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 wrong forum. Redirects should be discussed at redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of climate change deniers[edit]

List of climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of Climate change deniers is a redirect to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

• Delete as nominator. The target does not say climate change denier because showing that requires a lot more than that they oppose the consensus. Labeling all the scientists in the list as climate change deniers goes against WP:BLP in that we may be defaming people. Yes lots of them would be climate change deniers but showing that in each particular case would need specific sources showing that. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2016 (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.  Sandstein  19:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiendas Kress[edit]

Tiendas Kress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Puerto Rican chain store. This article was previously prodded by Boleyn and deprodded by its September 2003 creator, AntonioMartin, on 31 August 2014. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I know what some will say but, per this-^[1].

Antonio The Best Of All Time-BOAT! Martin (aca), 02:50, July 14, 2016 (UTC)

• Delete if there are all these online sources brought up by a Google search, why does the article have no references? Then a closer look reveals why: WP mirror sites, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, the company's own website, Yellow Pages, shopping mall websites with directories of their tenants, discount shopping coupon offers...none of it demonstrates Notability, only that the company exists - which is not enough. YSSYguy (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a few newspaper articles and working on finding more.Antonio BOAT IS HERE! Martin (por aca) 19:47, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
• Delete/merge to S. H. Kress & Co. AntonioMartin, can you specify how you think it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Which reliable sources do you think evidence this? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yep, exactly per YSSYguy. So the place has Google hits? So what? *I* have Google hits. That doesn't make me notable. Reliable sources giving the subject significant coverage do. Where are they? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:57, 14 July 2016 (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 redirect to Wiktionary.  Sandstein  19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petro-[edit]

Petro- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bizarre dab page. All the entries violate WP:PTM, some more than others. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDIC and ((Wiktionary redirect)). It has no good target on Wikipedia, and it gets 3 hits a day. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikt per Patar knight. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2016 (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. Consensus to delete/does not meet notability criterion. Jujutacular (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Notte[edit]

Richard J. Notte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per AfD/Melvin P. McCree and AfD/Jeffrey Brohn which lead to the deletion of county level officials that were involved in corrupt (stemming from one party rule: nepotism - difficult to source and theft that was source). Article only has local coverage as myfoxtampabay.com story about his death was by the Fox affiliate in Detroit and was not a significant article about Notte. Sterling Heights is not a global city and Notte is only a former city mayor of a non-global city. Spshu (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a key factor here is that Sterling Heights has a council/manager form of government, that mayor is a figure head who is no more notable than other members of the city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to wonder about the sincerity of this nomination since it was made by the one person who opposed the mentioned deletions, and has all the marks of a pointy nomination. However I still support the deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Umm, stuff like He was the longest serving incumbent mayor of a 'big city' in Michigan until his death in 2014. is no indication of notability actually. Should he have held some national record for being a longtime mayor, I may have considered. Otherwise, mayors of cities are not notable in general. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - longtime mayor of a bigger suburb. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Bearian fails to recognize that in Sterling Heights the mayor is a figure head. He has no more power than any other member of the city council. If we are going to keep this article, we should create articles on every member of the city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "automatic notability because size of city" consideration for mayors applies only to cities that use the powerful/executive mayor form of government, and not to weak/ceremonial mayors of places that use the council-manager structure. In that latter type of city, a mayor gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be really solidly sourced. But this isn't sourced nearly well enough to clear the bar. I would caution Spshu that the "global city" condition applies to city councillors, not to mayors — Spshu is quite clearly trying to do a WP:POINT backlash against the results on Brohn and McCree, which is not appropriate. But despite the nomination being based on a misguided principle, I can't oppose it because for the reasons I've already stated the actual standard for mayors isn't applicable here either. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The mayor is a city councilor in this city, just a separate class, so I would caution Bearcat, to stop continually harassing me and ignoring the rules of discussion. The outcome that you cite states it applies to Municipal politicians ("Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics.") thus mayors and city councilor members. Which as Lambert has back me up that the mayor is both. Second, you have a history of misrepresenting the rules to make me look bad. This is not a WP:POINT but the logical conclusion of caring out the results of said AFD. If the principle was so misguided than why in the world did you bring it up in one of those AFDs? Spshu (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain this one more time: the standard for a mayor passing NPOL is "regional prominence"; the standard for a city councillor passing NPOL is "global city". The difference here is not the fact that Sterling Heights isn't a global city, because that's not the standard that applies to mayors — the difference is that Sterling Heights is a city that uses the council-manager form of government, and thus its mayor doesn't have the same level of executive power that many other mayors have. A city half the size of Sterling Heights can get its mayor over NPOL if the sourcing is there, because a mayor does not have to pass the same "global city" condition as a city councillor does — but a mayor does have to serve in an "executive mayor" system, not a "council-manager" system, to get the mayoral pass. Kindly note that I agreed with the deletion, but just for different reasons than the ones you provided. And I most certainly do not have any history of "misrepresenting the rules" or going out of my way to "make you look bad", either — Brohn and McCree were the first times, as far as I can recall, that you and I have ever interacted in an AFD, and I most certainly did not "misrepresent" anything in those discussions and neither am I "misrepresenting" anything here. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Mayor in a city manager form of government leads the council meetings and performs ceremonial functions. These Mayors should not have a presumption of notability. as independently elected Mayors might. It does not appear that the subject would meet WP:GNG. Enos733 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as none of this amounts to confirming his own needed notability, I'm not finding anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he certainly passes the WP:has-an-obituary-in-a-big-city-daily test. Note that theSun-times obit states thet he was the "first Mayor to be directly elected; and that the headline reads, "known for efforts to salvage Chrysler assembly plant in his city." Also, Detroit News here: [1]. Here: [2] is more Detroit News coverage of his career. Here: [3] is is coverage in the The Macomb Daily. Here: [4] is the obit in the Detroit Sun-Times, and one from regional TV station: [5]. Note also that the article has been here since 2009. While the standards set forth regarding the size a city needs to be for its Mayor to automatically qualify for notability is useful for easy keeps, the standard is not especially useful in determining whether the mayor of a smaller city is notable. This one passes WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where is this "WP:has-an-obituary-in-a-big-city-daily test" as I do not see it at WP:ANYBIO? Notte has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Nor has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

It does not matter whether he was the first elected mayor. The Detroit News, Macomb Daily and a TV station (Detroit Sun-Times is the same as the TV station) are all regional news entities, as in the two AfD for county register of deeds (in that case the regional/state Flint Journal/mlive.com), regional newspapers do not grant "world at large attention" enough for notability. Spshu (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Impact the Chrysler plant referred to in the obits is the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, giving Notte credit for a major impact on a Chrysler plant. I searched proquest news archive on and came up with slew of articles on this. Chrysler announced a plant closure in 2008. But here's a passage form 2010 "Chrysler LLC's Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP), targeted for closure just 18 months ago, now has new life following the Sterling Heights City Council's action Wednesday evening paving the way for the automaker's $850 million investment in the plant for renovations, new equipment, machinery and special tooling....City Council unanimously approved a Brownfield Redevelopment Plant for the plant that will support Chrysler's application for state of Michigan Brownfield Tax Credit, as well as tax abatements on the automaker's new personal property and building renovation investments. The abatements will generate $13.2 million in new city taxes over the next ten years.... The end result was Chrysler's decision to invest nearly $1 billion in the plant, the largest single business investment in the city's history, according to Mayor Richard J. Notte." who is credited with engineering the deal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening a auto plant is not "part of the enduring historical record" in the governmental field. Spshu (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm out of time for now. There is so much coverage of Notte's role in a series of complex deals that turned the Chrysler thing around that it will take more time than I have now to sift through them. I don't even know what happened after 2010 yet. And there seems to have been more than one plant involved, perhaps not all of them Chrysler. It does, at least, seem clear that he was not some sort of mere figurehead, but a very active mayor and successful indeed, whatever the specifics of the Sterling Heights political system may be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was a figurehead by charter thus any such claims of that he made the deals happen on his own are false or signs of corruption. And note your quote indicates "the Sterling Heights City Council" took the action not Notte by himself. Notte as mayor is generally the spokesperson for city council, so it is easy for the media to grant credit to him. Spshu (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry if I implied that he did so in such a way that it can be interpreted as a "sign of corruption," but in non-autocracies, it is in fact common to credit legislation and other political accomplishments to the individual or small group with the leadership and skill to hammer out coalitions that get things done. I assume this to be what the newspapers mean when they credit Notte notable among the politicians and businessmen who kept those factories running.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the short course, via Craine's [6]."Sterling Heights Mayor Richard Notte dies at 76; Notte known for efforts to salvage Chrysler assembly plant in his city".E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crain's Detroit Business is still a regional newspaper thus not enough. Spshu (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, now that I figured out what at least one big accomplishment of his administration was, it's simple to find coverage of Notte's activities in media outside the region. (City tries to hang on amid U.S. auto industry's collapse, Linebaugh, Kate. Wall Street Journal, Europe edition [Brussels] 06 Apr 2009: 4.) Although I do think that coverage in the Detroit Free Press - the largest paper in Michigan - cannot be classed as local, but must be regarded as regional, or, statewide, Free Press coverage here: [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that obituaries in major daily newspapers are regarded as supporting notability. One discussion here: [8]. Articles are routinely started at the time of death, and sourced to obits in major newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No, they most certainly do not. My grandfather had an obituary in the Boston Globe, and bless his soul, but he was a pipefitter and a church sexton with zero chance of meeting the GNG. This guy just doesn't meet any notability criteria, period. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am sorry to hear that your grandfather has passed away, you are laboring under a misapprehension.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in the least. Got anything better than a seven year old discussion between four editors to back up your assertion? Like an actual guideline? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here:[9], and here: [10], and especially here: [11]: "We choose to write an obituary when it’s clear that the person in question had made a significant impact in a particular field, on the larger society or some segment of it, on the country, or even on the world. If the individual meets that test, then his or her death is news that we feel our national readership should know about. In that sense we operate no differently from any other news department at the paper.". This is why obits in major newspapers validate notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, many papers, including the Detroit Free Press flags obits not written as journalism with the words, "Reader Submitted."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: This really should not be as difficult as all of that, and I'm trying to guess exactly why you're working so hard to obscure or deflect the point. Demonstrate that, as you have claimed, that obituaries in major daily newspapers are regarded as supporting notability. Why you would possibly think external links would have any bearing on this question I have no idea at all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they are a form of feature article on steroids; editors assign them not on the basis of interesting-at-this-moment, like a feature story, but on the grounds that they have evaluated an individual like and deem it of significant and enduring important, to a field, a region, or a nation. The articles I link to explain this. If it is not somewhere in the rulebook, it ought to be. And it is often cited at AFD bio pages as though it were.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note While many newspapers print paid death notices written by the family, (for example, this paid section of the Boston Globe [12]) and many local or small town papers run obituaries of just about everybody in town, major newspapers like the Boston Globe and the Detroit Free Press are extremely selective about the individuals they choose to run an obituary about, the individual must be judged notable by the editors and the obituary assigned to a journalist. The journalist will interview the family and colleagues, but details are verified and the copy at the Boston Globe is produced by the paper, not by the family. This is why a newspaper written obituary in a major daily is regarded as evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Elected mayor of a city of over 100,000 population. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the mayor is a figurehead. He is really a member of the city council, who serves as its president. He has no added power as mayor. Are you prepared to claim that all members of the city council are notable? I as a city resident am not, and so say delete the article on Notte.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Sterling Heights, Michigan — Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The individual does not have significant coverage to warrant an article. Redirect to Sterling Heights, Michigan. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mayors are not automatically notable and I can't find sources to demonstrate notability. The crainsdetroit obit appears to be newspaper-written but more is needed to meet GNG. Ca2james (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2016 (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. In this surprisingly long discussion about the notability of this academic, we end up with something like 16 opinions to keep, 12 to delete and no consensus. Given the many and strongly different views about which standards to apply and how to apply them, which is mostly a matter of editorial judgment, this is not something I can resolve by determining the strength of the arguments advanced.  Sandstein  17:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwal Ameen[edit]

Kanwal Ameen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Likely fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMICS. Being head of a university department does not satisfy NACADEMICS; nor does being the editor-in-chief of Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries which certainly is not a "major, well-established academic journal". The only possible claim to notability could result from receiving the "Best Teacher" award from a Pakistani government body responsible for higher education in 2010, but I am unsure that alone satisfies WP:ANYBIO - can we call this award a "significant award or honour"? In view of all those doubts, I am submitting this article to a deletion discussion. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to meet GNG for her field and we have to note that she is in Pakistan, so source material may be a little more sparse. Taking in total the published works, plus the university department head, plus the editor position , plus the awards, this collectively adds up to adequate indicia of notability. I don't like how the article is written, it's too promotional in tone, but that's just a cleanup issue, not a notability one. Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources and content indicates that this is a national expert in her academic field. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pinging Randykitty for academic analysis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had a look at the "best teacher award" and tried to find out the criteria for it. The website is really buggy though. I tried to find other sources. This shows that in 2013, 153 teachers were nominated and 63 were ultimately awarded. It seems universities can nominate teachers and then the body decides. I'm not sure what is the weight given to research while giving this award though. The other prize by the Pakistan Library Association may not be notable. It seems she is a member of the very society awarding the prize and has been involved in it for a long time. Other than that, I'm not familiar with the h-index, so it is a bit hard to evaluate this as it doesn't pass GNG either.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. GS h-index for this person [13] is 12, which is probably below par for this field. Notability will have to be found other than in WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete To say that the article strains for crumbs would be to put it charitably. As for "we have to note that she is in Pakistan, so source material may be a little more sparse", see WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. EEng 11:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, systemic bias is rearing its ugly head. We are using first world standards for articles on notable Third World individuals, who have less access to academic journals than do Americans, less access to a sophisticated University publicity machine than do similarly-situated Americans, and, particularly for women instructors (in general, worldwide) who have to work harder than do men to establish themselves, a very heavy workload that precludes time to toot their own horn. Also, it is really not easy for an individual to be both a notable teacher and a prolific publisher of papers; often, in fact, there are many instances of top-notch, award-winning instructors in the good old USA getting criticized by university bureaucracies for "insufficient publication". There are neutral, third-party sources here, and notability is adequately established. This is a nationally-recognized individual, I see nothing in NPROF that requires international notability. As for professional awards, generally they are given to people who are members of that profession, lawyers honor lawyers, doctors honor doctors, etc. The logic fails here. This individual is a leader in her field, is nationally recognized and easily meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the bit in all that she re you explain how PROF or ANYBIO is satisfied (and these, BTW, are not first- or third-world standards, but WP standards). EEng 05:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Over 100 publications, two books, a department head, multiple awards, an instructor, all significant in Pakistan, as far as I can see, and no one has yet demonstrated otherwise. Even if you nitpick one as not notable in solo, combined they equal GNG for our purposes. Also WP:PROF: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In Pakistan-- so national impact; "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." In Pakistan. "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions; Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."

"5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." (this appears to be akin to a named chair), and so on. My point about the Third World is that what is prestigious in Pakistan may not be something anyone has heard of in the US, so it's important to not try and prove a negative by an argument that this individual didn't publish something in the USA. Again, from WP:PROF: "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." And for the love of pete, AfD just kept an article on a stupid pornstar that was in a few movies. We have got to get our priorities straight here! Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which source shows significant impact in field (broadly construed)?

2. What's the highly prestigious award? I hope you don't mean the "57 best teachers in Pakistan for 2010" award, since if that's the case we'll soon have 57x250=15000 articles on notable recipients of national "best teacher" worldwide. Oh, wait, that's only 2010... Since then there will have been 90000 more such prestigious awards given out.

4. What source shows the significant impact on higher education, affecting multiple institutions?

5. Sorry, but what's her position akin to a named chair? I hope you don't mean department chairman.

BTW her personal page says 70 papers (not 100) and that includes conference proceedings. Any evidence of being highly cited? Also, you seem to be interpreting the "broadly construed" bit backward -- the more broadly construed the field is, the harder it is to have significant impact.

