Points of interest related to Washington, D.C. on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs – To-do

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Washington, D.C.. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.

Further information

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

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington, D.C./archive

Lauren Zander

Lauren Zander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some coverage here [1] and here [2] Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines. Not enough for notability here in wiki. Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ekuma

Chinedu Ekuma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (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)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for any editors reviewing this AFD, the article is an autobiography. See Talk:Chinedu Ekuma. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-promotional. I could not locate any independent sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It seems he's been involved with solar cell research [3]; the innovation might be notable, this professor isn't quite notable yet. Very PROMO and COI doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oaktree b (talk) everyone human being has some level of COI. I do not know of any bio written for anyone where the individual writing it does not have some level of knowledge of the person. Otherwise, how is it even possible to write a bio?? The write was transparent enough to even report COI and asked for the community input SrihariKastuar (talk) SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  ok, he's still not notable as we have no coverage in reliable sources about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant professors have rarely had the time to accumulate enough impact to become noted (by others in their field) and therefore notable (to us). The exception would be someone who gets a major international award (the kind that says this person is already a star of the field) or a major media splash for some discovery. I see nothing of the kind here. That would already lead to a weak delete !vote from me, but the self-promotion makes it into a full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  David Eppstein (talk) I do not think that this is a fair assessment. He spent more than 6 years in the National labs before going to university. Notability is not defined by number of years in a university SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  Correct. It is not defined by years of service at all. It is defined by having many papers that are heavily cited relative to others in the same subfield, major and notable international awards, fellowships of major scholarly societies, distinguished professorships, etc. None of which he currently has. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  David Eppstein (talk) how do you know all that? Such information are not always listed on people's bio. He is a member of American Physical Society (you can see this by Googling it), a lifetime member of the National Society of Black Physicists, Sigma Xi, which you can only become a member if you're nominated by another member, etc. Maybe others that I cannot see. CEE (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Membership and fellowship are not the same thing. And we can only operate on the information we can see, not the information we cannot see. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Membership in scientific organizations, however respected, does not in itself satisfy WP:NPROF (please read the criteria). And Sigma Xi literally offers financial incentives (free dues) for recommending others for membership; https://www.sigmaxi.org/members/member-get-a-member. Qflib (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This individual, even at mid-career, has made significant contributions to the field of computational condensed matter physics, as detailed in his bio. It's worth noting that the challenges associated with such achievements might not be readily apparent to those outside the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmp007 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Gmp007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep Prof. Ekuma, is a renowned theoretical Physicist. He has made significant contributions to scientific research, especially in the fields of theoretical physics and materials science. Knowing him about his personal and professional career is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation on an article by the same cluster of editors mostly sourced to Ekuma's publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear case of COI and lack of notability, compounded with brazen disregard for the norms. Tercer (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The subject does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – This subject is close to satisfying C1 of WP:NPROF given his field of endeavor. If he continues to pubish and gain citations at this rate, a page will likely be merited in the future. However, like most people who are not at the full professor level, he is not there yet. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good start towards WP:NPROF C1 notability, in a high citation field, surely WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not everyone is notable, maybe he will be in the future. Artem.G (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously promotional and a clear case of conflict of interest. Simply being an assistant professor is not nearly enough to establish notability unless they receive a major award and sustained coverage. HarukaAmaranth 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Guarino

Cameron Guarino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Maine. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Germany, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article at Cam Guarino was created by a check-user verified paid editing sock evading a block on another account. I've added 'Johnson Abigail' to an existing follow-up. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the article's author, Johnson Abigail, as a sock. GB fan - I don't mind allowing this discussion to play out, but I believe that a G5 speedy would now be within policy, and more expedient. You declined the original speedy tag - do you objections to deletion at this point? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. At the time I declined, there was no investigation of any kind I could point to. There wasn't even a sock puppet identified that was pointed to. ~ GB fan 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and no objection to speedy via G5. Definitely not a notable subject. Season with WP:SALT. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper

Zack Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: I am satisfied with the publications which sums up WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Chipping in a bit. I also found the article bearer is a "Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute". Of course tis a good way WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy

K. S. Narayan Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- multiple sources attest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any sources to attest to being the winner of the Dr. B.C. Roy Award in 1986 as claimed in the article and per the Dr. B. C. Roy Award page itself, the 1986 award went to Jagjit Singh Chopra with a citation. The other claims and sources mentioned above are not included in the article as of this writing, a basic Google search of the name does not return any mention of said awards besides the textbooks, and the sources that are there are primary and the tone overall does not seem neutral. I think it's possible that this could be noteworthy and meet NPROF but at the moment it does not. Kazamzam (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Income

United Income (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unlikely to meet WP:NCORP due to insufficient sourcing BoraVoro (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Matt Fellowes: There is quite an important thing to keep about this company and I will say we merge and redirect it to the founder Matt Fellowes. The career section or being a new section is good to go. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)

Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [4], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [5]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
• Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Resolved