Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 25

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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Learning Center

Renaissance Learning Center (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)

Lacks notability Muffinator (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has no sources, and it isn't notable. EMachine03 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable learning institution....William 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courrier (band)

Courrier (band) (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)

Completely

• Delete. It might say, "They formed in 2009 and since have been featured dozens of times ranging from in The Vampire Diaries to NFL commercials. In April 2014, they were ESPN's Band of The Month.", but it is unsourced, so it still can't pass
  WP:NMUSIC, right? EMachine03 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The band would pass WP:NMUSIC if it met any of the criteria listed there. Whether or not the article contains sources is not relevant to the band's notability. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely true; a band only passes NMUSIC if the claim that it passes NMUSIC is actually cited to a reliable source. Musicians and/or their promotional teams do have a tendency to make inflated "hype" claims (e.g. "hit" status for a song that got played a few times on their local radio station, but never appeared on any of the singles charts that can actually confer notability on a song), so at least the basic claim of notability does have to be properly referenced to count as valid, even if the rest of the article isn't up to FA status yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, a band could pass NMUSIC without even having an article here if any one of the criteria there is verifiably met ('verifiable' and 'cited' are not the same thing). --Michig (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'd hope that more people wanting to write a new article about a band would measure that band against NMUSIC first to see if they qualify for an article or not — it would save us all the hassle of having to delete all the
  garage bands who repost their EPKs here in the hopes of getting "discovered". But NMUSIC is not fundamentally a property of the band per se, but a yardstick against which we measure the quality of an article about the band — so until we actually have an article about the band to measure, the band's nominal passage or failure of NMUSIC is a moot point. And NMUSIC does say, right in its own introduction, that the basic claim of notability has to be verifiable in a reliable source. The article doesn't have to attain GA or FA status right off the bat, but the basic claim of passing NMUSIC does have to be sourced, not merely asserted, to actually pass NMUSIC. Because guess what, sometimes bands overinflate their claims of notability in order to sound more notable than they are — so we need to be able to verify whether the claim of notability is actually true or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I was unable to find much coverage of the band - there's a short Rolling Stone bio that confirms some of the statements in the article, but beyond that just these: [1], [2], [3], [4] - I'm not sure they're all reliable sources and it's a bit thin, so unless someone can find more I doubt that the band is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Rolling Stone bio looks very much like it was just summarized from their own EPK, rather than being any form of substantive coverage actually written and edited by anybody who actually works for Rolling Stone. Bearcat (talk)

• Their album A Violent Flame was reviewed in CCM Magazine. (Conner, Matt. "Reviews & New Releases: Indie: Courrier: A Violent Flame", CCM Magazine (May 2011): p. 42.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - the top hits for a Google search (I tried Google news too, and got nothing) were their Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts. Not a promising sign that they come anywhere near attaining notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 July 2014 (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. Michig (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Barnes

Constance Barnes (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)

Comment

WP:NPOL is irrelevant here, since she is not famous as a politician and the section "Politics" is completely unsourced. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, no, NPOL isn't "irrelevant" per se — since the article does claim that she holds a political office, it does have to be measured against that yardstick. You're correct that she doesn't pass the NPOL test, due to the lack of sourcing and the inherent non-notability of the office itself, but the NPOL test does count toward whether she qualifies for an article or not and thus isn't "irrelevant". Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass GNG. She is not notable as an actress, her roles were extremely minor, she is not notable as a politician, no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides the horrendous BLP violations, this person is just
  not notable. Her acting resume is light. We have deleted or merged the articles of municipal board members who were arguably much more famous; see,e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (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 2015 Cricket World Cup. Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage

2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage (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)

Fairly useless article until the actual tournament starts next year. Between now and then it's just basically an empty template. Very much falls into

• Delete. It's really just a bad case of
  WP:NOTNOW. It could be an article later, though. EMachine03 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EMachine03: this article is useless until the World Cup gets underway and some content can be added Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:NOTNOW. Contesting of Speedy Delete and Prod by article creator was without rationale and seems a case of "don't delete my article". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep (or redirect) Actually, it meets WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Looking at the edit history of a similar article would suggest redirecting it to the main article for now. An even better example shows it was created about eight months before the tournament started without issue. I see no reason to delete this, esp. as it's only a few months away. If it was towards the end of next year (or later), then I might go down the delete route. I don't know why people are citing the guideline WP:NOTNOW either - have any of you actually read that page? It's to do with request for adminship! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "

WP:TOOSOON, which says "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon" Actually NOTNOW has a header that alerts users not to confuse the two, but... The special criteria listed at TOOSOON do not include sports events, though. IMO articles which describe stages of major sports events should only be branched out as soon as there is actually info available, before that the event with all its stages is covered by the parent article. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  chatter) 04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nate, you're correct: I should have looked closer. I have removed it as a BLP violation and notified the editor who added it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep Recognised degree-awarding institution. I would like to correct you, this article is about a college located in
  talk • contribs} 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Allow me to return the favor:

WP:PROF is a notability guideline for people, not institutions, and so does not apply here. The location of the college is irrelevant, as is whether or not it offers a particular kind of degree-- what matters is whether or not there are multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources which discuss the subject. If you or anyone could please provide some of these, that would be most helpful. KDS4444^Talk 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! I don't like favors. I have corrected my post as well as article too, have a look. I think your AfD was wrong, it may be possible you were right just because of poor quality of the article.

talk • contribs} 17:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Verifiable college.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The college is notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. See
  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FATA Cheetahs

FATA Cheetahs (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 does not assert how the subject is notable, and provides no references to material other than trivial mentions or score tables. Article needs multiple non-trivial references to, reliable, independent sources, and I do not see them for this team. KDS4444^Talk 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 11:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. They play in a
  Mkativerata (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional sports team which plays official Twenty20 matches and plays Twenty20 matches at the highest domestic level of Pakistani cricket. I've moved the article as the team name was spelt incorrectly. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable domestic team. Faizan 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, no indication of notability. ... discospinster _talk 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiyavasu Bhadauria

Dhiyavasu Bhadauria (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 has no evidence of subjects notability, all sources offered on talk page are of a primary nature. New editor with a particular interest in this article keeps removing the speedy, despite apparent failure of

• Delete, eligible for speedy deletion under
  Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 July 2014 (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.

Tim Leffel

Tim Leffel (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)