EEng 13:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No answer, I notice. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the porn star, unfortunately, yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. National expert in her field, sufficient sources to establish notability. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And where are these sufficient sources? There are none. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For the reasons stated by others, subject is sufficiently notable. Reliable sources establish that she has contributed significantly to her field. Knope7 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but which sources are those? Because, other than her personal webpage and publications, her department's page verifying she's chairman, links to the journals showing she's on the editorial boards, and her own message as "founding member and patron" of the Punjab University Library and Information Science Alumni Association (PULISAA), the only sources in the entire article are [14] ("57 best teachers off 2010") and "Asian library Leader's Award for Professional Excellence - 2013 from Satija Research Foundation for Library and Information Science (SRFLIS), Delhi, India" [15] -- and one of those is dead. EEng 18:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Pinging David Eppstein, who's got a lot of PROFessional experience. EEng 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silence. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not monitoring this page so I did not respond earlier. Nothing should be read into whether nor not a choose to continue participating in a discussion, so please do not make any further insinuations about my participation or lack thereof. [16] I'm comfortable keeping this article. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link moved to [17], also referenced [18]. You will also note that it is an award to a Pakistani academic from an Indian organization. Given how Pakistan and India feel about each other, I suspect that's not common. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Montanabw. Keilana (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, perhaps you can answer my questions (above) about sources which he or she hasn't. EEng 21:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to the closing admin: The "keep" votes above are a mixture of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ASSERTN and should not be mis-construed for proper deletion discussion. Additionally, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is now being called "systemic bias". Hey, this is ENGLISH Wikipedia and any sources should confirm notability in the English-speaking world. If "systemic bias" makes here only Urdu sources available, Ms Kanwal Ameen is welcome to have a well-sourced bio on Urdu Wikipedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources do not need to be in English. But I agree that we can only decide on the basis of actual sources, not on the vague hope that maybe somewhere out there are sources we don't yet know about. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete per NACADEMIC#6 (The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) See below NACADEMIC#5 is more appropriate. She is the chair of The Department of Information Management at University of the Punjab which is, per our article, "the oldest and largest public University in Pakistan".

  The article should be trimmed to reflect only what we have sources for but she passes the "presumed notability" of NACADEMIC. Per my comment below [19] existing sources are not sufficient to pass GNG and I have become convinced she meets no relavent SNGs Jbh^Talk 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highest level post is taken to be President or Vice-Chancellor. Chair of a department is insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I read #6 as referring to notability which would be equivalent to an endowed chair at a major institution. The academic achievement is pretty much the same regardless of who pays their salary. I suppose NPROF#5 (The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).) ^{(emp. mine)} would be more appropriate. Jbh^Talk 01:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Size of the university is irrelevant because notability is not inherited, whilst head of department, an administrative position, is not the same as endowed chair, not even remotely similar: being a department head is not a measure of academic achievement. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the University is relevant because the guideline requires "major institution". As to the claim this is admin only position, I believe you are wrong. If you look at the departments page [20] you will notice that she is the only full Professor listed and is the senior academic in the department. That said, per List of academic ranks#Pakistan there are two levels above a full professor, Meritorius/Distinguished National Professor and Professor Emeritus. From what I can find about Distinguished National Professors it is a PR position more that an academic position. Per the linked document they are "appointed on a two year contract" so I would consider a Pakistani DNP to fall under NACADEMIC#2 rather than what we define as a distinguished professor in the SNG, which is a permanent appointment. Jbh^Talk 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley If you see this resume, it very clearly lists "Chairperson" under administrative jobs. It is an administrative position of a department. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl1942, However her own resume [21] does not list it as an admin position and per the department information I linked she is a)the only full professor in the department b)the senior academic in the department c) the chair of the department. I do not see how the way another academic structured their CV has any weight as there is no standard way to write a CV, maybe the person whose CV you linked is more interested in moving up in academic administration and prefers to stress that, there is simply no way to know.

Also, she says in her CV she Chief editor of Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries. I do not know if it is a major enough publication for NPROF#8 ("chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.") to apply but it is likely the primary national journal for her subject area. We would need RS for the claim but the journal itself would suffice. Jbh^Talk 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can not find anything significant on the journal so that looks to be a non-starter. I can not find any indication that The University of the Punjab in particular nor Pakistan universities in general have "endowed chairs" so I keep coming back to the "or equivalent position in countries without endowed chairs" of the SNG. Do you know if the concept of "endowed chairs" even exists within the Pakistani Public University System? Jbh^Talk 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No actual evidence for notability (via WP:PROF or otherwise) has yet been presented. Subject is only half a dozen years out of a post-doc, a stage at which most US academics would be just coming up for tenure and WP:TOOSOON for notability. Why should we expect (without evidence) that notability comes sooner elsewhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until sources can be presented to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there is less material about this person, that isn't something we can fix. SSTflyer 02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We cannot compare notability of academician in Pakistan and America. She is among policy makers for academia in her subject throughout Pakistan. Her notability in comparison to notable professors in other disciplines in Pakistan is considerably much better. She is accepted as key personality throughout Pakistan. - Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources say she's a policy maker, and which says she's a key personality throughout Pakistan? EEng 09:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably none, it would seem. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late but have found her published interview in which Chief editor of magazine recognized her valuable services to the profession and stated that she is regarded in professional circles of librarianship throughout Pakistan. Please see p.7-10[22].Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us what kind of magazine this is? It looks to me like some small-circulation newsletter (perhaps a member newsletter from some society)? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't comment on magazine and its publishing body. Please have a look on their website for more details [23]. About its circulation i will say that it is circulated throughout Pakistan by means of professional collaboration groups such as on Pakistan Library Automation Group [24]. This group has considerable influence in librarians community in Pakistan. You can see this magazine posting on it.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks pretty amateurish to me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• May i ask why? Just for my learning if you like to explain shortly. Another source P.3 [25]. Editor of Research journal of Pakistan Library Association (national professional body) recognized her services in paradigm shift of library education in Pakistan. One other independent source that published her interview. [26]. This source is one out of two research journals of librarianship in Pakistan. To check national listing of journal, p.2 sr. no. 22 and 23.[27]. Other research journal is under Ameen's supervision. This journals list is also available on official website of Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. It may help to check authenticity Pakistani sources. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the website doesn't look very professional and the magazine looks like something somebody put together on their desktop computer. I agree that Pakistani sources may be important here, but the links to the journals that you give would be more impressive if they would be independent of Ameen (she's editor of one journal and on the advisory board of the other). --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine and research journal that published Ameen's interview [28] both are independent of Ameen. Please recheck on the official website of that journal on [29]. Let me know if i failed to make it clear. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profile-type interviews tend to be puff pieces, and incidental introductory comments have zero notability value. EEng 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your personal opinion or WP policy based statement? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline somewhere, not to mention common sense. As pointed out over and over, the idea that this person is notable is laughable. Other than things she herself wrote, there are no sources other than the "57 teachers" award, a photo, and now this interview. It's absurd. She's a run-of-the-mill academic. EEng 00:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Montana above - I also don't like how the article is written and it needs to be pruned, however that is not relevant to the question of notability. This academic appears to be a nationally-recognised expert in her field, which makes her sufficiently notable for inclusion here. MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the third-party reliable evidence that she is a "national expert" in her field? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above.. and Ive pruned it and notabilitry says "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Unnn that would be Chair Prof Ameen I reckon Victuallers (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have been on the fence trying to find out more info, but it seems there really isn't. Verifiability is key here.

1. Article fails WP:GNG by a mile
2. Fails WP:PROF#C1 as h-index is low
3. Fails WP:PROF#C2 The award that she got is not selective. 53 winners out of 160 nominations is not very selective.
4. Fails WP:PROF#C3,WP:PROF#C4 No evidence for satisfying it
5. Fails WP:PROF#C5 The subject has been appointed "Chairperson" of a department. Note, this is not the same as a named "chair professor" or a "distinguished professor". The same university actually has a position called "Distinguished National Professor" which is more selective (For example this faculty got it). The subject doesn't satisfy this.
6. Fails WP:PROF#C6 Subject has not held the highest post of the institution
7. Fails WP:PROF#C7, Fails WP:PROF#C8 No evidence for this, the journal doesn't seem to be important
8. Fails WP:PROF#C9 Doesn't apply --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about Named chair Jbhunley,Victuallers You may wish to check about the "chairperson" position. It seems this is something like a "head of department" (an administrative position), rather than a named chair professor/distinguished professor. I looked at this CV of another academic at the same university. She was a chairperson even before she had a tenure track appointment. Also note the concurrent nature of the appointments : Professor of Botany, Punjab University (Jan 8, 1998-2008), Professor Microbiology and Molecular Genetics on Tenure Track April 2008– May 17, 2011 along with Chairperson, Botany Department, Punjab University (Oct. 26, 2002-Oct. 25, 2005), Chairperson, Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Department, Punjab University (Nov. 08, 2002– May 17, 2011). More importantly, the university also has a separate Distinguish National Professor (HEC) position which is more notable (as can be seen from the CV). Upon examination, our subject doesn't seem to have attained this Distinguished National Prof position and hence doesn't satisfy WP:PROF#C5. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my notes above [30]. She is the senior academic in the department and the only full Professor. In Pakistan the term Distingushed National Professor refers to something completely different from the SNG's distinguished professor and is more of an award per NPROF#2 from my reading of the material. Jbh^Talk 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: You are confusing academic titles with academic positions (like named chair). No, a "named chair" is not an academic title, you will not find "named chair" among the ministry-approved academic titles. You don't become a named chair by passing exams or writing a thesis. For Wikipedia, notability of an academic does not depend on the titles gained but on being elected to certain prestigious academic posts. And being head of department is not sufficient to comply with NACADEMIC. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept of the "endowed chair" or equivalent exists in the Pakistani Public University system I will happily change my !vote to "delete" but I have not been able to find any such endowments so all there is to go on is that she is the senior academic and head of department at a preeminent national university. What if not that, within Pakistani academia, would satisfy "..or equivalent in countries where named chairs are uncommon" within the SNG? Jbh^Talk 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at List of academic ranks#Pakistan and it seems there are 2 ranks above professor; the one immediately above is Meritorious Professor/ Distinguished National Professor. I found more CVs at the same university [31], [32], [33], [34] where academics seem to have been designated as "Meritorious Professor". So there definitely is an academic rank above a full professor and below an emeritus professor. Additionally, it is interesting that this CV [35] as well added Chairman to an administrative position. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that Meritorius Professor is a pay grade (BPS-22 vs a Professor BPS-21) which seems to essentially be a time in grade thing with a points system. That said I did find a single endowed chair in Pakistan The Salam Chair in Physics. Endowed chairs seems to be a bit more rare than hen's teeth in Pakistan. I seems there really is no congruence between US/British accademic honors and Pakistani ones, which seems a bit odd considering. It looks like Pakistani academia is more like a civil service than anything else. From what I have been able to find all department heads are the only full Professors in their department and distinction seems to be by various awards rather than by title etc. Since there is no evidence she attained here position in a way any different from any other civil servant I an changing my !vote to delete. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting on CVs, BPS-22, BPS-21, Meritorious professor/Distinguished National Professor, and Emeritus professor. Meritorious professors or Distinguished National Professors switch their job from one university to the other university. They get the similar position in other university but difference in title because of non-inclusion on professors' seniority list. They become junior most in the university but more experienced professor as compared to some junior colleagues. Simply a nomenclature issue. Have a look on above cited CV [36]. He is Meritorious Professor but has considerably little contributions as compared to Ameen. Emeritus professors are those who have retired from their regular service as professor. None of serving professors can be Emeritus professor. Only regular serving professors have BPS-21 or BPS-22. These are mostly on seniority cum fitness basis. Concepts of endowed chair and named chair do not exist in social sciences including Ameen's subject. No source but set convention in universities. It can be verified by looking on few CVs as has been done by someone.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley, I think you are considering the SNGs as having to all be met individually rather than "stacking" and considering the overall picture. Here, we have a high-ranking professor, one who has won awards, and last I checked, most public universities (worldwide) promote people as "civil servants" -- a combination of seniority and achievement. If we take the provisions of GNG to imply a presumption of notability, I am not sure your research rebuts that presumption, in fact, I'd say it proves it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the SNG WP:NACADEMICS is very clear that meeting any one of the conditions would suffice. The subject unfortunately doesn't. The stacking doesn't work here. We have routinely deleted articles about professors who did not satisfy any one of these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Montanabw: Actually I tried to come up with an 'integrative' approach to get her over the 'endowed chair equivalent' since endowed chairs seem to be uncommon in Pakistan (I could find only one.) and the university she teaches at is high prestige. (As an aside I have a very good friend who is the head of a department at a major public university - there are several full tenured professors there besides her which is why I considered a system like in Pakistan where the chair is the only full professor to be more "notable" than at a US university. My friend also turned down an endowed chair at a lesser university so I am already editorially and personally inclined to look at the overall "notability" of an academic position. ) However, when I looked at the way Pakistani Universities promote academics I found it was based on a point system ie to be a Professor you need X points and received 4 points for a successful PhD student, 1-2 points for 'Best Teacher' etc. The same is used for promotion to "Meritorious Professor". The only truly merit based title seems to be "Distinguished Professor" and that looks like an award more in line with a Fullbright.

  Based on the above I came to see her position as not being enough to make her notable, nor in combination with the 'Best Teacher' since it is common enough to be given 'promotion points'. The other position I looked at is her editor in chief position but the journal looks to be very minor. An example of how it might be OK to 'integrate' would be if her position was also inherently the editor-in-chief of the national journal. That would show that it may be a higher prestige position/more notable position because it 'carried the flag' so to speak.

  I would say an 'integrative' assessment would get her about half way to wiki-notable so even one good independent RS article drawing attention to her in some detail would be enough. I would then be comfortable "presuming" other sources per SNG but she still needs something to separate her from the pack before I can see presuming that there is more out there. Jbh^Talk 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley, a "point system" is used in the USA for academic promotin also, particularly in public universities where they are sensitive to (wait for it...) bias accusations and want to demonstrate the fairness and objectivity of their promotion standards. So that is not a slap. (in fact, I fail to see what that matters at all) I can tell you two things about such a system: 1) Points can be earned by legitimate accomplishments, such as publications and awards, thus, as such this adds to the potential notability of someone. 2) Such a system can be gamed just as much as anything more openly subjective, so one cannot say that it is somehow a pure, automated-and-therefore-meaningless approach. She had some human being do an objective review, it wasn't a promotion assigned by a comptuter. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then in such a case, when there are no "endowed chairs", then notability has to be ascertained using the remaining criteria. Same applies to countries with no universities: we don't try to approximate a university there but just use other criteria. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not really applicable any longer to this AfD, NPROF specificly speaks of "equivalent positions in countries where endowed chairs are uncommon" so, yes, we do indeed approximate. We are, in fact, enjoined to approximate by the very wording of the SNG. Jbh^Talk 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The WP:PROF uses an international standard, we do adjust somewhat for relatively unpuliciszed d fields and countries with fewer reliable sources of information. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my rationale later in the page on July 18 for changing this to a keep.

