik has yet to play in a professional game of football. This remains valid. He has since made an appearance in the Danish Cup, but since this was for a non-FPL club, it does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Possible WP:SALT if the article was remade? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. I did find this interview from ProSport, but all the other relevant coverage is just variants of the ESPN article that's already on the page. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Only substantial coverage, per Keskkonnakaitse, is the ESPN article which seems pretty trivial all things considered. GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no need to SALT the article since it was only a PROD before. That being said, fails GNG currently Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. There was indeed extensive literature about her. (non-admin closure) Double Plus Ungood (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Bake

Adriana Bake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The one source (and yes, there is only one here) is not the main issue here. There has been very little editing here in the past 4 years, which is plenty of time for users to find relevant and sourced information about her. In addition, every information about her could be placed in her husband's article (the first sentence in the lead references her as a governor's wife), as at the moment it is barely enough to fill a stub. Additionally, the page has seen very little traffic in the past years, and the only pages linking to it are overwhelmingly userpages, as opposed to content articles, all of which doesn't help its notability. Overall my opinion here is based on 3 criteria from WP:Notable - 1.Significant coverage, 2.Sources and 3. Presumed. Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. There's clearly been no effort at WP:BEFORE. The source in the article is a 1000-word biography of the subject in a dictionary of national biography, satisfying WP:ANYBIO. She's discussed in The Social World of Batavia (2004), and Google Books shows many other sources in Dutch. I oppose the nominator's proposal to treat this woman simply as a footnote in her husband's page. pburka (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being the first governor's wife not born in the Netherlands is not a notable position/role and notability is not inherited. KidAd • SPEAK 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some truth in your arguments. The position is not inherently notable. On the other hand, it surely does NOT preclude notability either. In fact, when daring to take some spotlights, the position provided potential for attention and coverage. As Jean Gelman Taylor points out, 18th century first lady Adriana Bake seized that potential. It made her into an 18th century historical figure who was covered then, and continues to be discussed to date. In other words, Adriane Bake meets the WP:GNG and also WP:ANYBIO. gidonb (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, she's only a woman, so let's just ignore the sources about her that show that she easily passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a historic figure, there is no concern of WP:BLP. As pburka points out, the sources are impressive. Passes WP:ANYBIO and the WP:GNG per:
  • Taylor, Jean Gelman (2004). The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-299-09474-4.
  • Zuiderweg, Adrienne (2014). "Bake, Adriana Johanna (1724–1787)". Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland [Digital Women Lexicon of the Netherlands].
  • Bosma, Ulbe; Raben, Remco (2008). Being "Dutch" in the Indies: A History of Creolisation and Empire, 1500–1920. NUS Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-9971-69-373-2.

There is more but this is sufficient. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the principal source is Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland [nl] which, according to Google translate of the Dutch article, is a supplement to Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland and is a project of Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (not of a fringe pressure group), so I think her inclusion there confirms notability. (The en.wiki redirect Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland leads to a subproject and isn't particularly informative). PamD 10:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the sources and the subject is clearly of historical interest.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ungood, PamD, and Ipigott. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we still living in times where any woman is considered to be the property of her father or her husband? This nomination, and the support that it has received, is simply incredible. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has nothing to do with "property". No-one here has said that or treated the subject remotely that way. When nominating, I just noticed that every sentence in the article referenced her husband in one way or another. Other editors did point out that she has been extensively documented, and that's great! Then I hope we can expand the article to better represent how she was so much more than that. Please just don't confuse this with a desire to erase her or with malicious intent. Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carley Shimkus

Carley Shimkus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO and is just another TV person doing their job. People are not notable for doing their jobs, even on TV. The referencing lacks substance. Primary sources. My WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite her public face, there is a lack of significant coverage, as well as incidentally a lack of in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, just because she is on TV doesn't mean she is notable in Wikipedia terms, no in-depth significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the current sourcing is very poor and I fail to find any secondary/independent coverage in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, co-anchor on national news program meets notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, almost daily appearances by the biggest news network as well as coverage from at least 2 reputable independent sources. Sucker for All (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is this "the biggest news network"? (Not that it would make any difference even if it were the biggest in the world, which it isn't. Timtrent phrased it quite well in the nomination: people do not become notable simply because they are doing their job well. If there is no significant coverage of a TV news anchor in reliable independent sources, then that TV news anchor is not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest = most viewed . Fox News, https://video.foxnews.com/v/6011106173001#sp=show-clips , where she will be on the air in 4 hours and again for the next 4 days, is the most viewed network in the world. Would be good to get an admin's POV. ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178745/Bill-Maher-slams-patriotic-bulls-t-taking-place-NFL-MLB.html is another article in which she appears prominently) Sucker for All (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources for the WP article about Fox News, it is pretty far from being the most viewed news network in the world. But that is a red herring anyway. Even if she did work for (for instance) BBC World News it would make no difference, if there are no reliable independent sources. Daily Mail is a deprecated source. --bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is the top news network in the US (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/) and she is a co-anchor on one of its shows. That is sufficient for notability. The Daily Beast is reliable considering all it is stating is what her role is and not anything controversial (see WP:DAILYBEAST "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."). Is not an outside source better? Fox & Friends is reliable in this situation since it is interviewing a person who actually works for the program (I don't think CNN or MSNBC is going to interview her) Also, she is one of the few Hispanic co-anchors in news media that serves a national audience. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, two passing mentions in a daily beast article is not significant coverage whether you believe it to be reliable or not. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Sucker for All's claim was a typo. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have performed a source analysis. I have placed it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus, stating the permalink analysed. No sources used have any value towards notability. Other editors may disagree, and should provide justification Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added two sources that she is the official co-anchor of Fox & Friends First, the most watched news show in the M-F, 4-6 am timeslot. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these are press releases or regurgitated press releases and do not aid her in passing Wikipedia:Notability (people) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  She is officially the co-anchor of the top national news program in the US in the M-F, 4-6 am news slot which definitely makes her notable which the sources demonstrate.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Patapsco913, it looks like you've literally never !voted other than keep in an AfD? —valereee (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I only vote if I think there is an argument to keep an article. Most AFDs are obvious and not worth my time. I have salvaged numerous articles by adding needed sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Aight. It's a little startling when someone with 118K edits starts arguing that being an official co-anchor in "the most watched news show in the M-F, 4-6 am" somehow automatically confers notability. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I thought I was following the correct process: I added some sources which I thought provided evidence of notability and even if it does not perfectly follow the "guidelines", I threw it out there for discussion (like so many other discussions on AfD). What did I do wrong? Nevertheless, it has been deemed insufficient and I will move on. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Steinberg, Brian (October 29, 2021). "Carley Shimkus Will Replace Jillian Mele on 'Fox & Friends First'". Variety.
    • Weprin, Alex (October 29, 2021). "Fox News Names Carley Shimkus Co-Host of 'Fox & Friends First'". Hollywood Reporter.
    • "Carley Shimkus Named Co-Host of FOX News Channel's FOX & Friends First". Businesswire. October 29, 2021. FOX & Friends First is the most-watched program in its 4-6AM timeslot averaging 479,000 viewers and nearly 100,000 in the coveted 25-54 demo, more than doubling CNN's Early Star....
    • Katz, A.J. (October 29, 2021). "Carley Shimkus Joins Fox & Friends First; Jillian Mele Leaving Network". Adweek.
    • Maglio, Tony (October 29, 2021). "Carley Shimkus to Replace Jillian Mele as Co-Host of 'Fox & Friends First'". The Wrap. "Fox & Friends First" is the No. 1 cable news show its time slot — and even beyond, in certain instances — according to Nielsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So first the claim was "she works for the biggest news network in the world", then it was "she works for the biggest news network in one country", and now it is "she works for the biggest news programme at a specific time in one country". In any case, it is irrelevant how large the news network is, since merely appearing as a news anchor does not make a person notable, as explained repeatedly above.

