Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California - Wikipedia

Article Images

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Media sources and coverage focus on the founder Miranda Kerr, so the article lacks significant coverage and notability. 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Australia, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- already mentioned in Miranda Kerr article, and there is not sufficient independent coverage about the company to merit a standalone article. At least, not yet. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two sources in the article which have anything more than passing mentions are interviews and thus not independent. All results I found during a search were either interviews or PR/announcements. This appears to fail WP:NORG as there is a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject and which address the organisation directly and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This band doesn't appear to be notable. There's an AllMusic biography and an AllMusic review of their only album. Most of the sources used in the article don't even mention the band, and PlugInMusic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote "keep" for the band name alone, but alas it's definitely a Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, awards or label work. And for being about a rock band, there's nothing about their music in the article, instead focusing on a documentary film and some meaningless YouTube video, not to mention being full of useless fluff and terrible sourcing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [1] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [2]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede 66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article looks like an autobiography, with all references from her website. Not sure if this person meets WP:GNG. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Poetry, and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Dance, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not fit the NCORP, and I cannot find reliable sources for this software company. 美しい歌 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original creation was almost certainly COI spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promo spam for non-notable organization. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Google Books search brought up unrealted company. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was kept at AFD many years ago, and it was probably the right call then. This is something I see in ancient maintenance categories - the project was very exciting in 2011 but never went anywhere, the app disappeared, and there was never any subsequent source published anywhere. The sources cited were all from the initial rollout and seem to be blogs, for the most part, but notable blogs. Still, they were and kind of industry-oriented ones that one might suspect were often just passing on press releases.

This is all fine and well when a startup becomes Uber or Reddit or something, there will be no shortage of better sources, but what if nothing notable ever happens after the initial marketing blitz? The coverage was limited and is incomplete, we can't really say anything about what happened with Parking in Motion after the initial hype window. It didn't succeed, but how? Why? The article will probably never be able to say. There's nothing to add to it, no other Wikipedia articles probably need to link to it. It's just... there, incomplete, forever?

But upon reviewing the sources, I dunno that it rises to the level of non-trivial, definitely not-advertising-related sources mentioned in WP:WEB. The LA Times reference looks impressive in the citation, but I tracked it down and it just says "Parking in Motion helps you find and reserve parking spaces. It shows rates and provides directions. Free for iPhone." in a roundup of a few dozen road trip-related apps. I don't think that's non-trivial coverage. But I invite you to review this and the other sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: found sources [3] and [4], and the CNet one was also good. These sources establish sustained coverage over a year and just barely meets SIGCOV. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were in September/November 2011 and the initial articles were April/May 2011, and the LA Times ones mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post. They still read like press releases: "But now you can know exactly what the parking situation is like before you arrive: Parking in Motion". I know this is a weird AFD because there are respectable news websites with paragraphs about Parking in Motion, but reading what they wrote, it does not feel like non-trivial coverage. I did find a working link to the CNET article, it's the best coverage I've seen. At least it's not just rewording a press release. But it still limits the coverage to the rollout hype, which didn't go anywhere. Without better sources, the Wikipedia article is stuck in the hype phase forever. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least four different months, which seems just borderline enough to establish Sustained to me.
mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post
See WP:NewsBlog. The author's page says she is their reporter, and the references to blogging seems to be just the format.The articles have clear bylines so I don't think they're press releases. Product news in general, especially for hyped products, nearly always reads promotional because the writers are hopeful to see where it goes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage, it's all essentially trivial in nature. Rollout hype with no lasting impact does not seem to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP and tagged for notability, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has made a good start, and the joint awarding (with three others) of the Breakthrough prize in 2021 is a plus; please note that this was awarded to three groups that year, a total of nine people. I am sure that if his career continues to move forward he will qualify under WP:NPROF in a few years, but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Almheiri has received the New Horizons Breakthrough Prize in Physics and the Pride of Emirates medal which are quite notable achievements. He also has an individual paper with more than 1500 citations and has contributed significantly to his field just in the last decade. Age and institutional title should not be the measuring stick for eligibility of having a wikipedia page. Consider for example the Wikipedia page of Netta Engelhardt who received the Breakthrough Prize alongside Ahmed Almheiri. This shows that the article deserves to live in Wikipedia and in no way is an "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Breakthrough Prize is very high-profile, I think enough for WP:PROF#C2. It's hard to judge his citation record for #C1 because this is a high-citation field but he does have high citations as well. Assistant professors are generally not notable unless we have evidence that they are already recognized as a star in their field (not just a promising new researcher) but I think the Breakthrough Prize is that recognition that we're looking for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bluelinked prize (Breakthrough) and we can presume notability right there. Other than that, he just about squeaks WP:GNG on media coverage alone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP with notability tags, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think age or institutional title should decide the eligibility for a Wikipedia page. Consult for example the Wikipedia page for Thomas Faulkner (physicist) who has had a Wikipedia page since 2014 when he joined UIUC as an assistant professor. Considering this example there is no reason to delete the page for Nima Lashkari. This is not a clear "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guide in WP:NPROF. There is a broad community consensus on the criteria for notability of an academic. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to other articles is not generally a very good way to tell whether an article should be deleted or not. Sometimes, those other articles only exist because nobody has noticed them and bothered to put them up for deletion yet. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Canada, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a promising career track but the field he is in is very high-citation, so his citation record, strong as it is, is not enough to convince for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. No prejudice against returning to this after five or ten years when the dust should have settled enough for us to judge this better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF, they could be notable down the road but as of now they are not. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously deleted and salted. This new creation must not escape review. Most of the sources are written in a clearly promotional tone and hence are probably not independent of the subject. As one egregious example, the first and last sources are clearly variations of the same press release - starting with In the dynamic arena of contemporary art, few names resonate as profoundly as Marko Stout vs. In the dynamic world of contemporary art, few names shine as brightly as Marko Stout‘s.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Medicine, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again please. 4th nomination! fails WP:ARTIST. He not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A cool person in the marching arts, but he sadly does not have any coverage save for a mention of death and an induction into a governing body's hall of fame. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the DCI hall of fame is the greatest honor one can achieve in the activity.