This is beginning to take on aspects of the absurd. There are two sources in the article that aren't written by, or under the control of, the subject herself: [37] and [38]. One is a dead link, and the other is a photograph of the subject receiving the one-of-57-best-teachers award. How can this possibly be a keep? EEng 04:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our inclusion criteria for academics are weak enough as it is, I don't see any need to lower the bar even more for persons from some countries. I am disappointed by the vast majority of the "keep" !votes above. Some don't know what a "named chair" is. Most don't cite which sources show that this person is a "policy maker" or otherwise wields significant influence. Even in countries less developed than Europe or the US, newspapers and such do exist and a "policy maker" would be suspected to hit the news from time to time (and Urdu sources are welcome, Google Translate has become good enough to at least give a rough idea what a text in a language that you cannot read is about). But the sources don't seem to be there. Armeen's Google Scholar profile (here) indicates a fair number of publications (but far removed from the 100 claimed in the infobox) and a decent citation record, but not close to what we usually take to indicate notability. Quite decent for somebody just 11 years after their PhD, but nothing more than that. Given that she's mid-career at best, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I dropped my crystal ball yesterday, so I can't be certain that she'll become notable in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep An award winning teacher and professor. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Research fellowships are a dime a dozen. So, just for my edification, could you perhaps tell me which one of her awards do you think makes her cross the bar of notability? And which source confirms that she actually got that award/those awards? At this point, the only reference in that section is a photo on a website that looks like it has been concocted by the OMICS Group. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the nominator seems to admit the 2010 best teacher award from the HECoP confers some noteability. Anyway, it's not just about her awards, I also find the analyses of Montanabw more convincing than the delete arguments. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That award has two references, one giving a "page not found" message. The other one is Ameen's faculty page and only says "HEC Best teacher Award 2010". We don't know what this award means, we have no information on how many of these awards are given each year, basically, we know nothing. And with all due respect, I don't follow Montanabw's "analyses" at all. Basically they're just an argument to lower our standards and just assume that this person's position is equivalent to that of a named chair, without us having any evidence for that position. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: both the article and her online CV state that she's a "Professor (Tenure Track)". Unless "tenure track" in Pakistan means something else than in the rest of the world, that means she's not even tenured yet! --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have information on how many are given: 75/yr in Pakistan alone. See [39]. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At that number, that most certainly is not the kind of award intended in PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started a cleanup of the article, encountering some interesting tidbits. The book she edited was published by the local branch of a national society. Another book that she wrote was published by the notorious VDM Publishing (have a look at that article to see what that means). I've also cut some trivial stuff, like what societies she's a member off. I wouldn't even mention stuff like that in a CV! --Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unremarkable professor. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. Sources cited are either clearly primary, mere listings on editorial boards and announcements of minor awards. Googling turned up nothing useful. As others have pointed out, being department chair is an administrative job, not at all the same as a holding a named chair. And with only 451 citations, her best article only getting 34 citations, there's simply no way I would regard her as qualifying for presumptive notability under WP:SCHOLAR. I came here from the discussion of systematic bias on the WP:N talk page but the problem here is the lack of any credible evidence the subject is notable, not any likely "systemic bias". Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After long examination notability is not supported by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• [OT] We have a very similar case with NPROF at WP:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk (2nd nomination) if any of the distinguished Commenters here fancied to take a look. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at that AfD and have suggested that the nominator deserves a WP:Trout for nominating it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - She's a multiple award-winning professor with lots of publications. And we clearly have not plumbed the depths of articles about her. For one thing, her son is a major actor (!), Ali Zafar; see [40], [41], etc. Yes, yes, notabiliy isn't inherited, and having a famous son doesn't make her notable directly, but it does clearly show that we haven't done a very good job of researching the sources about her, because of systemic bias. --GRuban (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED -- if you can't show us any of these sources, what you're saying is worthless. And her publications are lightly cited, to put it charitably. EEng 23:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't think that sources discussing her son, who's an actor, demonstrate in any way that we haven't "plumbed the depths of articles about her". I think it shows that the rest of us realize that articles about her son are not about her and do not contribute to her notability. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not sufficient for notability, surely you'll agree it deserves mention in the article? It's not. So clearly it hasn't been even looked at. Her article doesn't include that she was a professor at the University of Tsukuba, Japan [42]... does the common Pakistani professor teach in Japan and in the US? Here is a blog saying she is the first Library professor to receive the Best Professor award. Yes, you disagree, but I think it's a clear keep as a notable professor. The sources are out there, they're just in Pakistani books, newspapers, journals, and television programs, which aren't as well represented on the English language web. "editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." That's not WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED which you'll notice is a red link. That's WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is an actual link to a section of Wikipedia:Notability. All these things strongly indicate the possibility, even likelihood, of existing sources. Which is the rule we are supposed to follow. Unlike WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED; which doesn't actually exist, much as you clearly wish did. --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED, as you will now see someone has turned it into a blue link. That was very helpful of whoever did that, but not really necessary. I often reference WP:SOMETHING pointers that I know are red, as a shorthand way of invoking concepts no one needs explained to them, such as WP:FUZZYTHINKINGEDITORSOFTENMAKEVACUOUSARGUMENTSATAFD. No doubt you get my point. BTW, you apparently didn't actually read NPOSSIBLE, which merely says that notability may be based on sources not yet in the article‍—‌but they still have to exist, and you still have to actually point to them, which you cannot do, much as you clearly wish you could. EEng 01:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, absolutely NONE of that contributes to a keep of any sort, much less a "clear keep". To keep an article, you must demonstrate notability, meaning that others not connected with the subject actually took note of the subject and wrote about her in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, NOT that you think she's important because she got a best professor award on her campus or taught in Japan or wherever. Those sources do not appear to exist and what you've offered instead is completely irrelevant. Msnicki (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love GRuban's reasoning, this will save us so much time! We can now speadily close all Pakistan-related AfDs on the assumption that sources haven't been found because of systemic bias. Stop those time-wasting AfDs! While we're at it, perhaps we can do away with that pesky requirement that awards need to be something special and verifiable, too. Saves us even more time! --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, folks, a day later I realize my last post was too attacky; you don't deserve that, we're each just trying to make the encyclopedia better. May I take that back and try again, without any attack on your argument directly?

• WP:NPOSSIBLE tells us: "editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."

So that's what I did. I looked for sources. I didn't find great sources, enough that they would suffice to meet our standards themselves - but I did find lots of them, lots and lots that aren't in the article. And they're in English - I don't speak either Urdu or Hindi. And then I considered the possibility of existent sources that couldn't be found by a search. My reasoning was:

• She is an academic from a third world country, however she teaches in multiple first world countries that are very far away. Someone above writes that having a visiting fellowship is no big deal, but that's from one first world position to another. From Pakistan to Japan and from Pakistan to the US isn't at all the same thing as from Montreal to Chicago.
• She has won multiple awards from nationally notable organizations.
• She has 70 publications.
• She has a very famous son, enough so that we have an impressive article about him, in English, even though he acts in Hindi, and he talks about her in articles, and photos of her with him are published by American based media.

So, given all that, I consider the possibility of existent in-depth sources that would fulfill our requirements for notability, but which exist in Pakistani media, so can't be found by a trivial English language web search quite, quite high. We'll get the sources, but we won't get them during the course of an AFD due to close in a few days. So as long as WP:NPOSSIBLE tells us to "consider the possibility of existent sources ", and not just the ones that we can actually point to during the AFD, it is a clear keep. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand NPOSSIBLE, which warns against nominating for deletion before searching for additional sources that aren't currently in the article; it does not counsel just imagining that sources might exist. And its last sentence reads: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Tick tock, tick tock. EEng 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Two of the subject's books are published by a vanity press, which isn't a good start. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw, The Drover's Wife, Knope7, Keilana, MurielMary, Victuallers, DGG: Please respond to any and all queries from other editors regarding your comments. This is a discussion after all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is a discussion - and numerous people have provided reasonable feedback. We have different viewpoints regarding the sources as applied to the notability guidelines, as explained above. Haranguing people who reasonably disagree is unhelpful and counterproductive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing: you don't reasonably disagree, you're merely made counterfactual statements which, in an abundance of AFG, we've asked you to back up just in case we've missed something. Obviously we haven't. EEng 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to repeat once more--we often do adjust the standard slightly for people outside the West Europe-America culture area. I think this is an appropriate case , but it's a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'm willing to repeat: "This is beginning to take on aspects of the absurd. There are two sources in the article that aren't written by, or under the control of, the subject herself: [43] and [44]. One is a dead link, and the other is a photograph of the subject receiving the one-of-57-best-teachers award. How can this possibly be a keep?" -- "adjusting" doesn't extend down to "nothing". EEng 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't notice that the statement you're repeating was replied to and the link isn't dead. Multiple other sources not under control of the subject have been given in this discussion.--GRuban (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirst off, WP:N present a presumption of notability, not the other way around. Here, the AfD filers have not met their burden. This is, to be honest, the usual non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT arguments that plague AfD. The policy is WP:N, which is astonishingly simple: neutral, third-party sources independent of the subject. We have those. In addition to the multiple independent sources, the university itself is also largely "independent of the subject" as, clearly, the subject doesn't own the university -- they will have their own internal standards for who on their faculty gets print space and who does not. They may not be disinterested, but they also are not under her control. They are her employer, not her employees. The rest of this debate seems primarily to be a question of whether this article meets the NACADEMIC SNG, which is a guideline, not policy. But further, the policy is clear that "stacking" of assorted SNG criteria can meet GNG. Here we have a professor who is a department head, an award-winning instructor, and someone who has published. She is also a groundbreaking person in the field of Library studies generally, a woman from a third world nation that has traditionally placed a lot of barriers to the advancement of women in the professions, and these criteria all add up together to more than meet the GNG of WP:N regardless of whether she precisely fits a single SNG guideline to the satisfaction of the AfD crowd. The presumption of notability has been met. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to get into too much detail here, as this is starting to become quite exasperating. Just one thing: on what independent reliable source do you base your assertion that this person is "a groundbreaking person in the field of Library studies generally"?? The photo of her getting an award (alongside a whole crowd of other people, too)? As for the university website being more or less independent of the subject, as was present at soe point in the article, she "convened" the committee that re-designed it... --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Montanabw:, I think that's a rather broad slam on all of us who've argued for delete. The multiple secondary WP:RS discussing the subject in anything close to the detail contemplated by WP:GNG simply do not appear to exist. The employer is not independent. It's just not. Faculty write their own bio pages (doesn't everyone know this?), making hers, like everyone else's, WP:PRIMARY and completely unhelpful in establishing notability. Being a department chair is also not helpful. Department chair is a rotating appointment to an administrative role assigning instructors to offices and courses, running department meetings and attending meetings with the dean, creating and managing budgets and headcount plans, hearing complaints, etc. It is not an academic role. Because it's purely administrative, it's not that unusual for a relatively junior faculty member (e.g., a lecturer in a department filled with assistant, associate and full professors) to be appointed department chair. It is absolutely positively not the same as an appointment to a named or endowed chair. Also, her citation count [45] at 451 (34 on her best single article) is simply too low. She's writing about technology and software and there's enough global interest in those topics that I'm just not persuaded that's enough to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR, even allowing for the fact she's writing about technology and software in Pakistan. I'm not even convinced her university, University of the Punjab, is all that notable. (Check the sources for that article.) A rotating "best professor on campus" award wouldn't make her notable even if it happened at a clearly notable school. So far as I can tell, she's a non-notable professor at a non-notable school who's gotten a non-notable award. Sorry. That's what the evidence seems to say. I'm still delete. Msnicki (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: I fully agree, also as the nominator, with all your arguments except that regarding the university which, by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, is considered automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes if it exists. Of course, on account of WP:NOTINHERITED, this does not make the lady any more notable. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on policy, that the university is given presumed notability even in lieu of sources (and should not be AfD'ed. :) Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw, the vast majority of universities have profiles of all of their academic staff on their websites. Why would they keep the research and teaching activities of their staff private? As has already been noted, staff typically write their own web profiles. They really aren't independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. The university is one of several indicia and it is irrelevant how the bio got there, it clearly was authorized and whether she wrote it or the PR department wrote it is irrelevant; it's not just random made-up material, it is reliable and fact-checked. WP:GNG supercedes WP:ACADEMIC, so though I think this individual does meet the SNG, we also can look beyond only her university credentials to establish notability and "stack" different categories. There are outside, independent sources, check. The closer sources verify that she has notable accomplishments and no one is claiming that the University is unreliable or that they make stuff up, hence it is reliable. Check. She is clearly a leader in her field and a woman of standing in a nation that is not noted for being particularly open to the general advancement of women (Benazir Bhutto not withstanding). Check. GNG met. Now, let's quit hashing over the same material again and again. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it might not even be fact-checked. From personal experience, university academic profiles aren't subject to checks by the institution and are pretty much left to the person themselves to write (although they would act if someone pointed out falsehoods). Perhaps it's not like that in Pakistan, but I don't regard a biography on a university website as independent because she is part of that university. So, that leaves the "outside, independent sources". Which are those? If I see evidence of significant coverage, then I will change my mind on deletion, because I agree with your comments on WP:GNG (hence why I mentioned it in my rationale for deletion). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise it hasn't been fact-checked. Faculty web pages are like personal websites, merely hosted by the university. Faculty write and edit their pages themselves and it would be pretty much unthinkable for the university to review or question anything a faculty member posted on their webpage unless there was some genuinely grave concern about the content. Msnicki (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked at several reputed institutions. Each time I wrote my own bio for the website. Nobody ever fact checked anything. For the University of Punjab to do otherwise would be very exceptional and I'd like to see proof of that before assuming it. As EEng says below: self-published bio: check. Another note about the department she's heading: there are departments and departments. I know of departments that have sometimes more than 100 professors. About a dozen or two is a more regular size. Now just to amuse yourself, have a look at the size of the department that Ameen heads... --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity-published books. Check. Essentially uncited publications. Check. Self-published "accomplishments". Check. (We never use self-published materials to establish notability.) Delusional smoke and mirrors. Check! EEng 06:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down cowboy. It's maybe not a good idea to make insinuations about delusion in a discussion where you've made demonstrably false statements, as GRuban has diplomatically pointed out. We get that some here don't like this article. Let's try and get away from the personal stuff, and focus on compliance with policy. To exist this article only needs to pass one notability guidelines - it actually passes three, including GNG itself.

As arbitrator DGG has repeatedly said "we often do adjust the standard slightly for people outside the West Europe-America culture area." and with that in mind, Kanwal is a pass for WP:NACADEMIC. Per her awards, she's a pass for WP:ANYBIO#1. While Montanabw's analyses is overall excellent and compelling, I would admit the least strong point is on the university profile being independent of the subject. I'm inclined to accept that Msnicki, Cordless Larry and Randykitty have made the stronger case on that one point. Yet it's of little relevenance, as Kanwal passes WP:GNG per coverage in the many other sources cited above. Just to throw one in I've not noticed being mentioned above: Daily Times. That article is almost entirely about an aspect of the subjects work, is from an independent source, and it would be taking systemic bias to a whole new level to assert Daily Times (Pakistan) is not reliable.

Seen through the lens of policy, the case for keeping this article is clear. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no! Sorry, but you are wrong on all' points you raise. DGG's assertion of relaxing our criteria for people outside Western Europe/North America is highly contentious and I seriously doubt that it would be accepted if we would try to add that to any of our notability guidelines. (and DGG will be the first to tell us that the fact that he is an arbitrator is irrelevant here, just as is the fact that several of us (at both sides of the debate) are admins. So: No pass of ACADEMIC. Please show us the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that GNG requires. The one-paragraph article that you present mentions Ameen exactly once, in-passing. So: No pass of GNG. The awards? No independent sources and the only reliable info that we have shows that each year a lot of people get these awards, so: No, pass of ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the word 'Ameen' appears only once in the source I presented. Yet the subject is refered to five times in total, mostly just by her first name 'Kanwal'. There's no shame in you not knowing that in Islamic countries like Pakistan, especially in the case of females, it's customary to mostly refer to them by their first name. Most western accademics would not know that, unless they specialise in relvent social sciences. However, perhaps you'd agree that as you so blatantly misinterpret sources due to your lack of cultural specific knowledge, you could maybe be a little less emphatic about your interpretation of policy? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I stand corrected. Her first name is indeed used several times in this huge article of about 10 sentences. You really want to argue that this academic is notable because of this coverage of a rather trivial task (redesigning a website)? I really don't see how my "blatantl misinterpretation" of this source changes anything about what I have written about this person not meeting a single notability guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I also agreed with your point about her university profile not being independent. Glad we're approaching agreement on some points. Can't agree that her leading role in the constructing her university's webiste is trivial. This is 2016 not 1996, a uni's official web site is now a key instrument in the struggle to attract funding and the brightest students and academics. Perhaps you're at an Oxbridge tier Uni where success in that competition is sometimes taken for granted? For most universities, it's a very non trivial concern. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [OT] Since we are having a very good, substantial discussion on a Pakistani professor of library management studies, Khalid Mahmood (scientist) is another Pakistami academic with similarly doubtful notability. Anyone willing to nominate that article for AfD? Thanks. — kashmiri ^TALK 10:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about instead of wasting all this bandwidth you go in and actually IMPROVE THE ARTICLE? Crappy writing is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 10:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about being POLITE? Crappy writing can result in deletion of crappy writing, that for sure. — kashmiri ^TALK 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to try to improve the article, but I would need some independent sources to be able to do so, and I'm unable to find suitable ones. Suggestions are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry! Step on for improvements. I have short list if it is acceptable for improvements/refinements. She has listed 98 plus publications on her profile page [46]. Her publications are not seventy as has been mentioned on Wikipedia. (Please note that the list included only publications in HEC recognized journals. HEC does not recognize any international social sciences research journal that is not on Web of Science impact factor journals list). She is member advisory board of research journal of Pakistan Library Association; only national professional association.[47]. She has Fulbright Post-Doc, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA (2009-2010), and Fulbright Pre-Doc, University of Texas, Austin, USA (2000-2001) awards [48]. Research fellowship as professor in University of Tsukuba, Japan (2013). Can these be written under heading honours and awards? Her role as policy maker in her discipline, community services on academic and administrative committees of the universities, professional affiliations to ALA, SLA, ASIS&T of USA, CILIP of UK have been recognized by international publishers in note on contributors of published books; [49] and [50]. She has other notable professional affiliations to International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)’s Special Interest Group on LIS Education in Developing Countries as secretary [51], Patron of Punjab University Library and Information Science Alumni Association (PULISAA), Life member of Pakistan Library Association [52]. If it can be considered as independent of subject. She is member of many administrative and academic committees in her university and in few other universities. Let me know if press clippings work as independent to the subject. There are many clippings on her subject such as; [53] and [54].Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those "clippings" only mentions that she attended a meeting, Rahmatgee. What I'm talking about is more substantial coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri , please don't encourage them! Every time an article on a noteable accademic is destroyed, our credibility and utility as an encyclopedia suffers. The fact so many non west`ern accademics are being targetted only makes it more embarrasing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Please stay on topic people. Think of the poor admin who'll have to wade through all the things we have posted above and don't add more clutter than necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Every time an article on a non-noteable accademic is kept, our credibility as an encyclopedia suffers.What might increase is our usefulness as a Directory--if one thinks WP ought to be a directory. . In this particular instance, notability is borderline and a rational argument could be constructed one way or another, so our credibility & usefulness as an encyclopedia is not in question at all, no matter what gets decided here. Lets keep thisin proportion.