Not

• Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Another voice to Delete. He has a paid editor working for him, User:Ane wiki - she disclosed, which is to be appreciated -- and I've given her a lot of directions on where she could look for evidence of notability. I don't think there's anything to be found, TBH, and the whole history of the page indicates extensive self-editing and sock-puppetry.AdventurousMe (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an odd target for deletion. The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today^[1], has written for the biggest and most respected travel writing and journalism outlets^[2], has multiple published books^[3], and speaks at the largest conferences in travel^[4]. This is a clear expert in the field, and a valuable entry for those looking to learn more. Page can be improved, but should not be deleted.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:AUTHOR. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've been editing pages on here for the past 4 years User:AdventurousMe. Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry without doing the slightest research and looking at my contribs page. Lack of a Wikipedia entry does not indicate lack of significance: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and our dear Wikipedia is far from comprehensive. Many of the most prestigious awards are self-nominated and then judged—no one would say that process, nor the number of awards, somehow makes the Cannes Lions less prestigious. My main point here is that a simple cleanup with better sources would improve this page, but little is served by its deletion.--Andyopteris (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies, User:Andyopteris. I clicked the wrong contributions page, which pulled up only your contribution to that page. I'd agree that if better sources can be found, the page should be kept - but better sources have not been produced as yet. At the moment, like your own Wikipedia page, which I note has also been deleted, he's failing WP:AUTHOR because of primary sources and lack of depth of coverage. If anyone can provide strong sources - and the subject has a paid editor working for him looking for them -- then it would move to a keep. I'd suggest, if you're arguing to keep, that you find reliable secondary sources attesting to notability, and the relevance of the awards. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:AdventurousMe-I was all for deletion of the page about me (but oddly flattered that an editor that had previously worked on "baldness" and "erectile dysfunction" has also chosen me as a worthy topic). Anyhow, secondary sources shouldn't be difficult to find here, and I'll look into why SATW, NATJA, and TBEX don't have their own pages along the lines of British Guild of Travel Writers. My concern is that these standards as applied here would eliminate essentially all modern travel writers, which goes against the spirit if not the letter of the rule.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine User:Andyopteris! Mercifully, I'm in no danger of getting my own page. I guess the query here is in what form he's notable: because to me it seems as though he's not a notable journalist (50-odd articles on not particularly amazing outlets, and I'm sure he'd not hit the criteria over at the Journalism working project), and his books aren't particularly notable, certainly not by the standards applied to book authors in other sectors. Is he really *that* notable in the new media landscape - as a blogger? If so, I'd expect him to have some depth of coverage. It really doesn't help that he's been editing his own page, and there's several single-purpose accounts that have also worked on the page and that page only, and now has a paid editor working for him. He seems to me to be a reasonably successful working travel writer - not a super-star, a best-seller, someone who's transformed the landscape, or built a particularly significant body of work, but someone who's currently doing OK -- and not someone who'd have his own Wikipedia page in the normal scheme of things. I guess the concern here is that if for every industry we featured people who were doing relatively well, Wikipedia would be over-run with more-or-less obscure BLPs, and that's why the policy on depth of coverage in reliable sources exists. But I'd welcome clarification on this: on what, particularly, makes him notable. Do look into SATW, NATJA and TBEX as well. If you've got reliable secondary sources on them, they might well deserve their own articles. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is. If new sources are found during this discussion we may change our minds. If better sources appear after deletion there will be a voluntary to write this article again. WP is over its topics. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi. Please, if this is not the place for this comment, let me know and I'll move to the talk page. I understand the points explained - very patiently - by AdventurousMe in the talk page, but.. what makes someone "notable" in the world of travel writers? There are individuals who make a great contribution to his profession but not to the point of having a direct mention in NY Times, and still are big influencers. The fact of being widely quoted, as is the case of TL, does not speak about his reputation? In fact, I'm not sure if we can apply the same standards of "notability" for a novelist, a journalist or a travel writer; every profession have a set of media who are authorities in the field, they may not have the significance of other media, but they are reliable media in the sector. When these other media will begin to be reliable for Wikipedia?. AdventurousMe said on the talk page: "US News saying TL won a NATJA award is a great secondary source, because it demonstrates that both the awards and TL are noteworthy, and is secondary, not primary. NATJA saying TL won an award is primary and, frankly, fairly trivial".. NATJA is the highest award you can receive as a travel writer, but only exists if it appears in US News?. I have introduced new links in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but with expansion. As mentioned by
  WP:AUTHOR). That said, the above mentioned citations ought to be expanded or paraphrased in the article text, rather than just listed. Nmillerche (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I also think there's a significant difference between being asked to quote for an article on what luggage to buy - the US News piece, which interviewed four people on luggage - and being the *subject* of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. These aren't making him the subject of their pieces. They're pieces about something else which cite the person. Newspapers do grab a lot of quotes from people: it's how they operate. If there was a piece that, for example, testified to his date of birth and education, as you'd expect in a piece that had him as the subject, that would be evidence of notability. If there were multiple reviews of his books in reliable secondary sources, again, that would lean towards a keep.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more quotes of TL in major media, which I did not include in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SATW awards have good coverage in reliable media, I just uploaded the list on the talk page. And something more: going to the extreme, reality TV participants are more likely to be considered "notable" than an author with books in print because reliable media have talked about them and their lives, even though they haven't done anything notable? I know it does not work that way, but with an example taken to the extreme, we can think if the "notability" criteria may not be as dependent on the media coverage, and more dependent of the subject´s history.--Ane wiki (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad we've given up the idea that these are the single most important awards in travel writing. If you can find a reliable secondary source saying that he's won one of the awards that are listed, that would really help support the idea that he is himself notable. As a paid editor,
  WP:V because the man who is paying you to argue his case doesn't seem to fit: there are all sorts of reliable niche sources for writers which cover writers extensively (New York Review of Books, Creative Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, etc) while a myriad mainstream publications run book reviews, travel book round-ups, books of the year, their own book awards, their own blog awards, etc.etc. Genuinely notable authors are not short of reliable coverage, though they may not attract the volume of coverage that celebrities do. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep He does exist, as seen here[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanedit (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AdventurousMe if you see - through the links - that the SATW award is important, and if TL appears in the official website of the award as a winner, what other evidence is needed? And something about me as a paid editor: the subject of the article paid me for adapt this article to Wikipedia standards; and if I took the job is because I thought there was significant coverage in reliable media to meet the requirements, obviously, for a traveler writer. You mention the "New York Review of Books," but in my opinion, you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards. I also think that we should be commenting this on the talk page, but I wanted to expose my opinion here.--Ane wiki (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