Also I edited the article to include additional references such as his listing in the Vanguard Hall of Fame, a bio in GPG Music, and Phantom Regiment's announcement of when he joined their staff.

Myron was a person who avoided the spotlight but was still well known and recognized in an activity that itself has very little outside coverage. He dedicated over thirty years of his life to pushing the artistic boundaries of this activity and deeply shaping the individuals who participated in it with him. You can see evidence of that in his DCI Hall of Fame Induction video at 2:15: "The feelings of love and admiration were truly palpable to all in attendance (of his Vanguard Hall of Fame induction ceremony). Indeed on that Saturday morning, Vanguard Hall was packed with friends and former members from Myron's history in drum corps." Also in Halftime Magazine's epitaph, Santa Clara Vanguard alum, Jeremy Van Wert quotes Rosander as saying, "If you think I’m here about winning a championship, you are dead wrong; I’m here because I care about the men and women you will become in the years after you leave Santa Clara Vanguard. I care about the human inside the uniform."

Especially considering the relative obscurity of the drum and bugle corps activity, I believe this depth and high level of recognition constitutes notability, per Wikipedia guidelines. Mrengy (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all of the sources, aside from his obituary and Hall of Fame bio, are from places where he was employed. That simply does not cut it for a biography. For an example of a person involved in drum corps that is also notable, see Bill Bachman. The difference between Rosander and Bachman is that Bachman has tertiary and secondary sources from reputable magazines and scholarly journals that discuss his work. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. This article should wait until there is some actual WP:SIGCOV of the subject, who is still a child athlete. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find any coverage besides a singular mention [5] (not including the 1 source on the article). Fails WP:NATHLETE. Sir MemeGod  21:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support draftification per the nomination until Tran gets more coverage. Sir MemeGod  21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found, and a long way from being a notable athlete for our purposes here. I don't even thing drafting would help, still a young competitor, not competing on the national level Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage found. WP:MANOTE talks about notable artists need to be at least adult black belts, winning junior events has never been considered WP notable in MA. No reason to draftify this article. When he meets either WP:GNG or an SNG, the article will need to be rewritten then. According to coverage, this event had less than 200 competitors ages 5 to 17 competing in over 40 divisions. Papaursa (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and Papaursa. Fails WP:NATHLETE Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think its important to note that John-Paul Tran was recently featured on the front page of Nguoi-Viet news. The article (which is only available in Vietnamese) can be found here.