I suggest to those arguing for keep, that it does not help and positively hurts the case for keeping when inapplicable or rejected arguments get used. We normally do not include the accomplishments of people's children in the articles about them, except for famous people-- and entertainers and politicians, where pretty much anything goes. A best teacher award is almost never an indication of notability, though a true first place national award of this sort might possibly be. Having taught for a year in another university is irrelevant to notability, tho it is a valid part of the article-having held guest professor (not postdoc) positions in several very famous universities does contribute to notability.

More generally,we need to decide whether we want to change the WP:PROF standard to be based on notability in a particular country by that country's academic standards. A good argument can be made in either direction, but at present there is consensus that the standard for WP:PROF is international. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, DGG. Someone was making somewhat puzzling comments over your signature earlier in this discussion. EEng 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You know, Feyd and Ramatgee make good points about sourcing and found some solid material; taken in total, it expands notability here. DGG, no one is about "relaxing" standards, including me (there was a malformed RfC that made that suggestion, but that is merely evidence of how poorly understood the issue is). The goal is not to apply a double standard or an artificially impose "glass ceiling." It is about a fair standard and taking a thorough look before an AfD. I just saw this article, directly addressing the question of articles about women academics in South Asia -- in that case, India. I think it is worth a read here, as it outlines the precise issues I've been raising. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Over here the person simply doesn't have enough "secondary, reliable and independent" sources. University webpages are not independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead as my searches and examinations have still found nothing considerably convincing. My compromise would be Drafting if at all needed because there's still not enough confidently better. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - easily passes Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as a Fulbright Scholar, author of numerous papers published in journals such as the Journal of Education in Library and Information Science and Pakistan Library and Information Science Journal, recipient of the 2005 Norad grant, and in 2010 received the HEC Best Teacher Award PU. She is a professor, and chairperson of the Department of Library and Information Science (LIS) for the University of the Punjab in Lahore, PK. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fulbright has 325,000+ alumni; I doubt they are all automatically notable. HEC Best Teacher Award was given to 57 out of like 160 nominations - that's hardly selective. Neither is the NORAD grant. A chair person is a head of department - not automatically notable. An article about an academic in a Western country wouldn't be kept simply with these credentials. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Atsme: Notable because her department received a grant? Are you kidding? — kashmiri ^TALK 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - she certainly passes the "average professional baseball player" criteria. The arguments above that support delete have failed in other AfDs per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)/Precedents. There is also a very simple set of criteria in WP:PROF that appears to have been overlooked so I'll reiterate those that easily jump out at us beginning with: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable....The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). In that regard, it is necessary to look at the relevant status of University of the Punjab which is located in Lahore, Pakistan because it is the oldest and largest public university in that country. We also have to consider how that it is uncommon for women to hold chairs in that part of the world, which is easily determined by the status of women in that country and the way they are treated, [55], all of which should be relevant when determining Ameen's level of notable achievement per WP:PROF. The argument that "HEC Best Teacher was given to 57 out of like 160 nominations" is an argument for keeping because as a woman, she overcame some incredible obstacles and to say few nominations are not notable demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the nomination process. See the following images to get an idea of the male to female ratio [56]. The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias and the serious issues WP faces, especially in determining notability of scholars such as Ameen in countries where women are oppressed and highly discriminated against. But aside from the latter, she still passes the criteria of WP:PROF and not just by passing one of the criteria but because she has passed at least 3 including being a women professor, holds a distinguished chair at a notable university, is an international Fulbright scholar who has received the award pre-doc and post-doc in Pakistan as well as receiving for post- doctoral visiting scholar and researcher at the University of Missouri,Columbia, USA, which easily meets the criteria for highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The aforementioned doesn't even count the numerous times she has been published in academic journals. This is actually a snow-keep.^{Atsme📞📧} 13:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She doesn't appear to hold a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment - she's "just" a regular professor. That's impressive, but it doesn't make her notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For Pete's sake! She's not even tenured!!! --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See! See! "For Pete's sake!" -- how obvious are your biases borne of male-dominated Eurocentric chauvinism! Why not "For Petrina's sake" or "Penelope's sake"? Huh? Huh? EEng 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least whoever's sake was being advocated wasn't based in religion, for Christ's sake. Ooops. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Strange. I actually was thinking that, having seen all comments pro and con, this is a very clear delete. Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of the criteria in WP:PROF. And, please, just !vote only once, don't make things even more confusing than they already are. In addition, I must say that I deeply resent your aspersion that the "delete" !votes are expressions of gender bias. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to hat the disruptive PAs against me to avoid further attempts to stray from content but my edit was reverted by Msnicki and I'm not about to get into an edit war with either of you. See my comments on your respective TPs. I consider the comment above that you "deeply resent" what you alleged is an aspersion cast by me as overly emotional and violative of AGF. To make matters worse, you actually cast an aspersion against me by falsely stating that I said, "delete !votes are expressions of gender bias" which I did not say. My actual statement is quite clear - The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias - which is completely different from the allegation made by Randykitty who also reverted my removal of a wrongful tag in the article that was added to a legitimate published CV [57] that was used as a cited source in the article. I removed that tag because CVs are acceptable sources and are used in GAs throughout WP, possibly even FAs, but I don't have the time to research the FAs. For quick reference, see Elizabeth Warren, a GA wherein her CV is cited twice. I find some of the behavior in this AfD disruptive and rather disconcerting. For one thing, some of the claims being made against this BLP are unsupported including the most recent, "She's not even tenured", because the website of the University of the Punjab clearly states that she is a professor at University of the Punjab, Chairperson Department of Information Management, Faculty Member in her published CV which tells me she is indeed tenured. If that isn't true, then please provide supporting evidence or risk being in violation of making a contentious statement without citing a RS per WP:BLP, specifically under the section, "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", which applies anywhere on WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with the CV is that it's on Academia.edu (a social network), and so is user-generated content, Atsme (although CVs by their nature aren't independent of the subject, so perhaps it is irrelevant where it is hosted). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other RS such as [58], scroll down to #38. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what does that prove? I've repeatedly pointed out that we need independent sources to demonstrate notability, but they don't seem to be forthcoming. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of RS out there for this academic. Start with this one [59], and this one [60], and [61] and others if you'll just take the time to Google and try to expand the article rather than wasting valuable time with this AfD. This is a snow-keep if there ever was one, even if it was just based on her published works. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability? Demonstrating notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. Those three are an interview with her (so not independent), and two articles by, not about her. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her CV to which you've linked indicates she's been "tenure track" since January 2013. Tenure track means she's being considered for tenure, not that she has it. If she's only been tenure track since 2013, it's pretty obvious her "professor" title before and since can't possibly be equivalent to a full professorship (which always includes tenure) as it's normally understood at any major institution.

But also, I question whether she's compiled the publication record that would get her tenure (which normally comes at the associate professor level) at most major institutions. A rough rule of thumb is 1000 citations for tenure, c.f, [62], and she's not even halfway there.[63] Her best paper only got 34 citations, which is nothing. Yes, she's in Pakistan, but her papers are about open source software, digital literacy and so on, for which there's global interest. I guess I would put it this way: She might get tenure some places, but my guess is she wouldn't at a top school. Either way, she doesn't appear to have it now.

I also had to laugh at an argument made earlier on this page (not by you) that she's notable because she chaired a committee to redesign their website. Setting aside that designing a website is an unremarkable accomplishment, that's called service. All faculty have service requirements in addition to their teaching and/or research responsibilities, meaning they're expected to serve on committees to review curriculum, choose textbooks, review applications for admission, search for new faculty, help design the new new building, develop guidelines for promotion and tenure, blah, blah, blah. A department chairmanship is a service appointment and so is serving on a committee to develop a better website. Every faculty member anywhere has a service requirement. We all do this. It does not make anyone notable. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CVs can be used to source neutral information. We do not use them to source awards, accomplishments, etc. The obviosu reason for this is that academics (and politicians, and entertainers, etc, etc) have been known to falsify their CVs (just to avoid misunderstanding, I am talking about CVs in general, not about Ameen's). So the source added by Atsme earlier (to academia.edu) is not a reliable source (social media) nor is it independent of the subject. (I guess many of us here who are academics have uploaded their CV there). As for the tenure thing, I do know full professors that are on the tenure track, or not even that (research professors at large research universities, for example). So while not having tenure doesn't prove lack of notability (that is something nobody can prove: you cannot prove a negative, that's why the burden of proof in these discussions lies with the people arguing for a "keep"), it does mean that the fact that her CV states that she's a full professor does not make her notable. If a professor really is judged distinguished by their university, they get tenure. AS for the rest, you wrote "The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias". I cannot but interpret that as claiming that the "deletists" are guilty of gender bias. I stated that I resent that statement (and I still do), but did not make any remark about you, so this really is not a personal attack. As a final note, I think you have to unbold the "keep" and "snow keep" in your comment above, as this gives the strong impression that you are !voting multiple times. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than pick apart a single source I cited and have long since replaced with a higher quality secondary source, the following academic publications meet the requirements for both WP:RS and WP:V, and have been editorially reviewed. They all substantiate her tenure without violating WP:OR:

• "About the Authors" which gives a short bio on each author and identifies Ameen as Professor and Chairperson, and it is in the book, LIS Education in Developing Countries: The Road Ahead edited by Ismail Abdullahi, C. R. Karisddappa, A. Y. Asundi, clearly a RS source that has been edited and published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
• "About the contributors" pg 338 in the book Library and Information Science Research in Asia-Oceania: Theory and Practice" available here, published by IGI Global.
• Google Scholar further verifies she's a Professor.

How many more sources is it going to take to verify that she is tenured and the director of a department? I cannot believe the time sink. As for unbolding, I don't feel it is any more necessary to unbold my comments than it is for you to strike your PAs against me. My position has not changed in that regard, and I strongly believe that it will be far more beneficial to the project if you will please AGF. I tried to hat what I consider to be contentious remarks to avoid unnecessary argument, but here we are, and the contentious material remains. The real question I see now is why are editors trying so hard to prove this BLP is not a notable professor, especially when her notability is rather obvious if editors will simply invest a bit of time researching it rather than wasting time trying to prove she isn't? Instead, we should be collaborating to find whatever it is the article requires for improvement and expansion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Authors of chapters in edited books write their biographies for the notes on contributors section themselves, Atsme. Her Google Scholar profile isn't independent of her either. I have one too, and I can describe myself however I want on it. However, I don't doubt that what she has written in those places is correct. I believe that she is head of her department and is a professor. That does not make her notable. The relevant criteria at WP:NACADEMIC states "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)". Being head of department is not the same as holding a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment. A named chair is something like a Regius Professorship or a Canada Research Chair or a James B. Duke Professorship. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for unbolding "snow keep", Atsme. You still have two bold "keep" comments, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable argument to dismiss the fact that she is a distinguished chair as stated in high quality, editorially reviewed academic sources, and again here under the Department of Library and Information Science which again verifies her position as Chairperson, Professor under "Teaching Faculty" published by the University. Furthermore, the books I cited are editorially reviewed. This is getting to be a ridiculous an argument as would be denying notability for the appointments you mentioned. I will reiterate her notability qualifications:

• She is notable as a named and verifiable chair appointment at the website of the University of the Punjab. WP:PROF states, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment. The appointment is what satisfies "notable".
• All that is needed to meet the notability requirement for an academic is ONE of the criteria listed in WP:PROF, and she has met at least THREE clearly diffusing the arguments for delete.

Can we please get an admin to close this AfD? PS: I couldn't find a 2nd bold keep. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference between a chair position and a named chair positon, and between a professorship and a distinguished professorship, Atsme. The article is about the US, but Professors in the United States#Distinguished (teaching / research) professor explains this quite well. As for the other criteria, I don't see how any of them apply here. Your second keep comment is in the text "...is an argument for keep because as a woman...". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Atsme, admin Coffee did extend this AfD only a few days ago, specifically pinging voters requesting more discussion. They have certainly got their wish, and this has resulted in a useful and classic example of systemic bias. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: More !votes follow the random break below.

Random break[edit]

@ Msnicki It's great to hear this AfD has caused you to laugh - it's the best medicine after all. However, you are laughing at a phantom. No one said leading the redesign of a website makes you notable on it's own. There would be no bases for that argument in policy! I merely argued against the side point that such work trivial. Only an academic with no involvement in senior decision making, or perhaps someone at one of the elite institutions where success can sometimes be taken for granted, could fail to appreciate the key role a uni's official web site play's in the battle to attract funding & the best students and scholars. But that's a side point. It's actually a delete voter who articulated the policy based reason why the activity provides notability. They said it would confer notability if "her role in redesigning the website received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" . (You'd have to go into the history to see this, for some reason the delete voter deleted their comment after pinging me about it.)

In Alanna's AfD, you advised that you'd came to these discussions due to some discussion of systemic bias. I'm here because of you Msnicki. I have my friend NorthAmerica1000 on my watchlist, where I saw your well argued points against DGG. DGG is someone I've greatly admired for almost a decade, mainly due to his unflinching loyally towards the legendary editor ANobody. Your discussion caused me to check his contribs to see what he'd been up to, where I saw with horror that Alanna, a household name in dev circles, was up for deletion. I just voted in this AfD for good measure - but it has turned out to be most instructive.

This AfD has provided a perfect text book example of systemic bias. Systemic bias is partly about factors that favour racist or sexist outcomes, even when the folk driving that are not sexist or racist. Such as if they misinterpret situations to a minorities disadvantage, due to lack of cultural knowledge. In much of Asia, there are different conventions regarding first and last name. In Islamic countries, especially for females, it's often customary to refer to them just by their first name, not by their last name as might be more common in the west. Lacking that knowledge, a delete voter examined this source and came to the conclusion it only mentions her once, as they just searched for her last name. In fact, the source mentions Dr Kanwal throughout, though using her first name per the cultural custom. It's also unquestionably a reliable and independent source, hence it confers notability, as per the policy based reasoning above.