As for the five sources listed here, the first four are the same source, a PR that was apparently published in its entirety by Businesswire (source 3 above) and regurgitated in source 1, 2, and 4. Source 5 is also based on the same PR, with a couple of additional sentences about the person Shimkus is replacing. As you know, press releases do not show notability, and if the same PR is published in four places, it is still only one single, primary and non-independent, source. There is nothing here to indicate that Shimkus is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to reread my post. I never said "biggest news network in the US", I said "top news network in the US" and provided a link to demonstrate it. Then I provided support that the show she co-anchors has the highest viewership in the 4-6 time am slot. I did not change a anything.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment moved – please make sure you don't post replies in the middle of someone else's comment. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Her notability is integral to the links I provided. As a co-anchor on a national news program that runs for two hours a day, Monday through Friday makes her inherently notable. The citations support that and we have her prior roles as a co-host on Fox Nation and her early role as a reporter to support it. She is also a Latina co-anchor of a top news program Patapsco913 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she's on a national news program regularly doesn't mean she herself is notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO, press releases do not count towards notability neither does amount of viewers. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Viewership is used as evidence to support notability of bloggers and streams so I think it would be relevant here as well. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Viewership is not used to support notablity of bloggers and streams. Your argument shows a general unfamiliarity with the notability guidelines. Viewership is not in any of the relevant notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OK! I just read WP:BIO, and it does not say that press releases do not count towards notability nor does it say that amount of viewers doesn't matter. Are you saying that Ekali & Gravez are as notable as artists that get listened to more? Notability and number of people who view the person in a formal context (in this case Fox News, the most watched news outlet in the world) clearly matter Sucker for All (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC) @Lavalizard101:[reply]

  @Sucker for All No-one except you has conflated Press Releases being useless in verifying Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

  Please try to understand that for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article a clear "keep" (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

  Press releases do not match those tough criteria. It matters not how often you state that Shimkus is notable. What matters is when and whether she has references that meet those criteria that verify notability. Today she has not. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sucker for All, please read WP:PRSOURCE. You are literally arguing with people who have tens of thousands of edits over more than a decade that you, with your 898 edits, understand policy better than they do. You are wasting other people's time. —valereee (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are being obtuse, please read WP:NEWSORG for info about press releases and their unsuitability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)WP:GNG point 4: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. aka press release don't count towards notability bc their are considered not independent. Also jsut because a rule doesn't explicitly mention something doesn't count towards notaility doesn't mean that it automatically does. Several ppl have pointed out that it doesn't, yet you appear to not be listening. And to answer your question Notability is determined by RS AS HAS BEEN SAID TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis by TimTrent is accurate. What other coverage there is: There is several annoucements of taking the job of co-host. She is mentioned in passing here. There is many of the, taking the appointment type, for example: [5] but apart from that, not a lot. Really well known, but no real secondary coverage. Changed from Weak Keep to Delete. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems I am not going to win this one. So how about merging it into Fox and Friends First and then maybe a couple of articles with sufficient grounds for notability (or maybe a controversy) appear and then we can refresh it. If she stays in her role for some time, she is likely to become sufficiently notable as most national anchors have articles.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Patapsco913 With the caveat that you would need to build consensus for including information on hosts into that article, there is nothing to prevent your doing that now. I give the caveat because there is no substantive information on hosts there currently. However, each host's presence in that article would need to be backed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources as references. WP:BLP still applies when the person is living, even if the article is not their biography

  The venue for that discussion is Talk:Fox & Friends First and not here. This deletion discussion has necessarily limited scope. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is fine for me. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Yamamoto

Remi Yamamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-of-the-WP:MILL staffer fails WP:GNG. Being the senior advisor for communications to the White House Chief of Staff is not a notable position in the slightest. Not everyone who works in the White House is automatically notable. Oh, and neither is someone who works as "traveling national press secretary" of a political campaign. KidAd • SPEAK 02:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: seems like two feature non-trivial sources in the article. Unsure right now. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Couldn't find much besides the two sources of the article and this one. The The Hawai‘i Herald seems like a bit of narrow and obscure source. Vogue is clearly in-depth, but I think some more is needed for someone with a lower-level White House position. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find that she was the spokesperson for the failed Iowa Gubernatorial Democrat candidate Fred Hubbell. 1, 2, and a Press release about her from the White House, Photo of her traveling with President Biden. It makes USA Today when she tweets. I think the many publicized mentions and the two sources in the article give the subject notability. Serving the President of the United States - or speaking for the President is notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My comment is close to Lightburst and the sources was provided him can demonstrate notability of subject.Misasory (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable political position, lacks of significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be enough there in her life to demonstrate notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anna University of Technology, Chennai. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology

Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Anna University of Technology, Chennai. All I could find about this was some trivial name drops in references about other things. So it's clearly not notable. That said, I'm fine with it being redirected as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Anna University of Technology, Chennai - also cannot find much info in google. Boredathome101 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Balwant Singh College