In light of this it's clear that John-Paul has a substantial enough presence to have a Wikipedia article. Dima Nekhoroshyi (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into anything else here, but I can confirm that this is significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Sir MemeGod: @Oaktree b: @Papaursa: @Lekkha Moun: Tagging participants in case new source changes their !vote. JTtheOG (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really only one source, we still need more to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a local newspaper and most of the article consists of quotes from John-Paul or his father. The rest is information they clearly supplied, like his past and future competitions. I don't think this source qualifies as "significant, independent coverage" and, even if it did, it would still just be one source. Still no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very loose article, at the moment its relevance is very weak. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of criminal gangs in Los Angeles: While I did find a singular Washington Post article about them, I can't find anything else that prevents a failure of WP:GNG. A redirect would work. Sir MemeGod  20:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [6], [7], [8]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [9], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[10] [11][12]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garsh2: One more ping since we're on the second relist now. Are you inclined to reconsider your !vote based on my source analysis? Are there any other sources that might support a notability claim? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I neglected to finish this discussion. I'm still inclined to disagree with you based on the sources provided, though I certainly see your perspective. You are correct about the California Aggie, didn't make that connection originally though it did seem like a weird source. I don't necessarily see a problem with the reliability of citation five, though I see why the government sources may not be secondary enough. It is important to point out, however, that there are sources from multiple government agencies (Department of health and human services, DOE, and EPA). It might be a stretch to say that all three of these agencies are directly involved in the site, unless you count the entire federal government as a single source (I usually don't). We might be approaching no consensus territory, unless someone else is inclined to chime in. Garsh (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a WP:BEFORE. Aside from press releases, I couldn't find anything. However, I don't doubt the hospital had other names. Thus, if sigcov is proven, then it can remain. However, the sources there right now are better for a merge between the three articles.

Also, WP:AGF. Conyo14 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not enough to say "Keep", you should rebut the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the Lakewood hospital in particular, there doesn't seem to be extensive non-trivial coverage. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if we had a review of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a private hospital, this needs to meet WP:NCORP per the nom. "Did not do a Google search" will not cut it here. We need multiple independent reliable secondary sources (per WP:SIRS) that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some articles about the hospital, but what we don't have is anything that significantly discusses the hospital itself, and allows an article to be written. There is some stuff about Lakewood joining UCI that I see, but at this stage I haven't seen anything that meets CORPDEPTH. Leaning delete but leaving this as a comment for now, in the hope something can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hospitals are not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, they are not recognized by that WikiProject. They are only recognized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Catfurball (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a delsort is not a Wikiproject. Delsorts are there to flag a case so that editors with an interest will be aware of the AfD and can come to comment. This hospital is a private business venture and very much falls within NCORP guidelines. If editors are not interested in hospitals, they'll ignore it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator should have did a Google Search before nominating. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Kia Forum. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Significant referencing problems. mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These three sources (all independent, secondary, and reliable) collate entries of this list topic together as a group, thus satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just schedules (and they only cover 2024), so they don't satisfy WP:NLIST because they're not significant coverage. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point; I hadn't previously inspected the sources in that manner, but now I have. In that light, delete. Left guide (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being mistakenly reported killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't make this sailor notable (unless he was supposedly killed by the Germans). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:BIO1E, despite some coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect coverage passes GNG: The Oregon Daily Journal 2 3, The Oregonian 2, Herald and News ~~and also meets WP:ANYBIO with the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. 1~~ but also a case of WP:BIO1E. The Attack on Pearl Harbor could be an appropriate place for a redirect, but the subject does have enough WP:SIGCOV at Newspapers.com to justify a standalone article.

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A low-level decoration does not confer notability. Only the Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, or multiple second-level awards do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally millions of Americans were awarded the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. What about the Bronze Star? Filmforme (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. He was involved in two events: the attack on Pearl Harbor and the salvage effort (which I consider deserves its own article even though it has not got one). WP:BIO1E is a guideline that provides advice but does not trump WP:SUMMARY, which says that sections of long articles can be spun off into their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary sailor, doing ordinary things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.

Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.

As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 1 2 3 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Got coverage for quite a while after the initial incident; a bit on the BIO1E side but the article in its current state is pretty decent, and the event is well, quite significant. As a more specific aspect it doesn't really duplicate much from the event article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article show it passes WP:GNG. If WP:BIO1E applies, a significant portion of this article should be moved retained in a new article titled something like "Incorrect reports of the death of Melvin Storer" per WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for occasional archiving