After seeing the compelling arguments and sources recently mentioned by good Atsme , Rahmatgee and Montanabw, Im forced to admit that Atsme has called this right. Per GNG and especially WP:BASIC , this is now a snow keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please help me, FeydHuxtable. I have asked several times to see evidence that there are independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG. Since you have just made that argument, I'm sure you have sources in mind. Could you provide me with some links, so that I can reconsider my opinion of the subject's notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time: Daily Times. This source confers noteability per your own words: her role in redesigning the website received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources The source is largely about her role in the design of said website, and Daily Times (Pakistan) is unquestionably a reliable and independent source. Many other policy compliant sources have been provided above. Normally, I'd integrate some of the best sources into the article, which would make it easier for you. But as adding ~5k of words & sourcing to Alanna's article a few days back bore no fruit, Im not inclinded to do so in this case. If you're truly interested, you'll have to sift through the many good sources provided above yourself. Yes some are of minimal use, but some are good. Don't forget the default position here is for the article to remain. It's the delete side that has to convince constructive editors, and form a concensus to delete, a task at which you're so far utterly failing. It's a shame you're not recognising the compelling policy based case to keep. Yet per Atsme's suggesting that this AfD is getting too long, and as I think the keep side has already expended enough of our energy on this, Im unlikely to reply further. Unless you do manage to make a successful case for delete of course, as this is a collaborative dicussion, I would acknowledge if you made any useful points, as I did in conceding you were right about her uni profile not being truly independent. Happy editing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FeydHuxtable. That's one independent source, but I don't consider one source to constitute significant coverage. If there were three or four national newspaper articles, I would change my mind. I don't see that kind of source, in those kinds of numbers, being identified anywhere in this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Times is not significant coverage. It simply mentions the subject's 2 administrative positions and quotes her. Significant "secondary" coverage is required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some other links. Not all but few may be convincing. She has been mentioned as chairperson of one of the major academic position; Doctoral Programme Coordination Committee (DPCC). In 2016 [64]. Publishing source is from the largest electronic and print media group in Pakistan. Another top print media group in Pakistan also mentioned her as chairperson DPCC in 2014 [65]. Daily The News mentioned her in promoting books and reading culture [66]. University of the Punjab mentioned Ameen in the annual report 2009-10 of the university with reference to her links to external organizations. This source is independent to Dr Ameen [67]. She was acknowledged in a PhD thesis by an international research scholar in USA [68].Other news may be helpful. [69], [70], and [71]. Simple google search can add more into them. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, FeydHuxtable, it contributes to notability, it does not confer it. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources and best case, I count this as only one. And frankly, that is a best case because all it reports, in its 236 words, is that the subject was the chair of a redesign committee and supervised the work done by someone else to make their website more "user-friendly". Oh, and she thanked the other committee members. I appreciate we have a difference of opinion here but if we already had a solid 1000+ word first source (which we obviously don't), maybe I'd accept this as a second source to satisfy the requirement for multiple (but a lot would depend on what that first source reported!) As the first of the multiple WP:RS required by WP:GNG, there's no way. It's simply too short and it doesn't report anything at all remarkable or in any depth about the subject. Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WARNING. The next person who directly or indirectly suggests that my delete !vote here is consciously or unconsciously motivated by gender-based or racial bias will find themselves at ANI pronto. I will NOT tolerate such aspersions on my character! --Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know I was just kidding, [72] right? EEng 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I didn't loose my sense of humor at the same time that I became a raging paternalistic racist... --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING - we're going to have to take you to AN/I for that racist comment against Randykitty. [pause] Hmmm. [[File:|25px|link=]] ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be less attention paid to randy kitties, and more to horndogs. EEng 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and that is a completely inappropriate comment. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, what in the world is wrong with you? It's bad enough you harrumphing around demanding apologies on your own behalf [73] without also butting in on others' conversations as well. Can you please just go sulk somewhere and let the adults police their own interactions? EEng 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to your own talk page, not here. This isn't a chat room. Clearly, policing was needed... checking ... yes, this is AfD. Not your talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Msnicki, it appears you're giving far too much weight to what you consider "requirements" for GNG. Keep in mind, GNG is a suggested guideline, not a policy with requirements. Regardless, WP:PROF is far more relevant as a guideline for determining notability in this case as it clearly states: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Also, since we are dealing with an international Fulbright scholar at the University of the Punjab in Pakistan who is also a female subject to biases arising from the prevalent ideology we know exists in Pakistan, some of which were partially remedied less than 2 years ago with the passing of the Punjab Fair Representation of Women Act 2014 (IV of 2014), we can readily apply the "equivalent" to what we know in the West as an honorary chair per #5 in the WP:PROF criteria (for which she only needs to meet one): "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." The equivalent position to that criteria in Pakistan would be her appointment as Chairperson of an entire university department per University of the Punjab Act 1973:

1. 3. Teaching Departments and Chairmen.– (1) There shall be a Teaching Department for each subject or a group of subjects, as may be prescribed by Regulations, and each Teaching Department shall be headed by a Chairman.

     [49][(2) The Chairman of a Teaching Department and the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

I believe 2015 signifies her 2nd or 3rd reappointment, so again, she passes the notable professor test. I have already provided RS that further provide for WP:V. We have now reached the point of beating a dead horse. I've provided numerous sources, confirmed notability based on WP:PROF and considering that it appears further discussion is resulting in nothing but rising tensions, I'll motion that it's time for an admin to close this AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as she meets neither GNG nor PROF at this time, as has been explained in exhaustive detail above. The argument that she should be found to meet either notability guideline (even though she does not meet the requirements) because she's a woman is an argument to lower notability standards which the community has not agreed to do (and which consensus is against, if this RfC is anything to go by). Finally, there is a difference between reliable sources and sources establishing notability: all sources establishing notability must also be reliable but not all reliable sources also establish notability. There are reliable sources for the subject but a dearth of sources establishing notability. Ca2james (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to this study Ameen is one of the top three most cited Pakistani academics in her field. For that reason, I think this article satisfies the first and fourth criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Assuming, arguendo, that she did not meet WP:NACADEMIC, the sources cited in this article still satisfy WP:GNG's significant coverage requirement. These sources include the University of Missouri School of Information Science and Learning Technologies interview, the Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal interview, and the article in the Hindustan Times about her impact on her son's career. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That study you've cited remarks (page 7) that "Less than half these faculty members [at the eight universities studied] hold post-master degrees" and (page 8) that "It is very disturbing to know that all 12 faculty members from two universities had no publication that received any citations. ... Overall, the situation is not good and the authorities need to give serious attention to this." They do identify the subject as coming in 3rd their in list of only 11 faculty who received any citations at all (beating out someone with only 17 citations). But further down the page, they remark on the self-citation rate and guess who leads the pack? Nearly 38% of the subject's 61 citations are self-citations. Subtract those out and you're left with 2.5 citations/paper. This is just not the way to convince me she qualifies for presumptive notability under WP:SCHOLAR. Msnicki (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: I share many of the same concerns with the study, and I find it particularly telling that one of the authors of the study just happened to be the #1 most-cited scholar in the field. Nevertheless, I still think the study demonstrates that her work has had an impact on a field where, admittedly, few participate in an ongoing scholarly discourse. Indeed, WP:NACADEMIC notes that "[d]ifferences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." But even if she wasn't notable per WP:SCHOLAR, I still think there is sufficient coverage of her to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think an interview she gave while visiting another institution is independent of her Notecardforfree, so it doesn't contribute to establishing notability. I don't have access to the other interview, so I can't really judge, but interviews in general are not independent of the subject. It might be that it contains some secondary analysis, which would contribute to notability. The Hindustan Times piece isn't a whole article about her impact on her son - only one paragraph of it is about them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While everyone here is making circular arguments, let me point out that The world notices. While this article is about women in India, not Pakistan, and scientists, not librarians, the points about coverage and sourcing problems are precisely what we are dealing with here. Montanabw^(talk) 09:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This kind of initiative is great, and it is good that the organisers seem to have a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability requirements. I would be happy to contribute to efforts to increase our coverage of female academics from India and Pakistan (and elsewhere), providing that good, independent sources exist for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Respectfully, I don't believe this case offers an example of "coverage and sourcing problems" at all. Universities redesign their websites all the time. Is that normally a hot news item? Is it even something the local press would usually cover? How many stories can you remember seeing, in say, the last year, or make it 5 years, about a university redesigning its website? In the unlikely event you can remember even one (I can't remember any), if there were any names in there, did you come away thinking, well, we certainly need WP:BLPs on these people pronto? Yet that same mundane event did get coverage in Pakistan.

I'm completely satisfied we have a likely selection bias in the kinds of articles found here on WP arising from our overwhelmingly male population of editors. I'm also completely satisfied there is an even more serious bias against women in the world at large. There is bias against women in science, engineering, business and other fields, it exists in the West and there is even more bias against women outside the West. So yes, there are and will be fewer women going into these professions and fewer at the top in every one of them. But we are not here to right great wrongs. We are here to decide if this subject is notable. I still don't see the evidence of notability and I don't think it has to do with lack of coverage. In the case at hand, if there actually was some evidence of notability, I think it would have been reported and we'd have found it. Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your satisfication over the systemic biases as you noted in your comment above, you may not have noticed the blinding evidence of notability, or the PROF guidelines that are applicable in confirming her notability. At least you're forthright about your position. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:GNG vs WP:PROF - the following should take precedence in this AfD, particularly as it relates to RS and acceptance of selfpublished, etc. The BLP subject of this AfD is an academic; therefore PROF is the applicable guideline not WP:N, or WP:GNG which has been applied throughout this discussion.

PROF clearly states:
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.
The footnote for the GNG reference states: From WP:GNG, emphasis added: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which includes this document, "and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." PROF states: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow. WP:RS allows the sources that have been cited for this BLP which includes the bios in published books, primary sources, the published CV, self-pubished, etc.

• Based on the specific criteria in both PROF and RS this AfD warrants a snow-close which is an action intended exactly for this purpose. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that you state "PROF is the applicable guideline not WP:N", the outcome should clearly and obviously be a delete close, the opposite of what you have been arguing. No significant citations have been found, so the subject fails WP:PROF#C1. The teaching award has clearly been shown to be too unselective for C2. She has no major society fellowships (C3), no evidence of significant outside impact (C4), only an ordinary professorship, not a distinguished professorship or named chair (C5), and head of department is far below the head-of-whole-university level demanded by C6. She did not significantly reform the curriculum or introduce a widely-used textbook (C7), nor is she in literature or fine arts (C9). The only case that is even vaguely plausible is C8 (editor-in-chief of a "major, well-established academic journal") and I would argue that a four-year term on a seemingly non-notable journal published by her own department is not good enough to pass even that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, given that you are of the opinion that "No significant citations have been found", let's go over the citations that you allege have not been found, and maybe you can tell me why they aren't significant according to the very clear guidelines of PROF. I will include only those sources which are cited in the article, plus the ones I referenced in this AfD:
    1. Acceptable RS which also satisfies WP:V
    2. Another RS for further V
    3. University of Missouri-Columbia, another academic A/V source
    4. A published academic book with editorial oversight which contains her bio, and a chapter she authored
    5. A published academic book with editorial oversight which contains her bio, and a chapter she authored
    6. On editorial board of academic journal, which satisfies PROF for notability - no further verification is needed to substantiate notability. For info about Journal IF see: [74]
    7. On editorial board of another academic journal, which further satisfies PROF for notability
    8. Academic report on the "Impact of Pakistani Authors in the GOOGLE World: A Study of Library and Information Science Faculty" which is her area of notability and again satisfies PROF = 3 criteria met for notability.
  • One would think that satisfying 3 criteria when it is only necessary to satisfy 1 would have ended this AfD in a snow-keep early on. There are more cited sources in the article and scattered throughout this AfD but is it really necessary for me to list more than what I just did to prove notability under PROF? Seriously? Other editors are certainly welcome to add to the list. I've grown weary of the fallacious premises used in some of the delete arguments. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, you are really confused about WP:PROF, even after spending so much time and effort on this discussion. Perhaps your failure to read and understand comes from your wrong attitude to this AfD — we are not here to twist our standards beyond the point of recognition in order to justify keeping the article, but rather to neutrally evaluate whether the subject actually does pass the standards. By "citations", of course, I (and the criterion) refer only to academic works that cite the publications of the subject. None of what you list are of that nature. And as for your claim that merely being on an editorial board "further satisfies PROF for notability": just no. That is nowhere in the guideline and is just false. And your link to indianjournals.com means nothing — that site is purely a web-scraper with no original content of its own (see discussion in https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/10/08/publisher-acts-suspiciously-like-omics-group/) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just made it quite obvious that I'm not the one with the wrong attitude. Your PAs crossed the line of acceptable behavior in a debate, not to mention unbecoming an admin. Shame on you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. User:Xxanthippe asserts h-index of 12, which I learn means this scholar has 12 pubs that are each known to have been cited 12 or more times. IMO that is hard to achieve. I read that in the hard sciences 12 is substantial, but I know that in hard sciences there are huge papers with many co-authors. Lower numbers like 4 or 2.8 are very substantial in social science areas. --doncram 17:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you please take a moment to read our article on the h-index? An h of 2.8 is not even possible. I know grad students that have an h of 12. In the "hard sciences", 12 is absolutely forgettable. In the present case, 12 would be more impressive if a large part of the citations leading to this h of 12 were not self-citations (mentioned somewhere in this sea of text). --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very field-specific. Average for grad students in some social sciences fields that I know about must be below 1. My mention of 2.8 was referring to an average given in the article: "The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics)." --doncram 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Doncram but all is not lost because regardless of the h-index, Criteria 1 has already been satisfied: 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See my list of cited sources above which includes an "impact study" by the U of Nebraska. [75] ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information science is very far from being a low-citation-count field. See [76], where the top 50 people listed all have h-indexes in the high teens at least, or [77] for similar numbers in information management. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That study demonstrates precisely that her research hasn't made a significant impact in her scholarly discipline. Table 2 indicates that, at the time of the study, she had received 61 citations, or 38 excluding self-citations. That is not indicative of a significant impact. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is plausible that I may have given less weight to the conclusion of a US based study and too much weight to the fact the topic drew enough attention to warrant a study. I echo the concerns of Notecardforfree [78] regarding the study, h-indexes, etc. That same sentiment regarding a distrust for h-indexes followed the most recent keep argument above. PROF also dismisses those same indexes which gives editors more leeway in determining notabiity based on the differences between countries and other surrounding circumstances. Are we to automatically decide that an international Fulbright scholar has no impact in their scholarly discipline? I think not based on the aggregate of the sources and what has been accomplished despite the odds. We can't all be olympic gold medalists and we certainly shouldn't dismiss the bronze medalists either. PROF affords us such leeway when it comes to academia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I looked up some big names in the USA library field, and got h-indexes of 21 and 22. Ironically, it's not a very "write-y" profession. So I'm taking that h-index of 12 from Pakistan to be reasonably high. Ranking #3 in Pakistan's library world would put her very high up. I honestly don't know how to compare notability across these cultures, but this is someone who represents her country internationally (that's the IFLA mention). LaMona (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep in mind that notability criteria "stack." While each individual SNG may fall into a gray area (though I don't think they do, for the purpose of argument...), the combined effect of 1) Nation of origin with its extra hurdles for any academic, let alone a woman, 2) Published works, 3) Academic standing and administrative standing, 4) National significance (top 3 in Pakistan is quite impressive), 5) Fields -- library science and information technology, not the same as a hard science field, 6) Awards and recognition, and 7) Amount of third party coverage, we clearly get to WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, SNG criteria doesn't stack. One of them has to be satisfied. The subject doesn't pass GNG here (in GNG we can stack multiple articles). The amount of third party coverage is extremely low that an American academic with these credentials would not have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SNGs are guidelines, WP:N is policy (GNG is a section within WP:N) and it allows cumulative coverage. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We can stack sources (provided they are "reliable, independent and secondary" and addresses the topic in detail) for the purpose of GNG. We do not stack criteria. The issue here is that the sources are problematic - not enough significant secondary coverage in independent RS to pass GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• LaMona I personally would have been satisfied with an h-index>14. I may even have let the h-index of 12 pass if it was not for the fact that 37.7% of her citations are self citations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • LaMona, please keep in mind that h-indexes are highly nonlinear. 22 is significantly higher than 12, not just a little higher — when you roughly double the h-index, that actually means that you need more like four times as many citations: twice as many papers, each cited twice as many times. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• LaMona hopefully the following response from DGG will provide a bit more clarity regarding h-indexes in this particular field, and I quote: [79] Information science may have a decent amount of citations, but the more traditional library science in which she works does not. DGG continued his evaluation and dismissed all but one of the sources I cited. He summarized my notability argument by saying: #8, however, is the key point. Normally we regard notability under WP:PROF as a worldwide standard, unlike such things as politics where we [go] country by country; if we did so here, there is no question but that she would be notable. But three is no consensus to do so as a routine matter, and hundreds of articles have been rejected on this basis. Perhaps we should change the rule, but I doubt that we will have consensus for doing so. What we can do is make exceptions. Keeping the latter in mind, can-do is a wonderful thing!! I have co-authored and/or reviewed a few Middle Eastern articles on WP, and I have been (mostly politely) when confronted by editors who don't see gender bias as an substantive argument. Fortunately, scientific studies have been published (2007-2013) without the fear of a Salman Rushdie backlash, and those studies confirm the issues discussed in this AfD. It has nothing to do with lowering standards, and everything to do with recognition of notability based on the "national" merits of one's accomplishments as they relate to their field of expertise rather than the amount of "international" media coverage, or "coverage in the Western media". Therein lies the a big part of the issue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for all of the schooling on h-indexes and advice about library science. But it so happens that I've been in that field for about 45 years now, and my own h-index is 22. So I think you can assume that I know what I'm talking about. :-) LaMona (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay, I'm changing my !vote. I will accept Montanabw's argument that the various criteria should stack. I still think the evidence to support WP:SCHOLAR is weak and that the coverage in WP:RS to support WP:GNG is even weaker. But I have reread the article and reconsidered the advice at WP:NACADEMIC that the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. I now agree that Montanabw is correct in her interpretation of the guidelines and that there is enough verifiable material for an academic. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a bias in how we interpret and apply the guidelines. Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that if this was about a nerdy guy who's written a how-to book about programming in Perl, it'd be sure keep for articles on both the author and the book. We routinely keep stuff on far less. Msnicki (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Probably does not meet WP:PROF as a scholar, but might as an administrator. @David Eppstein: Information science may have a decent amount of citations, but the more traditional library science in which she works does not: there are two few people publishing papers and too few journals. However in this case, we need to go beneath the numbers--too many of the citations are self citations, too many of the papers are written by her students to which she added her name; too many of the papers are very closely repetitive. But @Atsme: Almost all your numbered arguments above are every one of the unconvincing: #1,2, and 3 are of for Verifiability, but not for notability; #4 and 5 --so far from being significant, publishing a chapter in an edited book is considerably less important than a peer-reviewed paper, so much so that we normally remove them from articles where they are listed. #6 and 7 are also insignificant--only being in chief of a journal is grounds for notability, and editorial board memberships are so insignificant and so easy to acquire that we normally remove these also from articles on academics. #8, however ,is the key point. Normally we regard notability under WP:PROF as a worldwide standard, unlike such things as politics where we g country by country; if we did so here, there is no question but that she would be notable. But three is no consensus to do so as a routine matter,and hundreds of articles have been rejected on this basis. Perhaps we should change the rule, but I doubt that we will have consensus for doing so. :What we can do is make exceptions. As Msnicki says, we can interpret the rules in any one case however we please. IAR is a much more basic principle then WP:N. We make our own rules; we make whatever exceptions we decide to--all we need is consensus in an individual case, whether to keep despite the usual interoperation or to delete. WP is not a place where immutable rules are handed down from a higher authority; but it's not an anarchy either, and when we make exceptions we should know and say what we are doing. In this case we would be making an exception for a relatively under-covered field and country. On what basis can we decide that--though we can do as we please, we should be rational about it? I'm deciding here on the basis that as compared to most such suggested exceptions for academics from this and similar countries, this is a relatively strong record. If we're going to make an exception, this is a reasonable place to do it. But I would strongly oppose changing the basic rule, and I would not try to argue in a way that makes no sense in terms of the standards. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some interesting arguments that we should make an exception from Msnicki and DGG, which I find more convincing than any of the previous keep rationales made here. Nonetheless, my view is that if we are going to make exceptions, it shouldn't be for scholars whose books are published by VDM Publishing (you may remember them from their print-on-demand books of Wikipedia articles - just Google them or read this or this to find out what they're all about), but rather for those who have published with recognised academic publishers. That doesn't have to be a university press - just not a predatory, vanity press. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, my sincerest thank you for your intelligent, even-tempered clarity in describing why you believe the sources I listed were/were not acceptable for determining notability, and for your common sense approach in properly weighing the differences in the way certain things are handled from country to country. I think there is a lot to be learned from this discussion. I certainly am one editor who has been enlightened by it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^{Reminder for DGG, you !voted twice. You have a !weak keep earlier up the page. 🙄 Atsme📞📧 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