Raja Balwant Singh College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... And obviously not even considering the obvious alternative to deletion here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's zero references in the article and all I can find are some trivial name drops in school directories. That said, I'd also be fine with redirecting it, but I'm not sure what the best target would be. So I'm leaving my "vote" as delete until someone poses a good place to redirect it to. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a highly historic and notable college. I can't imagine a college like this being deleted if it was in North America or the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it a highly notable college when there's zero references in the article and no one including you have provided any? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES! Invalid nom. Specifically Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online.Polyamorph (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2 as noted by Polyamorph. There is in any case coverage of the college, e.g. [6][7][8]. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Nominator blocked as sock of a banned user. Polyamorph (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I don't see direct evidence of notability, the amount of coverage shown by Hzh convinces me that this institute has a good chance of being found notable under WP:GNG. The only reason for deletion remains WP:TNT, but with such a tainted nomination, I think this would be the wrong way to go.--Muhandes (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Bobherry Talk Edits 13:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translam Institute of Technology and Management

Translam Institute of Technology and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... In addition, the nominator obviously hasn't even considered the very obvious alternative to deletion here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect To Uttar Pradesh Technical University. I'd be fine with either, but as things currently stand the references just aren't there for this to be notable. Mentioning it somewhere else as an ATD is perfectly fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yet another run-of-the-mill technology institute in India. My Google search yielded zero results in English and Hindi both. Fails WP:NORG. JavaHurricane 08:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, redirect to Meerut (location) or to Uttar Pradesh Technical University. JavaHurricane 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. ✗plicit 01:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.P. Institute of Design, Noida

U.P. Institute of Design, Noida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. No evidence of notability. --Muhandes (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Since all the coverage of this is extremely trivial and (or) primary. So there's zero reason for it to have an independent article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Nominator blocked as sock of a banned user. Polyamorph (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue in this AfD is whether this list's selection criteria (listing all alumni, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff of the listed universities who went on to win the Turing Award) are original research or not. Unlike in the corresponding Nobel AfD, this discussion is much more focused on that issue, allowing us to assess consensus more easily. The "delete" side not only has about a 2:1 advantage in numbers, but in my view also the stronger arguments. To overcome the SYNTH issue, the "keep" side would have to point to reliable sources that use the same selection criteria to establish an "affiliation" of award winners to universities, and I'm not seeing such sources being cited here - at least no such sources that convince most AfD participants. Sandstein 14:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation

List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Inspired by the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation.

To summarize the arguments for delete:

• The criteria for what university affiliations "count" are arbitrary and unsourced, and any decisions we make about them are original research.
• The ranking of universities is exactly the kind of combining of information that WP:SYNTH is asking us to avoid. Danstronger (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Exactly the same problem as the other lists of the same type. The individual items may have citations, but the choice of what counts as "affiliation" and what doesn't is a layer of original research on top of that. This could be acceptable in an academic paper about the Turing Award, but not here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-WP:LISTN WP:SYNTH chest-thumping exercise. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For gender balance we should also acknowledge the breast-beating element. EEng 16:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The following paragraphs are essentially copy-pastes between all three of the articles, with the only change being the relevant award name:

The university affiliations in this list are all official academic affiliations such as degree programs and official academic employment. Non-academic affiliations such as advisory committee and administrative staff are generally excluded. The official academic affiliations fall into three categories: 1) Alumni (graduates and attendees), 2) Long-term academic staff, and 3) Short-term academic staff. Graduates are defined as those who hold Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate, or equivalent degrees from a university, while attendees are those who formally enrolled in degree programs at a university but did not complete the programs; thus, honorary degrees, summer attendees, exchange students and auditing students are excluded. The category of "Long-term academic staff" consists of tenure/tenure-track and equivalent academic positions, while that of "Short-term academic staff" consists of lecturers (without tenure), postdoctoral researchers, visiting professors/scholars (visitors), and equivalent academic positions. At any university, the specific academic title solely determines the type of affiliation, regardless of the actual time the position was held by a laureate.

Further explanations on "visitors" under "Short-term academic staff" are now presented. 1) All informal or personal visits are excluded from the list; 2) all employment-based visiting positions, which carry teaching/research duties, are included as affiliations in the list; 3) as for award-based visiting positions, to minimize controversy this list takes a conservative view and includes the positions as affiliations only if the awardees were required to assume employment-level duty (teaching/research) or the awardees specifically classified the visiting positions as "appointment" or similar in reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. In particular, attending meetings and giving public lectures, talks or non-curricular seminars are employment-level duties. Finally, summer visitors are generally excluded from the list unless summer work yielded significant end products such as research publications and components of Turing-winning work, since summer terms are not part of formal academic years; the same rule applies to extension schools of universities.