notable. Lacks coverage about Leffel in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, primary or short quotes from him. None have any depth of coverage about him." So that's what you need to find: independent, reliable, secondary sources with a good depth of coverage. If someone notable wins a notable award, that should be reported somewhere that's not the awards website. If someone's notable, there'll be profiles on reliable sources covering their early life. That's what you should be looking for. If you've found this significant coverage of him in reliable media, please do add it to the article. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

"The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today". The link supplied does not show this. It shows a single year, nothing repeating. It also shows he did not win the largest award, that was won by Mary Jo McConahay. Also above Leffel in the main category was Genevieve Shaw Brown, Kerri Westenberg, Ellen Creager and Jill Schensul. SATW awards may claim to be the "premier competition" but does anyone independent back this up.

SATW awards are a pay for play award with a maximum prize of $1,500. Not a major awards. The large number they give out also dilutes the significance of individual category awards.

These awards, or the NAJTA awards may be up in the heirachy of awards specifically targeted at North American travel writers (a subset of writers is one region) but they are not the highest awards available to travel writers. They are eligible to win open writing awards.

The SATW award coverage shown at Talk:Tim Leffel is very underwhelming. Short blogs promoting a few of the winners and some listings. Not enogh to make the awards themself notable, even less so for someone not mentioned in any of these sources

Nmillerche claims Leffel's work "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Where are these articles or reviews.

"you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards." They are handled with the same standards. Travel writers are not given special treatment. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today" refers not only to the SATW, as shown in the article. And in that link we can see that Leffel won one of the categories of Lowell Thomas award.

And when I say "you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards" I'm not asking for special treatment. I am indicating that travel writers do not get the same treatment in the major media, and that it should be taken into account.. With very few exceptions, the most important traveler writers only have extensive coverage in online media and pages that started as self published and now have a remarkable reputation within the genre. That's what I mean: travel writers will never have an award like the Pulitzer, and perhaps the USA Today will never make them an interview. So it seems that in regard to travel writers, no award is important, no website is important just because they are not mentioned in major media, that generally do not deal with travel writers; they only quote them in some articles - as in the case of Leffel. So in this context, the quotes do not matter? I know that every day hundreds of writers are quoted in hundreds of articles and they don´t deserve an article in Wikipedia. But if you have quotes, work, books, awards, that should make a difference.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. Travel writers can win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer, or any of a myriad notable, established book and journalism awards, not to mention scholarships, fellowships, etc: they can be the subject of profiles and articles, cf

WP:AUTHOR: there's still not one secondary source listed. Please stop arguing for special treatment on the grounds that he's a travel writer: he needs to hit the same standards as any other creative in any sector. Or, if you do think travel writers should be treated differently, and you have a reasoned argument for this, take it up on the discussion pages for the relevant community standards. Please disclose your affiliation first, though. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Every genre has his own awards. Being at the top of your field means being recognized by these genre awards as you are being compared to others writing in the same genre. You tell me that the top writers of each genre does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, unless they win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer or a general award. As we commented on talk page, with these standards, almost no travel writer (or other genre writer) is going to be "notable" and admins will have to check 200 travel writers pages.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wilfully misunderstanding. If you want to rewrite Wikipedia's community standards to include your client, I suggest you go to the relevant pages and discuss the issue on the talkboard there, disclosing first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) And, yes, very few travel writers are notable.AdventurousMe (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not trying to rewrite the rules. Simply, I think that in addition to the awards - discussed or not - and the notability - or not - of the people who write about TL, dozens of mentions and quotes in various articles on reliable media could indicate that an author is notable, even though these articles are not about him. And these are not only quotes of Leffel´s books, they also talk about him - whether they are short commentaries, they´re signs that the writer is an authorized voice and a reference -. Then we can discuss, as we are doing, if is applicable, but please do not say that I am wilfully misunderstanding.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In talk page, AdventurousMe started new sections for any editor who wishes to list sources. In this place I am adding sources, and trying to demonstrate the notability of the people who wrote about TL.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (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. The subject's notability is borderline, no clear consensus seemed to arise one way or the other. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor Gadon