thanks, fixed. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I confess to not having read entirely through the WP:WALL, but in spot checking, I saw some ridiculous arguments like that she is notable for redesigning a website because there is a source that says as much. This is one of the problems of equating notability with sources rather than with accomplishment (for which sources are a by-product). In taking a disinterested look at the article, I see what is essentially a CV with no real assertion of notability. GS h-index appears to be 12 and bibliography is mostly lists and web sites. Agricola44 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agricola44, you don't "spot check" the arguments, you assess the article itself. While I disagree with your assessment of the article, at least consider the arguments that have been advanced ... and yes, nowdays, most wikipedia articles are sourced to "web sites." You may want to clarify... Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read my comment, starting at: "In taking a disinterested look at the article, I see...". It gives my reasoned assessment. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Curious - why are you here if you're disinterested? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting I show more WP:ADVOCACY or are you not aware that "disinterested" is very different from "uninterested"? Agricola44 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No, actually that isn't what I was suggesting. Are you not aware that "disinterested" is still ubiquitiously used to mean "having or feeling no interest in something"? [80] Your framing of the syntax leaves one with the impression that the latter is what you meant. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics between the UK and US. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to use this space to debate the meaning of disinterested, Atsme? Let's assume good faith and that Agricola44 meant the first definition here. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would assume otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now why in the world would someone devote time and effort to impartially assessing an article if she were uninterested? It's always a shame when these discussions veer off into such childish nitpicking. Agricola44 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Simple answer, your explanation accompanying your !vote speaks volumes: I confess to not having read entirely through the WP:WALL, but in spot checking.... When one doesn't take the time to read all the arguments in an effort to garner a comprehensive understanding of the issue, it begs such a conclusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused here. We're evaluating the article, not the comments on the article. There's no obligation to read the latter (though most people do, provided it doesn't take an hour to wade through prolix bickering), but every obligation to carefully and in a disinterested way read the former. It's crucial to recognize this subtlety. Indeed, one could make the case that complete impartiality requires assessing and comment on the article before reading others' comments...some food for thought. This is now my limit for childish bickering, so I'll watch the remainder from the sidelines. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• (ec) Please Atsme, give it a rest. Agricola44 has made it plenty clear that they carefully evaluated the article, but only spot checked the huge wall of text that we have produced here. You really can't blame anyone for that, especially since many of the arguments that we've produced keep going in circles. But can we stop this fruitless discussion about Agricola44's !vote now? The closing admin has already enough stuff to read through (that person cannot use WP:TLDNR, but will have to wade through all of it) and certainly will be experienced enough to see which !votes they should ignore because they were not carefully made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my initial intention to not respond after Agricola44's last comment because my questions were answered satisfactorily but now I feel as though I'm being ganged-up on for simply asking a legitimate question which for all intents and purposes is the reason for this AfD. I'm not sure why you and Cordless Larry feel the need to police my discussions as you have been, such as with the Agricola44 discussion and comments like "give it a rest", and "Let's assume good faith..." as noted above, both of which suggest that I haven't AGF. For the record, I was politely answering questions that were asked of me, nothing more. My responses to those questions were made in good faith and what I expected to receive in return. My seeking clarification for an editor's !vote was not out of line, does not need policing and falls well within AfD guidelines: Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. I hope you understand why I feel ganged-up on, not to mention the other unpleasantries I recently endured with you on my TP, [81]. I'm asking you to please refrain from making further contentious statements regarding my participation in this or any other AfD. Thank you, kindly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as she does not, at this time, meet neither GNG nor PROF; someone may want to keep a draft as a thumbnail for the future just in case but otherwise, not notable as to English Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (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 Ihor Ševčenko. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ševčenko's law[edit]

Ševčenko's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An extremely low number of google hits, hence I question the notability of the "law" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge. Nothing on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: You can't delete and merge at the same time. Wikipedia:Merge and delete Christian75 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears not to be widely used.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ihor_Ševčenko and add that source where the "law" is described (though only as a passing mention). It is certainly not standalone-notable, but it does not seem undue weight in its author's article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge + redirect as per Tigraan. It does not appear to be a widely used or notable term, but I think a mention of it in the main article is appropriate. GAB^gab 03:02, 17 July 2016 (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.  Sandstein  19:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue discography[edit]

Out of the Blue discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While Out of the Blue (Oxford University) have appeared on TV and seem to have some level of notability (for an acappella group), an overly detailed comprehensive discography suggests someone is using Wikipedia as free web-hosting, without a shred of evidence that any of these albums are at all notable. Time for this to go. A basic list on the main article page should be ample. Anyone who wants to see a track listing can refer to their Bandcamp page. Sionk (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. No indication these albums were released by major labels. My son can release an album in his bedroom. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Undersourced and out of scope. Nothing to merge that isn't already in the main article. czar 23:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2016 (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. As usual, the voters did not agree on whether coverage is reliable enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShapeShift (company)[edit]

ShapeShift (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article meets WP:GNG, which is explicitly stated in the edit comments as this article was created. Multiple independent sources show notability.

Morever, this quotation from the WP:ORG page shows that a company or organization may be notable if it has multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, as the article does have.

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

— N2e (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On the strength of the Forbes, Fortune, and CNBC citations. It's really borderline since those articles are about the company's departure from New York following regulatory changes. Regardless, the sources are reliable and they are about the subject, so I'm forced to say it passes GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I compared each versions and I'm still not convinced there's substantially enough, I would wait instead for the company to advance because this all still seems thin regarding convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant coverage in independent sources beyond mentioning in passing. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources that do exist are stories about things such as regulatory frameworks which use the company's example to illustrate the point, that does not mean these are sources about the company. MLA (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ORGDEPTH, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The sources provided are more than just a trivial or passing mention. It also passes WP:GNG, the sources are reliable, secondary sources and Independent of the subject. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Biggs, John (2015-09-08). "ShapeShift, A Cool Cryptocurrency Converter, Clinches $1.6 Million In Cash". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     Do you need Clams? Nucoin? ShapeShift.io is here to help. This oddly simple system is a universal and anonymous cryptocurrency converter created by one of the pioneers in bitcoin, Erik Voorhees. How does it work? You request a certain cryptocurrency – Litecoin, for example – and give the service a deposit address. Then you simply deposit another currency – Bitcoin, for example – into a deposit wallet. The system converts the currency automatically without having to store your personal information.

     Why would you want to do this? Well, some currencies are useful on some sites – Clams is popular for gaming sites while NuBits is pegged to the dollar, resulting in lower volatility. Because conversions between these various currencies requires no personal data you can buy any one of them and then convert them to BTC in the blink of an eye.

  2. Roberts, Daniel (2005-06-11). "Bitcoin company ditches New York, blaming new regulations". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     ShapeShift.io, a bitcoin startup that allows people to quickly exchange digital currencies without an account or arduous signup process, has completely cut off service to New York in response to the state’s new regulatory policy for digital currency businesses. The BitLicense, which was finalized last week, sparked fear among the bitcoin community during its revision process over the past year, and now that it is out, has courted criticism for the various licenses and approvals it requires of companies that store and transmit money for customers. It is seen as too stringent and restrictive of innovation.

     ...

     While Shapeshift has so far raised only a seed round of just under $1 million from Roger Ver (nicknamed “Bitcoin Jesus”) and Barry Silbert (founder of the Digital Currency Group), CEO Erik Voorhees is a widely followed voice in the digital currency world who founded Coinapult and worked at BitInstant. Vorhees founded ShapeShift and ran it using an alias at first until he came out as its CEO in March.

  3. Rosenfeld, Everett (2015-06-10). "Company leaves New York, protesting 'BitLicense'". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     One company is suspending its services in New York, saying it needs to take a "moral and ethical stand" against a new state law regulating digital currency such as bitcoin.

     ShapeShift, a digital currency exchange that doesn't require users to make accounts, announced Thursday it is pulling its service from New York state because it does not wish to comply with the recently issued BitLicense. That new law asks digital currency firms to, among other things, record some personal identifying information of its users. ShapeShift opposes that effort.

  4. Caffyn, Grace (2015-03-10). "ShapeShift Raises $525k, Reveals Erik Voorhees as Creator". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     Instant bitcoin and altcoin exchange ShapeShift has received $525,000 in seed funding from investors Barry Silbert and Roger Ver.

     The Swiss-based platform, which lets users swap between 25 digital currencies and tokens, differs from traditional exchanges in that it operates without user accounts and requires no form of registration.

     ...

     As part of the funding announcement, entrepreneur Erik Voorhees has come forward as ShapeShift’s creator and CEO, having operated under the alias Beorn Gonthier – a reference to J R R Tolkein's own shapeshifter – since its launch in 2013.

     ...

     ShapeShift claims to have witnessed a staggering increase in volume – 30% every month over the past half year. Besides speed and ease-of-use, the platform – which also offers a browser plugin – says it gives users "trust by design".

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ShapeShift to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like DGG has noted however, several of those listed are simply about funding (regardless of who published it) and also, the "Company exits New York" is simply expected coverage about its current views about those situations....Still not convincing. Also notice how the entire current article talks about funding and everything else suggesting how this is simply a newly and still-gaining-establishment company. There's still not inherited notability from those "security events". SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not simply about funding. They talk about the company's background. For example, the TechCrunch article notes:

The company just raised $1.6 million from the Digital Currency Group and Roger Ver as well as angels Bruce Fenton, Trevor Koverko and Michael Terpin. ShapeShift did the equivalent of $2 million in volume in July and have an API so programmers can use the service to convert funds on the fly. Interestingly, Voorhees has a strict “no fiat” policy on the site which means it is completely separate from traditional transfer mechanisms. In short, you can’t send dollars to be converted into Dogecoin. In fact, the traffic is completely anonymized so he neither knows his customers or can see what they’re doing.

This is "deep coverage". Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) notes, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."

The same is true of the CoinDesk article.