• This is obvious original research be editors making up their own criteria for this article and similar ones. And since it is a copy-paste, I'm also going to allow myself to copy my own rationale from other discussions, which applies here just as much as it does elsewhere: Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a database; an indiscriminate collection of unrelated trivia; or a directory based on unrelated characteristics - something which this article very obviously is, as the overly broad concept of "academic affiliation" clearly does not have a significant link with "being awarded a medal". Additionally, this is clearly OR, not because there are no sources, but because these sources are used in a novel, synthetic manner, and as such the whole of the content of the list, from the ground up, is original research; and because it is based on subjective criteria (which by definition cannot be "routine calculations", which are objective). Something that is first published on Wikipedia, and has no precedent in other sources [not even listed on the site of the award itself], and is indeed only based on the synthesis of sources which say, separately, "X attended [institution]" and, often at an entirely unrelated time, "X won [award]", and blatantly explains itself as being OR in the lead; is obviously OR, and something built on such a shaky foundation should be deleted. Even if, by some miracle, there are enough appropriate sources to write a proper article, then WP:TNT applies, because it would require rewriting this entirely RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The phrase "original research" is used on this website to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. On List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, at least one reliable source is there for every entry. The only "criteria" used on this list is the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliation". Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. The definition is elementary. It is like an axiom. RandomCanadian is basically having the same confusion that TompaDompa has. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, there is a long discussion between TompaDompa, and Minimumbias and me. Please study that discussion carefully. User:Danstronger: The ranking of universities is exactly the kind of combining of information that WP:SYNTH is asking us to avoid. Guess what? I fixed that problem with ONE EDIT. This comment by Tiredmeliorist is applicable to this discussion. Ber31 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing the summarized form of the problem doesn't really remove the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But the WP:SYNTH raised by User:Danstronger is resolved. Maybe other issues can also be fixed... Ber31 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it is resolved. The page still ranks universities. It just doesn't give a summary of the ranking before the ranking. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not having the ranking summary table gives a message: We are not trying to rank universities. Ber31 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To be more precise, I feel there were three levels of SYNTH going on. The first is to say Stanford has 29 Turing Award affiliates. The second is to say Stanford has more than MIT. The third is to say Stanford's rank by this metric is that they are first. The first level is the most important one, because it implies number of affiliates who won the award, counted in this way, is the important thing. Ber31's edit makes the third level of synth implicit instead of explicit, but it is still clearly there. To get rid of all the synth would require at least getting rid of the headline counts and putting the schools in alphabetical order. At which point, I suppose the relevant guideline would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't believe this article can be salvaged. Danstronger (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Danstronger: You made a great argument! We can avoid WP:SYNTH by putting the schools in alphabetical order. Headline counts should not be a problem because routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. After that, this list won't be "excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The purpose of this list is clear: we plainly state the alma mater and the working places of the Turing award laureates, without counting them using a particular set of criteria and without ranking universities in a particular order. Ber31 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  By avoiding university ranking and putting them in the alphabetical order, we can make sure that this list will avoid "chest-thumping exercise", and thus refuting the "delete vote" of User:David Eppstein. His claim of WP:SYNT has also been completely refuted by my arguments. Ber31 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think alphabetizing the list is an improvement. But there's yet another, zeroth level of synth that I forgot to mention. It's the combination of "Leslie Valiant was a lecturer at University of Leeds" and "Leslie Valiant won a Turing award" into "Someone affiliated with the University of Leeds won a Turing award." Now, this may seem obvious to you, but it's not the technical truth of the statement that's important, it's the implication. The implication, in this case, is that Valiant's Turing Award should be associated, or assigned, to the University of Leeds in some way, and, if we read between the lines just a tiny bit, that the university should be attributed some prestige from this association. These synthesized implications are the reason people care about this page, they're the reason WP:ITSINTERESTING, but they are not supported by any reliable secondary source. There is no way to list Turing Award laureates by university affiliation without implicitly assigning Turing Awards to universities. That's why the page is unsalvageable. Danstronger (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Danstronger: Thank you! Danstronger:The implication, in this case, is that Valiant's Turing Award should be associated, or assigned, to the University of Leeds in some way, and, if we read between the lines just a tiny bit, that the university should be attributed some prestige from this association. That is you personal interpretation. I could interpret it differently: it just happened that Valiant taught at Leeds University. Since it was a random event, Leeds University shouldn't be attributed some prestige from this association. Ber31 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Drawing a line from the Turing award, through Valiant, to Leeds is beyond absurd. I'd be willing to bet Valiant doesn't even remember being a lecturer at Leeds -- fifty years ago! EEng 20:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As per this reliable source (published by Harvard), Valiant was a Lecturer at Centre for Computer Studies, Leeds University (1974-76). This list is guided by reliable sources, not by any types of subjective interpretations. Ber31 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, DUH, no one's questioning the fact that he lectured at Leeds. You entirely miss the point, which is that his lectureship at Leeds 50 years ago was a brief and unimportant moment in his career utterly unrelated to his Turing award, and it is (I repeat) beyond absurd to somehow draw a line between them. You might as well list his secondary school as having an "affiliate" with a Turning Award.