Cunard (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about TeleChruch article, but the CoinDesk article looks a little like a press release. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (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.  Sandstein  16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palaye Royale[edit]

Palaye Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A band whose references are all social media . YouTube or track listings. Nothing notable . Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, i realize that most links are to social media, but that is because i believe them to be notable. the social media comes directly from the band, which makes all of it true.SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just realized my error, upon looking up notability, and you are right. I will try to find more notable sources.SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in process of updating sources, how do they look now? Velella thank you for all your help.SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Better sources seem to be out there based on a quick skim of Google, and the MTV award confers notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure i understand what you mean about MTV, could you please clarify? White Arabian FillySoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, people/groups/businesses become notable primarily because they get covered in newspapers, magazines, news sites, etc. If a person wins an award like a Grammy, they'll get written about, and chances are they should have an article. Therefore, the more awards or competitions a group like this wins, the more likely they are to deserve an article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so [User:White Arabian Filly|White Arabian Filly]] what you're saying then is that you agree that the band is notable enough to warrant an article, but i need stronger citations? SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. I would support moving it to draft space to give you more time to work on it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no significant coverage in serious independent musical sources.Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Draftspace because I believe, with some work, this article could meet AfC standards. It should also be noted that the user who created the article is a new user and likely knows little about Wikipedia's policies. We don't want to discourage them from editing in the future, per WP:BITE. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an overtly promotional article about a non-notable band that contains utterly non-neutral content like "The brothers wanted to create a band that really put on a show, one that brought together the theatrics of Vegas, and the gritty rock and roll of times gone by" which is referenced to the band's own website. There are many other such passages. The band's claim to notability seems to be winning some MTV March contest, and that is referenced to MTV itself, which has an interest in promoting its own contests. No truly independent source paid any attention to this. This is an advertisement, pure and simple, and belongs on some blog somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No acceptable evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Draftify to allow author time to research notability and to allow band time to become notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy since the creator is active and hopefully willing to work on this further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify for AfC. Article subject has potential notability but needs work. This will allow the author to get help and organize the article for Wikipedia standards, and than submit to AfC, a wonderful project. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete altogether and then Draft only if actually needed, as I honestly would not accept this even if it were listed for review....because nothing here is actually convincing thus Deletion is best if there's still nothing actually convincing for even minimal notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the idea that the article should be moved to user or draft space "to allow band time to become notable" would open the floodgates to every wanabee and Up and coming next big thing. Their time may come, but it is currently Too soon - Arjayay (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2016 (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. Opinions are divided (sadly, along partisan lines, insofar as I recognize the participants) as to whether the event is significant enough to warrant article-level coverage in the light of WP:NOTNEWS. There is consensus to move the article, if it is not deleted, to a title describing the event rather than the person, but editors will need to determine whether that title is Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel or Death of Hallel Yaffa Ariel or something else.  Sandstein  16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallel Yaffa Ariel[edit]

Hallel Yaffa Ariel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yes indeed a tragedy but doesn't worth an article. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. If we had an article for every man who died in the violecne," Israeli Palestinian tragedy we would have to submit some 20 articles every year. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep -This is internationally covered and condemned by Prime Minister of israel and US State department as terrorist attack. This is not covered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT which is for things like streetcorner muggings and stabbings with no political motive that are not part of a continuing conflict and warfare and are not commented on by heads of state. Such arguments are continually used to try to delete every article on incidents of violence which is a terrorist attack or resembles one. If there are 1000 fatal terrorist attacks a day across all nations, there is no limit on the number of articles on such topics Bachcell (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bachcell (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• • Comment The words of Prime Ministers and US state department does not make one event as significant. Netanyahu's words should not be taken seriously in Wikipedia. We don't have an article for every attack that occured in the last seven months, we actually have only 8 and three of them needs to be deleted. I"ll tell you a secret, there may not be a 1000 terrorist attacks everyday, but there are dozens, and some, have hundreds of casualties, such as mass executions of people or members of minorities in Iraq, some of which are in the context of an actual Genocide that is happening right now and yet, you don't hear about them. So we stick up to the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this incident among others is not significant and has no major impact on the Israeli Palestinian conflict but just an incident that is very sad due to the fact a 13 year old girl was stabbed to death in her be which is something that makes it good for condamnations and news reports, but not for Wikipedia, as all of the articles about the attacks in the recent round of violecne," between Israel and the Palestinians are part of a series of articles regarding this wave of violence starting in September. There are murders much more horrible than this one, even not in the context of terrorism that doesn't recieve an article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bolter, your letting your bias show a bit with your comment. As to the matter at hand, while it is true we don't have an article for every terror attack, this attack was notably gruesome. It wasn't a random shooting or stabbing, it was an attack while the victim slept. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • What bias and where exactly is the significance of this attack except for it being grusome? A few months ago we had a man being butchered with a butcher knife, in October we had a man ranning over four people, smashing them between his vehicle and a bus stop and then exiting the van and starting to chop an old man with his butcher's knife. Two weeks ago an man in his car was sprayed with bullets, his wife was critically injured and he left behind 10 children and possibly hundres of people who loved him as he was a popular figure and also friend of high officials in the Mossad and the Israeli Parliament and yet we he have no article for all three of those. Those three are all horrible "tragedies" but they are not more than that. Their impact is between very little to no impact at all. They didn't cause a significant chain of events, they didn't cause a national debate, they were already forgotten and we are two weeks after the death of Halel and still nothing really happened due to it, except for a controversial settlement expansion plan by the Israeli government, but apart from that, really nothing happend.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to the animus and POV exhibited by Nom. I trust that notability will be judged fairly according to WP:CRIME and WP:GNG, not according to what Nom appears to assert are special rules that unspecified parties apply to the Jewish State. I strongly doubt the judgment of an editor so enraged by an article that he has lost his customary ability to spell (or type): ("grusome," "ranning over", "hundres", "condamnations", "violecne," "occured", and even the victim's name.) I strongly urge editors operating under the influence of a hatred or animus so strong that they lose the ability to type, to refrain from editing until they can.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite enough, WP:NPA is fairly clear, this is a topic covered by discretionary sanctions and if you make one more personal comment to any other editor I will seek sanctions against you. Read and internalize the opening of WP:NPA, most importantly Comment on content, not on the contributor.nableezy - 19:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'he has lost his customary ability to spell (or type).' Keep your bad manners out of it. A 17 year old effortlessly bilingual in Hebrew and French, with an advanced knowledge of a third language and sufficient aware of the foibles of his occasional lapses in spelling to mock himself with comic irony by documenting the errors on his page, should be admired for his precocity rather than waspishly taken to task by the monolingual. He's a credit to Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who wish to see the intemperate impression given here by Nom should read an earlier version of this page; which has been cleaned up. Nom's orthography is generally excellent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory, the last time I checked I was an Israeli Zionist of the center camp of Israeli politics (and if I had a babel userbox, I would label my English as level 3 out of 5). I just don't want to see an article for things I think are not significant enough for an article and because I see no one is generally doing anything I do it myself. There are three incidents from the current wave of violence that in my opinion should not have an article and no one much offered to delete them but when I see another incident I think shouldn't be here I don't sit and let it exist like the others. I think that the existence of such articles is quite misleading, as it takes small fractions of a conflict and make them significant over things that don't get an article and as far as I know Israeli media and politics, all the reactions to this incidents are emotional as this is an horrible attack but it didn't change anything on the ground or as Tricky said "have [a] wider implications for the conflict as a whole". The amount of people dying not in the context of terrorism is horrible: yesterday a baby died because his parents forgot him in a vehicle and a vehicle can reach up to 50 degrees Celsius in an Israeli summer. Today three people died in car accidents, but they don't get an article. A girl murdered in her bed is awful, but in making a Wikipedia article it is no different than "regular" deaths because it really has no significance in the conflict. You need to understand that events like that are not rare, and not in Israel. A few months ago there was an allegation that two Arabs raped a young Jewish woman with mental issues from a racial motive, but this didn't got an article, because this is just another. If the entire family was killed in the attack this would definitely have an article, as that is a rare thing in our conflict. In Iraq there are attacks with 50 people being killed that get no articles, because they are generally "just another", and generally in Iraq some 20 people die everyday on "good" days.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment above. Basically, this wasn't your generic terror attack, it was a gruesome attack while the victim was sleeping and is clearly not covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that article needs to me moved to something like Death of Hallel Yaffa Ariel, because it is about a murder/attack, and is not a bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on impact, although events are not required to have an ongoing impact to be notable, impact is, as Nom writes, an indication of notability. I will take a careful look at this stabbing attack, and begin the expansion of the article by looking at impact. Since my editing time is limited and this was a major incident that generated an enormous amount of coverage, I hope that other editors will join me in expanding and improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016#30 June, where this is already covered. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. nableezy - 19:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. This incident alone, while obviously gruesome, doesn't match the notability of the other killings in this conflict that justify their own pages - things like the Murder of Eitam and Na'ama Henkin or Duma arson attack, for example, are individual tragedies but also have wider implications for the conflict as a whole. I can't see that this incident does. As has already been pointed out, if we made a page for every victim of this conflict, we would be creating dozens or hundreds each year. TrickyH (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pr WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This incident is already covered on Wikipedia. See under List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016, June 30. Articles of this kind should be written after at least 3 weeks or a month at least when further commentary demonstrates that they achieve long-term notability, as is normally done with parallel incidents where Palestinians are murdered (Beitunia killings, the event occurred on the 15 May and the article started 3 weeks later. The exception is of multiple murders or terror events that have immediate impact and, logically, a forseeable longterm impact involving trials etc. Otherwise, since people are killed every other day in the I/P area, we are creating an obituary tug-of-war between competing POV-victim image manufacturers.) Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015-present).GreyShark (dibra) 21:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good sourcing, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT does not apply here as that covers crimes like muggings etc.. this is a political and above the normal standard crime. Also, we dont base deletion on article quality, the quality can be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BIO1E, WP:EVENT and also WP:NOTNEWS. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Huldra wrote, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google search (in quotes):

"Mohammed Abu Khdeir" → 118,000 = Wikipedia article

"Hallel Yaffa Ariel" → 163,000 = Discussion about deletion

This could sound like anarchy and challenge the foundation of the Arab-Israeli Conflict contingent, but some articles can exist outside of List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2016.

No more Wikiwashing. KamelTebaast 04:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youd be better off picking a different article. The article on Abu Khdier, and its not a biography, exists because of its significance in a larger set of distinct events, events that if they were covered together would be too large of an article. So we have articles on 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers and the following Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir and the culminating 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Those other two articles exist because reliable sources talk about their so called enduring impact. That isnt the case here. This has not had, like any other number of violent acts in a long running conflict, any appreciable impact recorded by reliable sources. This is, and Im sorry if this is callous, somewhat routine, as the sheer length of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 should readily demonstrate. nableezy - 07:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Abu Khadeir sparked a three month long unrest in Jerusalem, causing the death of some 80 people on both sides, starting what is called the Silent Intifada (which was recently renamed to a better name), and also one of the events leading to the worst battle in Gaza for the last century and also part of the events that can be related to the current phase of violance. The Abu Khadeir incident also caused a controversy about wether the homes of Jewish terrorists should be demolished like the homes of Arab terrorists. The death of Halel on the other hand caused pretty much nothing, just a horrible event.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your search data is wrong and I have no idea how did you come up with those numberes.

The search hallel yaffa ariel brought only 71,000 results. But when I search results since 31 June I only get 24 pages of links, which means 240 results. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the list of violent incidents: WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a WP:BLP and would fail WP:BLP1E anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bolter21, it appears your Google search was without quotations. KamelTebaast 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, then my search is more percise. There's a difference between 163,000 results and 240.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what type of search you're doing. I just did another Google search on a different server:

"Mohammed Abu Khdeir" → 110,000

"Hallel Yaffa Ariel" → 154,000

Regardless, that is not the only indicator. However, to Khdeir's credit, many articles would have been written in Arabic that did not show up on these google searches. KamelTebaast 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Ariel is one of the 20 most popular names in Israel, we have an MK named Ariel, we have an important settlement called Ariel, if you wrote "Hallel Yaffa Ariel" there's a good chance you"ve got thousands of "ariel". You are not searching for results since 31 June, you are searching for results as old as 15 years.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you're searching with quotes. That restricts to what is in the quotes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG which trumps the IDONTLIKEIT,s of above.BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Actually, as a point of fact, each of the delete comments above that referenced NOTMEMORIAL or NOTNEWS in fact, as a policy based argument, trumps the ones that say, for example, notable or GNG, as those are guideline based arguments. Policy > Guideline, and also, FYI, WP:LIKE is the same thing as WP:IDONTLIKE. nableezy - 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article meets every single one of the points per WP:GNG except one, which is that a new article must not contradict WP:NOT. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTMEMORIAL site. It also teaches us that people who are known for one event (i.e. WP:BLP1E) should generally not have an article. Also we have WP:GEOSCOPE, which says that "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group", but the murder of Hallel has not had any significant impact. Beyond that I didn't find other relevent policies and guidelines that can futher contribute to my point, so I'll move back to common sense. We have the articles List of terrorist incidents, June 2016 and we have the article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 and this attack is listed there. Because the attack has no significant impact whatsoever, there is not much to write besides the incident it self, which is present in both lists. In addition, should the attack have any implication (except for it being relatively shocking, which is in the eyes of the beholder), the information will be in Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present), the article that talks about the phase of violance in which this attack occurred. Since this attack has no significant impact, it can remain in the two lists where it is already present and lie there in peace.

The "motive" for my suggestion is not political. I am an Israeli citizen and I never really politically detested my country or the people. The reason is that as a member of this project, I must respect the nature of this project. So please, to anyone, stop saying that the removal of this article stems from WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:POV and, rather, actually address the arguments given.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you raised that essay. It reads:'Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own,' which is exactly what you do at the AfD pages when the many articles you create on terrorism are vetted there. Self-goal, in short.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No Gregory, simply, NO. There are some 16 individual comments here to the topic. I responded to the creator of the article to further explain my point, then to Sir Joseph who blamed me for a putative POV, then to you who blamed me for whatever. Then I replied to someone who said I was 'wikiwashing', who also brought wrong information to support his claim, and to this guy. So in general, I responded to 3 people who said I was not being policy-compliant and to another one who made a statement about WP:GNG, four people, 16 comments. Stop being so facile in charging that other editors are disruptive.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to list of Palestinian terror attacks, Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2015-present, or Silent Intifada... and redirect.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. Everybody knows, and its been proven the substantial media coverage, that the murder of one individual can have international serious ramifications. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. As it was mentioned below there thousands of sources available, when searching for this event. Also the nature of the crime itself is dfferent from others based on how it was executed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it different? A boy went into a house, and stabbed a teen girl to death, just as in this random sample from hundreds of similar unwikified incidents, e.g.this, this,this,this,this. These are WP:NOTNEWS , and the same applies. Oh, yes, there is a difference. The murderer was an Arab.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is different because it's an event that created a lot of waves around it, leading to other events and consequences. When a boy gets into a house and kills a teenage girl, this is tragic, but not notable. When a boy gets into a house, kills a girl, leading to politicians, ministers to create or change plans; for international community to talk about the event, it's a notable event. And it has nothing to do with him being an arab. Mohammed Abu Khdeir's murderers were Israelis. You don't argue the article is their basing on that fact. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason is WP:RS as per WP:GNG. Beware WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are reliable sources, genius. As the fourth most prolific contributor to this page, you might want to have a look at that essay yourself. And since you like to cite it so often, in its spirit, please try to not get the last word in. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Abu Khadeir is different becasue it is directly related to: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2014 Jerusalem unrest (including: Yehuda Glick#Assassination attempt  • 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack  • 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack  • November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack  • Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni) So please, don't try to compare based on race.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. M. Gregory. Your recent edit looks definitely like an attempt to manipulate the vote, stacking it. Nableezy removed User:Kigelim 's edit for keep and another editor User:Valeince's edit for delete because neither were entitled to comment per WP:ARPIA#3 on this I/P topic. Despite this occurring a half an hour before, you restored Kigelim's keep vote with the edit summary 'dropped out for some sort of glitch', while leaving out Valeince's delete vote. Nableezy aapplied neutrally a principle that excluded editors of either view. You appear to have feigned not to have understood his edit, and restored only the partisan vote for retention of the article.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I just explained to you on my talk page: ":Please WP:AGF. I have had edits disappear via glitches (sometimes because I bungle my response to an edit conflict notice.) Moe to to the point, on the edit history page, I could see two edits by User:Kigalim that did not appear on the page, so I restored his comment."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you and Nableezy are 2 different editors. And have now looked at Nableezy's remove edit. It cites an ARPIA policy that bans edits by IP addresses. USER:Kigelim, however has a name. i.e. the edit was not by an IP. Can you explain why it was removed? I have also now looked at the other editor Nableezy removed User:Valeince. That editor also is not an IP. Can you explain why these 2 edits were removed?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. nableezy - 14:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I see. He joined in January; but he would have needed 500 edits before he was allowed to voice an opinion. No wonder so many new editors get discouraged leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very new rule. As I see it, this rule is highly discouraging to new editors who are especially likely to make their first edit at a page or discussion about a breaking news event. This is a lousy way to turn newbies into productive editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. Arguments for deletion raised by Nom and others fail because this is not a case of WP:NOTNEWS because neither coverage nor event were "routine." As to WP:EVENT, this murder exhibits "impact, depth.., geographical scope (not only national but international) diversity and reliability of the coverage: plus "the coverage is (not) routine." Every national daily covered the story in detail, as did major dailies like the Los Angeles Times with this detailed look at this murder and its impact "New sense of vulnerability grips Israeli settlers after stabbing of 13-year-old girl," [82]. And note that this is still in the news: "After Abbas Refuses to Meet, Netanyahu Sends Him a Video Outlining “5 Steps for Peace” [83] worldwide: "Israel PM Urges Mahmud Abbas To Sack Aide Over 'Murder Call'" [84], The Hans India. And that WP:NCRIME specifies (AFD in re: crimes is an arena where I regularly edit), "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E M Gregory. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself during this article creation blitzkrieg on Arabs as murderers why editors who oppose this abuse at the same time refrain from abusing wikipedia by abstaining from the facile temptation to write up, despite widespread coverage (WP:NOTABILITY), extrajudicial killings or plain trigger-happy murders of dozens of Palestinianjs like, Hadeek al-Hashlamon (about 14,200 results): Sarah Hajuj (1,380 results); Mahmoud Badran (13,500 results); Yusef al-Shawamreh gunned down, on video, while he was picking vegetables 5,480 results over 3 years, etc.etc.etc.etc. My own answer is simple, you're on a POV-jihad to screw Arabs by profiling every murder they engage in, and keeping mum about parallel cases affecting Arabs, killed by Israelis. Perhaps I'm wrong, and you'll argue the defense to death, but neutral you are not. Whatever, I will persist in telling everyone with a different POV to maintain an informal agreement not to transform incidents of this kind in which Palestinians are victims into a pretext to write a wiki article. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There can't be a Wikipedia article for every victim in a war, and this was a minor incident. Already covered in List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_January–June_2016 Engleham (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no "war" in the area. This was an terrorist attack on a child sleeping in her home in peacetime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016, as appropriate target for this exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rushing to delete or redirect - as here - is not always wise. The fact is that many AFD debates read very like this discussion. See: January 2016 Paris police station attack. The reality is that some people view this sort of attack as notable, while others do not. Discussion threfore too often devolve into shouting matches, or mere tallies. And yet is has been consistently true that articles like Munich knife attack are likely to grow in notability over time, as the Munich attack has done in the wake of the 2016 Würzburg train attack. To me, one of the strongest reasons not only to keep this and similar articles, such as Death of Alexandra Mezher, but to create them soon after the event, is that it is so much easier to create a good article in the weeks shortly after an event, and makes it far more likely that editors other than creator will come to the page an make the article a good one. It is far, far more time consuming to create an article on something like the 1996 Paris Métro bombing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, or 1985 Copenhagen bombings years after the event, not least because it requires access to news archives, academic articles, and academic books not readily available to most editors. And that is why we lack many articles (for example on the turn-of-the-century Anarchist terrorism attacks) that would be useful to have). WP:PRESERVE is an important concept, as is the utility of having good articles created when it is most likely that editors will be interested in editing them: i.e., within a few days or weeks of the event. As here. Which Is why I urge editos to keep this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please re-read WP:SOURCE. Those hard-to-use academic sources are the ones we should be using to write encyclopedia articles. Contemporary newspaper accounts, which are written in the heat of the moment, often biased, and frequently riddled with errors, are considered the worst among reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, information from reliable news sources like Deutsche Welle and Reuters is not only crucial - it is a common way that academic articles source the basic facts about the events they discuss. As an editor here, I regularly upgrade existing articles with scholarly sources. But your argument would preclude having a Wikipedia article on Shooting of Alton Sterling or Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment to all of those who want to redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016, I suggest merge with Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) as it makes more sense to me because this attack is in the context of this phase of violence.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this attack continues to be in the news as the other victim, a member of the neighborhood's volunteer security patrol, is released from hospital after losing an eye.[85]. This is why editors should avoid WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is interesting: [[86]] This case has been raised in a Knesset debate, and is being discussed in the press, in the context of proposed legal penalties to be imposed on Facebook, and the family may join a lawsuit being filed in American courts against Facebook, all attempting rto force Facebook to remove the incitement to murder on Facebook, citing the posts made by the murderer in this case. Many articles on this in U.S., Israeli, Palesitnian, and international Jewish papers. Spellings of the murderer's name - and that of his cousin - vary. I hope someone will take the time to add it to the page. Mentioning it here because this WP:RAPID AFD is unduly hasty, the impact of this murder seem to be just beginning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to Death of Hallel Yaffa Ariel per WP:BIO1E. The event is notable; the victim isn't. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel? KamelTebaast 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is better to always avoid the usage of "murder".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing to suggest there's enough convincing, aside from the simply expected coverage for usual news events. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. No need to merge as there is sufficient detail there already. It's also mentioned briefly in Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). Note that if this article survives the title is simple wrong. This is not a biography of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. The article says nothing about her other than her name, age, citizenship, and cause of death. This is clearly an article about the attack itself. Meters (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Meters, A consensus exists among editors weighing in above above) that if the article is kept, it should be moved to something like Death of Hallel Yaffa Ariel, for precisely the reasons you state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I do read previous comments before making my own. I was just stating my agreement that the title must be changed and giving reasons. Meters (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Meters, I mistook.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I urge editors coming to this page to evaluate this article, the strength of the sourcing, geographic extent, and ongoing nature of the coverage, and the political impact, exactly as they would articles about similar attacks in other parts of the world, such as the University of California, Merced stabbing attack, Munich knife attack, 2015 IKEA stabbing attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Magnanville stabbing, 2016 Ohio machete attack, or 2016 Würzburg train attack. And request that editors arguing for deletion make objective, policy-based arguments their arguments for deleting this particular article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on non-routine nature of coverage. Exapnding article now based on long profile of victim, and her family that ran in the Washington Post; this is the polar opposite of the time-limited, local coverage that defines a "routine" crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the disruptive nature of WP:RAPID deletions of articles on dramatic events in that dragging an article to AFD discourages editors from expanding articles in the very weeks when editors are most likely to be interested in expanding an article. Furthermore it leads to bad decisions since editors iVote while deeper coverage is continuing to be published, and before impact can possibly be clear. Note, for example, that Nom's assertion that "The death of Halel on the other hand caused pretty much nothing," is now demonstrably untrue, although it was relatively more plausible at the time he asserted it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Since above E M Gregory cited a a piece of advice, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, it is advisable to notify him to read it, and examine his own practice here.Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nish, point is that there is a lot of material that needs to be added, particularly to the impact section. I just added an interesting article form The Philadelphia Tribune on the martyr payments. I hope that you and other editors will help build the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to ask Engleham if Israel and the Palestinians are at "war"? Please send me the link. KamelTebaast 00:55, 26 July 2016 (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 Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture. Seems the consensus is clearly against this article. As some suggested, there is a good redirect target, so redirecting. Call it a SNOW close. Tone 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Lizard[edit]

Tea Lizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be just one trivial incident with no lasting importance. Most of the media coverage seemed to be joking about it, not serious coverage and in a sense not secondary but a part of the fun. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, classic example of a nine day wonder. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete +1 -- Nsda (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, should the name stick. Also note the article talk page, discussing the article's earlier contested PROD. Dave (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kermit the Frog - The "Tea Lizard" incident could very well fit into the Kermit the Frog article if a paragraph on the character's Internet presence was added. I don't think it deserves its own page, though. Capcapandgengen (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. But Kermit the Frog is one of the most important imaginary characters in modern pop culture, Tea Lizard not so much. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable trivia which will be forgotten in a week (and I totally failed to understand from the article what all the fuss was about). BabelStone (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of in-depth reliable coverage; Wikipedia is not just a collection of everything that has made the news; it needs to have some sort of impact Spiderone 18:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the now-removed PROD: "Nothing in this article demonstrates notability of this short-lived small-scale twitter hype". (Furthermore, I forgot this was even a thing until I saw the AfD.) JudgeRM 18:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  After updates to the page were made, my second choice would be to redirect to Kermit the Frog#Kermit in Internet culture. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's obviously based on reliable sources, why else would they Pass it for DYK? Americanfreedom (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is they? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming "they" are the people that run DYK. JudgeRM 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that has ever been mentioned in the media. Not in the slightest bit notable. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrelevant, nonsensical, and likely to be forgotten in two weeks. Lunaibis 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would work over on Wikia.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and shame on DYK for running this. Memecruft.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to strong delete and salt on account of the article creator's ridiculous and immature tirade below.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, what a mess. So someone on Good Morning America didn't recognize Kermit, mistweeted and that briefly became a thing, in the veritable firehose of ephemeral things that become things on twitter, day in, day out. Delete as trivial, non-notable. Selectively merge something to the Kermit article, I guess. I don't even think it merits a selective merge to List of Internet phenomena but others might. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been pulled and listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Removed#July_2016, I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly, "I didn't know" or care but now will never get that time back. delete memecruft as not notable. WP:SNOW should be considered. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW should not be considered. It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, people from other time zones haven't seen it, and there's some interest in merging (even a Keep) so it's just an uphill battle. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: This article should never have been created, approved, nominated for a DYK or passed for a DYK. The content of this page is nonsensical, trivial and unencyclopedic. I doubt even a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica would allow it to remain. I simply hope more discretion will be used with future DYK nominations. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is quite possibly the most random and non-notable article to be made here. GamerPro64 23:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evident long-lasting notability. Someone made a dumb tweet, and a bunch of commentators jumped on it. That being said, this is just hilarious. Someone needs to rewrite WP:MEME and get it approved - I'm up for that. As a second choice, Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture. GAB^gab 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a condensed version to Kermit the Frog along with a link to Sad Kermit and some talk of But that's none of my business for a "Kermit in Internet culture section. Not that I'll shed tears if it gets deleted. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very arguments used here could be used against the article Sad Kermit. Having never heard of it, I clicked over, the article has essentially gone untouched since a few months after the article was first created. I'll save those that haven't clicked the link the time, it's a youtube video that had 15 minutes of fame back in 2007 and is now long forgotten. As someone above wrote, there's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Dave (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right that it doesn't deserve an article. I just went ahead and was bold in creating the Internet section I suggested, and merged Sad Kermit in the process. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons above. It is embarrassing that this made it through the DYK process. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some way or another What is this??!!!!!!! WHY ARE PEOPLE SUPPORTING DELETION OF THIS???!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, why are people thinking this is a good idea to nominate for deletion in the first place?! This deletion nomination is absurd from the very start. The nominator is only deleting the article based on his opinion that "Most of the media coverage seemed to be joking about it, not serious coverage and in a sense not secondary but a part of the fun" clearly without reading much of the sources cited in the article. I'm sorry, but articles from Fusion, Dazed and Refinery29 about how the GMA is considered an example of black erasure are pretty legit analysis and not just trivial fun like the nominator is bullshitly reasoning. It's funny how you people are willing to keep a nine-short-sentence article about a house that didn't really have a lot coverage outside of just being a part of a popular film, and yet here you guys are willing to delete a notable topic that has a lot more analysis from relaible sources than what you people think. I could kind of understand if people would argue the topic shouldn't have its own article given that it was only WP:ONEEVENT, but if that's so, than it should be part of a related article given the significant discussion from publications including the three sources I mentioned in this discussion. In fact, why don't we delete another article about a meme that had the same populartiy as this? Is it just me or are many Wikipedia users getting more and more ridicolous? I'M GETTING FED UP WITH THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 03:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: EditorE (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I think this summarizes the problem with the article, plus, the article would need a full rewrite, as many people have said they camnot understand what's the point, as well as it doesn't indicate why it is notable--other than having a few sources. Ignoring the shouting and repetitive characters in your comment, it looks a bit WP:POINTY, "If other trivial articles can exist, even when I have AFD them, then I can write any article with trivialities and it will be inherently Wikipedia material", which it is not the case. The article, as currently written, lacks of any basic requirement to be an encyclopedic article, and it is (now) just a text of something that happened and won't have a bigger impact like other Kermit-related memes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, however, is that the article is not "just trivial" or "just fun". Are we seriously gonna use terms like "trivia" just to delete an article or info from an article that actually is more than just a joke or "celebrity gossip" only because someone thought no one would care. Is this what Wikipedia has come to, any sort of meme is automatically just a trivial fucking joke nobody fucking cares? Because that's you people are basically suggesting. Well, then, why don't we just delete similar articles about memes like Unexpected John Cena and Rickrolling that are also "trivial" and just a joke the media has fun with based on that same logic? I know this may be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument I'm making here, but you people need to see how ridiculous your reasonings are for deleting this article. And just because some readers can't understand an article doesn't mean the topic is automatically non-notable. Seriously!!!!!! UGGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 04:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the criticism personally. I know some people have been overly vocal in their deletion votes, and that's unfortunate (it's also a fact of life on Wikipedia). However, if you ignore those, and look at the delete votes that calmly stick to a logical argument, there is some good feedback for future Wikipedia efforts. I think all of us that have been around here for any length of time have articles we worked on that we now look at and say "what was I thinking?". I know it's frustrating to see something you work on get trashed in the court of public opinion, but better days lie ahead. Dave (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Rickrolling has been going on for many, many years and Unexpected John Cena has been around for a shorter but still significant period. I come across them all the time when I'm online. While I do see the "Kermit with a cup of tea" image, I have never heard of the term "tea lizard". I don't see this as having anywhere near the level of penetration that your counter examples do. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak for others, once you use vulgarity in your argument, you've lost my support.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture where it is discussed in at an appropriately condensed length. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture, this is nowhere near widespread enough for its own page. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not long-term notable enough for an article of its own. (Should we create an article every time a major broadcaster screws up?) Wouldn't be against a mention in Kermit the Frog as mentioned above. — foxj 13:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously one the funest articles I've seen here. Let's stay on the Internet. Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as coverage is coverage, serious or not, the quantity IS serious. Ranze (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Patar; the quantity of coverage is sufficient for a mention somewhere, even if it's not enough to establish notability. ansh666 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it can alternatively be moved to some dank meme website where it belongs. This is another example of how DYK has been turned into a pile garbage.--Catlemur (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the nominator of this AfD I am happy with the paragraph in Kermit the Frog and the Tea Lizard page redirected there. I am also still of the opinion that the New York Magazine and Popular Science sources cited there are joining the others in taking the opportunity to joke, and maybe to educate readers about the differences between frogs and lizards, but not covering the event in any serious way. I think policy calls for "significant coverage." Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above comments. I read the article when it was in DYK, and was completely baffled about what it was about, or why it was in any way notable, but I assumed that because other experienced editors had reviewed it, it was some form of modern culture thing that had passed me by. Further investigation however has led me to a different conclusion. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2016 (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 Havas Worldwide. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EHS 4D Group[edit]

EHS 4D Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN organization, WP:NOTPROMO. Relist due to no votes at all despite relist per NPASR. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Havas Worldwide, its parent article. Without a single reference and with no response in the last AfD, it should have been soft deleted at the very least. czar 23:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Havas Worldwide - Redirecting to its parent company seems best here. The article is an unreferenced puffpiece btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2016 (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.  Sandstein  18:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AB md. 1941[edit]

AB md. 1941 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about non notable automobile used in World War. No citations provided as well. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 03:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The AFD nomination gives it too much implication of notability, by saying it was "used in World War." since per the article it was not in use in a war:per the article "The AB md. 1941 would've been an Romanian armoured car..." Unless this concept car got the required coverage for notability the article should be deleted. Edison (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article states that the subject "would've been an Romanian armoured car". Nothing notable about this "would have been" vehicle. It appears it was never produced. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2016 (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 draftify. The general consensus here seems to be there's one good source (NY Times), but until another good source is found, this isn't ready for mainspace. Opinion is about evenly split between delete and draftify, but going with the latter out of respect for WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shapur Mozaffarian[edit]

Shapur Mozaffarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Second nomination. Looks as not notable business person Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO, although that NYT article is a good source, and I'd change to a keep if any other good sources turned up. Article created by SPA with no other edits. Nha Trang ^Allons! 23:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per previous notes, the NYT article is decent, but the Wash. Post article doesn't even mention this person. Seems to fit the WP:BIO1E category, not notable enough for inclusion, and the SPA author is also a red flag for me. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft. The NYT article is pretty clear about his being well-known for providing jewelry for other famous people as well. BLP1E is therefore irrelevant. I am usually very reluctant to accept articles of this sort, or with this sort of notability as a provider of ...., but I have the feeling that he is indeed notable. But we do need another good reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft I suppose if needed as there's certainly still nothing to suggest the needed enhancements for convincing notability. I myself would've reviewed and nominated if not for a now-uncovered and kicked user taking it first. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 21 July 2016 (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 3e. (non-admin closure) Yash! 17:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Kids[edit]

3Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is questionable (can a block of programming be notable? I suppose so, but i suspect only in extreme cases); information is scanty (i've not yet found any further sources); what is there is covered elsewhere (3e, for example). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why it a PROGRAMMING BLOCK it does not need deletion don't delete it Wikipedia ):( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stick lizard 2 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 3e. Fairly new programming design. — Wyliepedia 12:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 3e as above. A block of programming certainly can be notable, c.f. The Disney Afternoon, but this one has only been around for a couple of weeks, so hasn't had the chance to establish independent notability. A redirect seems appropriate here, and also leaves open the potential to flesh out the article from an RD when and if this block establishes notability. Crow^Caw 17:55, 13 July 2016 (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.