  You have a longstanding habit of pontificating on how academia works (see Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_11#Content_dispute) when, to be blunt, it's becoming more and more clear that you have nothing more than a layman's understanding of it. EEng 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: I haven't missed your point, I just want to say that we cannot use your subjective interpretations. The list has to be guided by reliable sources. Yes, his lectureship at Leeds 50 years ago was a brief and unimportant moment in his career, but no-one can deny that he was academically affiliated to Leeds University. List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation shouldn't list secondary schools. In that discussion (Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_11#Content_dispute), User:Attic Salt's points were the game changer. After Attic Salt's argument, this is what I concluded: Thank you, User:Attic Salt for your insightful and respectful comment. You have made a powerful point: the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time. The AMs received by John Adams and John Quincy Adams will only count as awards or honors today. However, back in those days, those AMs would count as regular AMs. I wasn't wrong when I pointed out that the AMs that were awarded to John Adams and John Quincy Adams were completely different from the AM earned by the likes of Brian Schmidt, but I accepted the powerful point of Attic Salt, namely the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time at Harvard. By the way, I have more than a layman's understanding of how academia works. Ber31 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You even miss the point that you miss the point, and your needing someone to point out that the notion of what qualifies as an AM has changed over time confirms my estimate of your expertise. EEng 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the kind words, User:EEng. Let me put it in this way: I can afford to miss the point, but I have to save this list! By the way, I am not an expert on Harvard's AMs. Ber31 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: I wasn't wrong when I pointed out that those AMs were not earned through academic labor. During those days, those AMs were something of a rite of passage. I also fixed the mistake, John Quincy Adams was awarded an AM by Harvard in 1790–not in 1798.[9] Ber31 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Academic labor", like "academic affiliation", is just one more of your incomprehensible talismanic incantations. EEng 20:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have decided to elaborate my arguments below. See:[10] Ber31 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The affiliations are neither arbitrary nor unsourced and so are not original. The presentation is not synthesis because juxtaposition is not synthesis. Having disposed of the nomination's false assertions, it merely remains to confirm the topic's notability. See Turing award scientists: contribution and recognition in computer science or Social conditions of outstanding contributions to computer science : a prosopography of Turing Award laureates for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the non-arbitrary, source-based explanation for the following sentences in the article? for award-based visiting positions, to minimize controversy this list takes a conservative view and includes the positions as affiliations only if the awardees were required to assume employment-level duty (teaching/research) or the awardees specifically classified the visiting positions as "appointment" or similar in reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. In particular, attending meetings and giving public lectures, talks or non-curricular seminars are employment-level duties. --JBL (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, let's look at the sources. The first one you give, a PhD thesis; has the following on p. 126: "Table 5.2. Universities Attended for the Last Degree Received by Turing Award Winners (1966-2008), N=55". The numbers are given in percentages (a shoddy way to give the data here, but nvm); but if I do some actual "routine calculations", from the last column, this converts to: 7 for Harvard, 6 each for Princeton and Berkeley, 5 for Stanford, ... Not only are these a far cry from the numbers given in the list as it stands, they don't even match with even just the "Alumni" column of the article (even once one discounts those entries after the given date): and of course, this brings into question whether the article's methodology is really "universally accepted" if other sources use different methods. Clearly, not just the content (which is a load of SYNTH), but the whole concept and methodology of the article are entirely original constructions, which cannot be found anywhere but on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and something that has not been published anywhere else before is obviously original thought, then this is clearly not material fit for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not arbitrary; it's just commonsense of the sort that we use all the time when we use words in natural languages such as English. My standard example of this issue is rivers. Our article river tells us that There are no official definitions for the generic term river but yet we have numerous lists of rivers. And these are not just lists of names, they also include stats such as length which are naturally quite variable or debatable because the rivers are not constant and their length is fractal in nature. So, even though there are complications and corner-cases, we maintain such lists because they are expected of an encyclopedia. This is not original research; it's just the clarification and defnition of terms required when compiling information about the real world as it's not tidy and mathematically precise. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If this kind of arbitrary decision-making were done on the subject of rivers, it'd be just as bad as it is here. We can report what other sources say about the lengths of rivers and how variable those figures might be; we can convert miles into kilometers. We can't invent a new definition, call it "obvious" or "universal" or "common sense" and apply it in the face of what our own sources say. RandomCanadian pointed out that the first source (the PhD thesis) disagrees with the enumeration here; so does the second, as it gives 6 post-graduate degrees to Harvard while this list gives 7, and it gives 6 to Princeton instead of 7, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But the key point is that the editorial decisions which have been made in presenting the current version are not fundamental; they are just operational and provisional, as with any of our content. Consider the first version of the list which was naturally much simpler and straightforward. Now, I'm not sure exactly how that differed from the current version; the devil is in the details. The point is that if there's some issue with the choices which have been made then the reasonable way forward is to hash this out on the talk page, holding RfCs as necessary, to get to a better state. Deleting the 10 year history along with the talk page and archives is just wanton destruction contrary to policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CANTFIX is part of WP:PRESERVE. Even the first version has the problem that it's ranking universities, and by a metric whose significance is far from established. (A non-peer-reviewed preprint is not a reliable source, and a thesis is not much better, since we can't trust it to have been vetted by anyone outside the author's own institution. So, the idea that this is an encyclopedically suitable cross-categorization is very much in doubt.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrew Davidson, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly: you argue (for example) that the question of whether Maxim Kontsevich is affiliated with the University of Miami for purposes of List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is essentially similar to the question of whether the Roeliff Jansen Kill is a river for the purposes of List of rivers of New York? --JBL (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not familiar with either of these examples but, according to our articles, Kontsevich is "a distinguished professor at the University of Miami" while the kill is a "tributary of the Hudson". I notice that Kontsevich is in the List of University of Miami faculty but not the Category:University of Miami faculty. Is this a deliberate mistake or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kontsevich is listed with five different affiliations at List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation, but Miami is not among them; I suppose one could ask Minimumbias to explain exactly why. But I'm not asking a gotcha question, I just chose a couple of examples I'm familiar with as illustrations because I would like to make sure that I understand your analogy before I decide whether to say anything further about it. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe everyone who has commented at the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal pages could just say "per my comments here [link]" and then we can avoid the absurdity of having a third discussion full of identical rationales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs)

  We could each have a template or something. EEng 04:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or one big template for the whole discussion. EEng 13:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the same reasons I have repeatedly explained in [11], here [12] and here [13]. Minimumbias (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Effectively rebutted (by refuting the central point, that these are "universally accepted criteria") here. And also in the previous analysis of Andrew's "sources" here, which, whether they are reliable or not, don't match with the article content... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Students, faculty and short-term staff are universally defined concepts. Education and employment are the basic affiliations. These are like common sense. You "rebutted" my claims as if I am giving out false information. Go to any department's website with proper directory presented, you can see this grouping of people [14] [15][16][17]. Everyone knows university has professors, but not many sources will explicitly state this common sense. In addition, sources like Cambridge's count [18] lists the laureates like ours (121 laureates) and MIT's count [19] lists the laureates like ours (98 laureates). Claiming we cannot find any source to support our lists is plainly false. Wikipedia policies cannot be used to override common sense. There is no pride in carrying out such abuse. Wikipedia is not some fantasy world, but some people living in it seem to be using NOR as if they are policemen. Minimumbias (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Students, faculty and short-term staff are universally defined concepts – If you really believe that then we're moving into WP:CIR territory. EEng 19:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: How would you define "academic affiliation"? Ber31 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't try to do what you keep trying to do. That's the point. EEng 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. It is like an axiom. This is so elementary. University of Cambridge's definition of academic affiliation and our definition of academic affiliation are equivalent. As per Cambridge page:Our list includes: alumni; academics who carried out research at the University in postdoctoral or faculty positions; and official appointments (visiting fellowships, lectureships, etc). We have not included informal positions, non-academic positions and honorary positions. On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, academic affiliates include alumni, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff. Both the Nobel count of Cambridge University and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation include alumni. Long-term academic staff include academics who carried out research at the university in faculty position. Short-term academic staff or visitors include postdocs, visiting fellows, lecturers, etc. This means that the same definition of academic affiliation and criteria are used by both Cambridge list of Nobel affiliates, and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation! If a student were to attend calculus classes, the student will not be learning basic arithmetic such as 4+9=13. Few editors commenting on AFDs seem to be aware of the basic definition of academic affiliation. It should be almost taken for granted that editors who participate on these types of AFDs should be aware of the meaning of academic affiliation. Editors who are unaware of this definition or show confusion should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. It is easy to delete pages, but very difficult to create and maintain pages. I am tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, but few editors paid attention to what I said. Ber31 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I give up. EEng 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, if this is universally accepted, how can you explain the differences in listing between different websites; how the papers given by Andrew do not use this; how many other sources do not use this, ...? Whether some universities happen to list their laureates by what look like superficially similar criteria can't justify all the others who don't. Again, go explain to me how this is universally accepted if on examples like the Nobel list, Harvard was given over 150 while it only officially claimed 51. Nor is the criteria so uncontroversial that Wikipedians are allowed to take a stance on it. Some (like the first of the papers shown by Andrew) only take into account the last received degree, wherever that may be. A universally accepted criteria should be universally followed: this clearly is not, because you can find a variety of sources which use different criteria. You can't just ignore those that have different criteria than you and justify it with "oh but its universally accepted": that's not only trivially wrong, but also obvious selection bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me repeat the same thing that I have said below. MIT counts the long-term academic staff who won the Turing award. Here is the list:[20] (Turing award is included). That MIT list doesn't include Whitfield Diffie, an MIT graduate and Turing award winner. However, MIT accepts that Diffie is an MIT graduate. Here is an article:Turing Award Goes to Cryptography Pioneer ’65. This list includes students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. Universities use the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use different criteria while counting Turing affiliates in their official lists. Got it? Universities can create own their lists using their own subjective criteria, but such things cannot be done on Wikipeida. Such subjective criteria cannot be applied to Wikipedia lists because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Editors of Wikipedia cannot control the behavior of other universities. List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation must not use subjective criteria. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". Editors have to stay neutral and avoid subjective interpretations. This list is the best that editors can create and maintain on Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RC:Whether some universities happen to list their laureates by what look like superficially similar criteria can't justify all the others who don't. Again, go explain to me how this is universally accepted if on examples like the Nobel list, Harvard was given over 150 while it only officially claimed 51. Let me explain why Harvard count is different from List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. The official count of Harvard University doesn't include all the Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard. It only includes long-term academic staff.[21] Has Harvard denied that Adam Riess, a Nobel Laureate and Harvard graduate, is not affiliated with Harvard? No[22]. Harvard uses the same definition of academic affiliation as we do, but they use their own subjective criteria while counting Nobel affiliates. I think I have made my arguments very clear! Ber31 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  " but they use their own subjective criteria while counting Nobel affiliates": hence you admit there are indeed multiple valid ways by which prize winners can be counted. Why choose your particular one out of all others (especially if it is not the one used by other sources)? You still haven't addressed any of the rest of the argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple ways by which prize winners can be counted. However, here on this website we can't use subjective criteria because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is almost the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". How many times do I have to explain the same thing over and over again? Ber31 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple ways by which prize winners can be counted, and despite your repeated unsupported assertions that this is "universally accepted", both set of criteria look equally subjective to me (is it really correct to list someone as affiliated to a university they taught at for only a short while, or where they studied for a bachelors when in fact that didn't have much to do with the topic/reason they were ultimately awarded a prize?). You can keep acting as though your point must be accepted by other people. That's disruptive, and I will not entertain it any further. Good luck convincing others (please don't, you've already bludgeoned this debate too much here and at other places), I'm done, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Other editors have a right to accept or reject my arguments! Ber31 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Since your comment contains two sentences that begin "Again", may I (again ;) ) request that people not just repeat the same arguments over and over verbatim? I do not think it is necessary or helpful for judging consensus. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of Turing Award laureates - affiliations with corporate labs are often as important as affiliations with university research centers. I don't agree with the WP:SYNTH arguments for deletion, and unlike the Fields Medal article this information isn't on the main Turing Award article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose usurping that redirect, which currently points to the actually-list-notable list of winners at the main Turing Award article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per @RandomCanadian and my argument at earlier discussions. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR as nothing like this list exists in the real world. It is just yet another WP:TRIVIA content-fork of two unrelated topics (Turing Award laureates and the incredibly vague by 'university affiliation') cobbled together through WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY for trivia. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this list doesn't violate WP:OR. Here is my argument:[23]. Academic affiliation isn't "incredibly vague". Editors who are show confusion on basic concepts like academic affiliation should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. Please read my argument carefully. Here is the diff:[24]. Nothing like this list exists in the real world? Take a look at this:[25]. MIT is counting the long-term academic staff who won the Turing award. That MIT list doesn't include Whitfield Diffie, an MIT graduate and Turing award winner. However, MIT accepts that Diffie is an MIT graduate. Here is an article:Turing Award Goes to Cryptography Pioneer ’65 A slight problem with WP:SYNT can be solved by putting the schools in the alphabetical order. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Thus, you "delete vote" has been completely refuted by my arguments. Ber31 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Subjective criteria are not routine calculations, which are by definition objective. The rest of your argument has effectively been countered; and alleging that other editors are incompetent by linking CIR is incredibly impolite and disruptive (see WP:IDHT), even if you're utterly convinced that you are right and all others are wrong. And you are obviously misinterpreting CALC. It clearly says "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Yet here we have sources which clearly use different methodologies... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  When did I say that subjective criteria are routine calculations? What are you saying? This list[26] counts long term affiliates of MIT Turing award affiliates. This reliable source[27] says Whitfield Diffie is an MIT graduate. Using both reliable sources in the list is acceptable. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. I assume good faith, but I do think that editors have to read a lot to participate in these types of AFDs. Ber31 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We can use WP:COMMONSENSE! Ber31 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not misinterpreting CALC. We are not "comparing statistics from sources that use different methodologies". We are using both sources for "adding". Ber31 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Using both reliable sources in the list is acceptable.": euh, no, it clearly is not. This is not a routine calculation, such as simple mathematics. This is taking a source which says "A attended B" and then equating this with "A is academically affiliated with B"; which are not the same thing. Given the different sources use different methodologies for determining whether someone is affiliated with an institution or not, we cannot take a stance on which one of these methodologies is correct or not (see WP:NPOV: Wikipedia does not take a stance in disputes, it describes them in proportion to their position in sources). Yet here you are, continuously arguing that one method (the one which happens to match the fewest number of sources, yet is also the one used in the article) is "universally accepted". You seem to not comprehend what "universally accepted" means: something that is "universally accepted" is used and accepted by everyone, without question [like the speed of light, or the orbital period of the earth, or the definition of what a prime number is]. Clearly, there is no such "universally accepted" criteria, and your appeal to "common sense" should really be tempered with WP:There is no common sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RC:This is taking a source which says "A attended B" and then equating this with "A is academically affiliated with B"; which are not the same thing. No, RC! If student A is a graduate of university B, student A is academically affiliated with university B. WP:COMMONSENSE! This source[28] and this source[29] don't use "different methodologies for determining whether someone is affiliated with an institution or not". This list[30] counts long term affiliates of MIT Turing award affiliates and this reliable source[31] says Whitfield Diffie is an MIT graduate. Using both sources to say that Tim Berners-Lee, Michael Stonebraker, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, Barbara Liskov, Ronald Rivest, Butler Lampson, Fernando Corbato, Marvin Minsky, and Whitfield Diffie are all affiliates of MIT would be completely correct! All we are doing is adding! Ber31 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Final note: shouting "COMMONSENSE" at people when they expressly tell you that they disagree that this is common sense (again, go look at WP:There is no common sense), and provide reasons why, is borderline condescending. No further comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (in case that's not clear). Despite protestations, there's no universal or obvious or commonsense definition of affiliation, as the elaborate explanations on the page itself make painfully clear. EEng 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:OR and failing WP:LISTN. As explained ad nauseum above, the inclusion criteria is OR and therefore inclusion in the list is the result of SYNTH. Editors !voting keep have not been able to provide adequate sources or evidence of why this criteria should be used. Further, I cannot find any sources supporting this grouping as prizes are awarded to individuals. Even the Turing Award site only mentions the university background of recipients as part of a general biography. I might be persuaded for an extremely limited merge with Turing Award (if sources support this) in the style of the Fields Medal page only listing affiliation at time of award as an extra column in the recipients table. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elaboration I have already "voted" keep above. I will elaborate my arguments further. I will try as hard as possible to salvage this list. I have re-arranged the list in the alphabetical order.[32] Thus, the structure of the list has changed. The list is different from how it was when it was nominated for deletion.[33] The ranking of universities has been removed. By avoiding the ranking and after the re-arrangement of the list in the alphabetical order, we can make sure that this list avoids "chest-thumping exercise", thus refuting the "delete vote" of User:David Eppstein. Headline counts should not be a problem since routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Let me give an example. Cornell University counts 2 Turing award laureates as Cornell affiliates: Juris Hartmanis and John Hopcroft. As per this[34] reliable source, Robert Tarjan was an assistant professor at Cornell. As per this[35] reliable source, Edmund M. Clarke has PhD from Cornell. Thus, as per the reliable sources, Cornell has 4 Turing award laureates. All we are doing is counting! WP:SYNTHESIS is violated when different sources are put together as a form of analysis or to reach non-explicitly stated conclusions. The list makes no such attempt. All we are doing is regular counting. Routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Thus, the claim that this list violates WP:SYNTHESIS has been refuted. There are several universities that has their own lists of Turing award laureates affiliated with those universities. For instance, here is list published by University of Chicago:[36]. Thus, the claim that this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization is completely false. Let me refute the claim that the inclusion criteria of the list violates Wikipedia:No original research. The only "criteria" used on this list is the definition of "academic affiliation". Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. This definition is like an axiom. Here is an article[37] on "academic affiliation" published by THE. Go to various department's website with proper directory presented, for instance, see: University of Massachusetts [38], MIT [39], Stanford [40], University of Florida [41] and UC Irvine [42]. In "people" you will see lists of students, faculty, affiliated faculty, emeritus faculty, etc. If you aren't familiar with universities, keep in mind that "academic affiliation", has something to with "academics". To be considered as academic affiliates, individuals have to be involved in employment level duties, namely teaching university-level courses or doing research. Long-term academic staff and short-term academic staff are considered as academic affiliates because they are involved in employment level duties. Administrative staff don't have to teach or do research, so they are non-academic affiliates. Graduates are considered as "academic affiliates" since they studied at universities for academic degrees. This is so elementary. Universities define academic affiliation in the same way as it is defined here. There is absolutely no controversy when it comes to the definition of academic affiliation. Editors who are unable to grasp such elementary facts or show confusion should be questioned for their eligibility to participate in these types of AFDs. Here is the CV of Wolfgang Ketterle:[43] The CV is published by a major university (in this case, MIT), so it can be considered as a reliable source. It isn't published by a blog or personal website. Please review how Wolfgang Ketterle has classified his academic affiliations ("Education" and "Employment, research") in his CV. In List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, the official academic affiliations fall into three categories, namely alumni (graduates and attendees), long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff. Universities also define and classify academic affiliation in the same manner. In List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, there is a reliable source for every entry. Thus, the claim that the inclusion criteria of the list violates WP:NOR has been completely refuted. Some editors are confused because different universities' Turing award counts are different from this list. That is because different universities use different subjective criteria while counting Turing award laureates in their official lists. For instance, here is an article published by Princeton University:Alumni win Turing Award, top honor in computer science. As per that article, 11 Turing award laureates are affiliated with Princeton University as of 2021 (Aho and Ullman + past winners of the Turing Award). That article only counted alumni and long-term faculty of Princeton University. As per this[44] source, Allen Newell was a graduate attendee at Princeton University. As per this[45] source, Richard Hamming was a visitor at Princeton University. As per this[46] source, Shafi Goldwasser was a visitor at Princeton University. As per, this[47] source, John Hopcroft was an assistant professor at Princeton University. As per this[48] source, Pat Hanrahan was an an assistant professor at Princeton University. Thus, as per the reliable sources, 16 affiliates of Princeton University are affiliated with Princeton University as of 2021. That is what this list shows. All we did was regular counting. When a detailed analysis is done on this list, it is clear that this list doesn't violate any policies of this website. Ber31 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SYNTHESIS is violated when different sources are put together as a form of analysis or to reach non-explicitly stated conclusions. Right, such as the analysis you made of the sources that an additional two people meet the criteria for this list to reach the non-explicitly stated conclusion that four Turing Award laureates are affiliated with Cornell. I know you think it's self-evident that this is the way the laureates should be counted (i.e. by this definition of affiliation), but if that's not how the sources do it, then we're producing novel content. It would be the same thing if we were listing them by some other kind of information that we can extract from the sources, such as birth year: if the sources don't list them that way, we're producing novel content. Producing novel content is not allowed on Wikipedia.
    This source you cited doesn't really back up your assertion that this list's criteria correspond to a universally accepted definition of affiliation (it doesn't define the term at all); if anything it contradicts it, since it speaks of losing one's affiliation to universities by losing one's job whereas this list includes former temporary employments. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TompaDompa: Your arguments on WP:SYNTHESIS are completely wrong. You have basically misunderstood what WP:SYNTHESIS really is. Any neutral editor who has decent understanding of WP:SYNTHESIS can point out that you are wrong on WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read what I wrote above carefully. This is not the only source that I cited. There are other sources that I cited that you didn't study. Please study [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. Ber31 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TompaDompa: How many times do I have to explain it to you that universities define academic affiliation in the same way as it is defined here? They use subjective criteria while counting Turing affiliates in their official lists. Such subjective criteria cannot be applied to Wikipedia lists because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you over and over again? Read what I wrote above:

    • To be considered as academic affiliates, individuals have to be involved in employment level duties, namely teaching university-level courses or doing research. Long-term academic staff and short-term academic staff are considered as academic affiliates because they are involved in employment level duties. Administrative staff don't have to teach or do research, so they are non-academic affiliates. Graduates are considered as "academic affiliates" since they studied at universities for academic degrees. This is so elementary. Universities define academic affiliation in the same way as it is defined here. There is absolutely no controversy when it comes to the definition of academic affiliation.

      Ber31 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first three links ([54][55][56]) don't contain "affiliation", "affiliated", or "affiliate" even once – they're all "people". The fourth one distinguishes between "faculty", "emeritus faculty", and "affiliated faculty". The fifth one again doesn't mention "affiliation" or any variation thereof, it's all "faculty". Perhaps you can provide a quote from a source which you think demonstrates that the criteria used by this list (i.e. the three paragraphs in the WP:LEAD beginning with The university affiliations in this list are all official academic affiliations such as degree programs and official academic employment. and ending with Non-academic affiliations such as advisory committee and administrative staff are also excluded from the list.) correspond to the universally accepted definition of affiliation? I'm seeing more and more evidence that this is not in fact a universally accepted definition.
        What I think is missing here is a justification for listing the laureates this way. That's not "this way as opposed to some variation of this way", that's "why are we listing them this way at all?" Do reliable sources list them this way? If other sources are using what you call subjective criteria, on what grounds do we list them in this entirely different way? TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • TompaDompa: This source[57] lists All Faculty & Staff, Tenure-Track & Teaching Faculty, Adjunct Faculty, Research Scientists & Fellows, Emeritus Faculty, In Memoriam, Staff Directory, PhD Students, Master's Students, and Advisory Board. Who are they? They are all affiliates of the department. Got it? This source[58] lists Department Administration, Faculty, Emeritus Faculty, Affiliated Faculty, Graduate Students, and Staff. Who are they? They are all affiliates of the department. Got it? Please read what I wrote above. Ber31 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're saying those are the affiliates. The sources don't say that. That's the problem. TompaDompa (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sources don't say that they are not the affiliates. Sources include them because they are affiliates! Ber31 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fallacious reasoning. The source is only a directory, and nowhere does it say "affiliates". As far as we know, it might just be a convenient way to facilitate communication. You suffering from confirmation bias and deciding that they are "affiliates" is not a valid reason to think they are. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, there is no "fallacious reasoning" from my part. How do you define "affiliate"? An affiliate can be defined as "officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization." This source[59] lists All Faculty & Staff, Tenure-Track & Teaching Faculty, Adjunct Faculty, Research Scientists & Fellows, Emeritus Faculty, In Memoriam, Staff Directory, PhD Students, Master's Students, and Advisory Board. They are all officially attached or connected to that department. Thus, they are all affiliates of the department. Got it? Ber31 (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How do you define "affiliate"? The correct answer is "I don't, I leave that to the sources." And the source you linked to doesn't define "affiliate" (or even mention the term). You're assuming that these are the affiliates and engaging in something akin to circular reasoning as a consequence. I'll also note that the link you provided includes "Staff Directory" and "Advisory Board" whereas the definition of affiliation used by List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation explicitly excludes Non-academic affiliations such as advisory committee and administrative staff. TompaDompa (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • TompaDompa:How do you define "affiliate"? The correct answer is "I don't, I leave that to the sources." As per Merriam-Webster, "affiliate" is defined as "to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch".[60] As per your logic, we should define every words! That makes no sense. Should we use Merriam-Webster to define every words? "Staff Directory" and "Advisory Board" are affiliated with that dept., but they are not included in List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation because they don't have to teach or do research, they are non-academic affiliates. Ber31 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • How "affiliate" is defined is irrelevant if the sources do not combine this to come to the explicit conclusion. Your argument here is not much different from the final example in WP:SYNTH, as explained there: The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Replace "Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism" with "Merriam-Webster definition of affiliate"; and adjust the final bit to match, and you have exactly the argument you are making. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Now look. No one is to talk about anyone's affiliation until I blow this whistle, do you understand? Even -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if they do have a Turing Award! [61] EEng 18:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Oh no. Quick, Awake! Make yourselves ready for the battle... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Plea: In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints and Apostles, can we have a close now to this sorry scarecrow of a discussion? EEng 06:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Putting together multiple sources for a universal list when not a sufficient number of them demonstrably agree on a definition of affiliation entails one source's criteria being privileged over others, which constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The University of Massachusetts Amherst source above is a directory, and nowhere it is indicated that it has the same criterion of inclusion as others; indeed, TompaDompa seems to prove the contrary. Avilich (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First of all, per WP:NLIST, Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... This is exactly such case. For example, here. Using such award recepients for ranking Universities? Yes, sure. That is what many sources do (link above). I do not see any problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That book misspells "Nobel" multiple times, and it only mentions the Turing Award twice, giving a different affiliation count than the article does for Stanford. I'm doubtful it should be taken as reliable (and it certainly isn't in-depth); if it is, then it just underscores the WP:SYNTH problem and the lack of "universal" criteria for what counts as affiliation. XOR'easter (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that nine Harvard graduates have become 30 heads of state [62] is also concerning -- perhaps even frightening. EEng 12:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear just from the book's title ("Higher Education in the Arab World") that this is not offering in-depth coverage about the topic of university affiliations. The fact that even in ranking universities (and it doesn't explicitly rank them, it just gives a list of the few top achievers without telling which one is better than the other), it seems to be using multiple other significant criteria, and only gives a passing mention to the "number of Turing Award Laureates", confirms this. Plus, the dubious reliability of the source (there are many basic copy-editing and factual faults, even beyond the ones mentioned above) precludes it from being acceptable for LISTN or GNG purposes. Not that either of these two things has anything to do with the argument for deletion, so in short even the red herring argument provided here is refuted, probably much more convincingly than at the Nobel list page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That particular ref does not matter. Almost every reference currently on the page (such as [63]), makes a connection between this award and the Alma mater of the recipient, exactly as our policy requires ("One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..."). This is exactly the same as with Nobel Prize winners. What is the difference? My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alma mater and university affiliation are not the same thing. If you want to demonstrate the notability of the intersection between receiving the Turing Award and university affiliation, you can't use some other topic as evidence. TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, "affiliation" is wider. But obviously, everyone who received his degree in University X (Princeton in this example) was affiliated with the University while attending it. Hence belongs to the list. The criteria for inclusion are very clear. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to disagree on "very clear". Consistent? Maybe. Reflecting the consensus of reliable sources about which criteria to use for assigning Turing Award laureates to universities? It does not appear so. But that's really a separate question. My point was that if you want to demonstrate the notability of the broader topic, you need sources about the broader topic, not the narrower one. TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • And of course there are such sources [64]. I should run though. Anyone can find many sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't bloody believe it, this is almost humourous at this stage: "Missing information are manually collected from the WIkipedia page of the laureates"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A key theme of Turing's work was the question of whether a given decision process will eventually arrive at a result, or just go on forever. We appear to have here an example of the latter case. EEng 02:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. DeathStarArchitect (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abu Ghadiya. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadiya

Ghadiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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