Elinor Gadon (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 article fails general notability guidelines. Articles are supposed to have multiple, indepth, independent sources. We have one, in-depth source that comes from Gadon's employer and is not clearly independent. She also seems to not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion of academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources.

talk to me 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article did fail notability guidelines but has since been improved with numerous
  reliable references. Subject is a notable art history scholar who is widely quoted by other historians and easily meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS h-index of 4. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Obviously of interest in academia considering the various refs. Put a "more refs needed" tag on it. If she was a male historian with that many refs I doubt she'd be considered for AfD at all. Let's be inclusionist here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to her employer's profile of her, she has a single book to her name, The Once and Future Goddess. It is quite well-cited on Google scholar (over 250 citations) but I could not find enough (or any) reliably published mainstream-media reviews to convince me of a pass of
  WP:BIO1E is also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - impressive resume, seems like someone I'd like to know more about. Personal interest isn't reason to keep, but it seems like there should be references available to show her notability at least within her particular field. --
  (Talk) 18:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. I did more exploring and I think there are other aspects here that possibly might be brought out. First, Gadon is a western scholar who is into Eastern religion, which generally is not well understood by western thinkers and not much respected by the academic establishment; to some extent, Gadon links two continents, West and East, and the mix is sometimes difficult. Hinduism is somewhat related to astrology which causes some of us western-oriented science-types (like myself) to not give much credence or respect. This is somewhat the case with feminism (a related area: Gadon's work is related to feminist-oriented takes on Eastern religion and she is somewhat of an activist) too, and it can get kind of weird, when Stonehenge is sometimes interpreted as being symbolic of a vagina, that Eastern-type mysticism is not well understood, and Wikipedian contributors tend (90%+) to be male (like myself). So I think we need to be open-minded. Her book The Once and Future Goddess has had a big impact in the feminist/spiritualist/Eastern-oriented religion communities. She is acknowledged as an authority in lectures, in programming, and she was a prominent speaker at the Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts in 2005. The Los Angeles Times thinks she is wise but what do they know. Gadon is the type of person who I would love to find myself sitting next to on a long train ride, and to query her about all of her travels and beliefs, and discuss deep metaphysics and philosophy with, and maybe even debate about what life is all about. Not that that is a Wikipedia requirement for notability; just a-sayin'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Forbes magazine mention makes her notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than mentions are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Many sources are more than mere mentions such as this review of her book, and this article in Forbes discusses Gadon's thinking at length. Plus there is a full review in the Examiner which one can find by copy-pasting the following string in the browser bar: "The book mixes facts, quotes and stories, and the opinions of the author. The facts are interesting but tend toward dry. Obviously, Ms. Gadon has made a huge effort to get every historical reference scrupulously correct." And the other sources which are a line or two suggest that EG is respected academically, with her works cited.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources now added to the article constitute significant coverage per
  WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In depth treatment is required. Not present here. A Wikipedia BLP requires substantial career achievement. Not apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As Tomwulcer has noted above, sources such as the Environmental Ethics book review and The Forbes article demonstrate far more than "trivial" coverage. See

WP:BASIC 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks to those who beefed it up. I'm unwatching this discussion but watching the article so can get a chance to read it and follow interest links, just for fun :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.151.10.165 Do you happen to know if there is a mirror of the Forbes article anywhere else? Every time I try to read it (to evaluate the claims made here that its coverage of the subject is nontrivial) I get redirected to Forbes' front page. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experiencing the redirection problem myself (Browser: Firefox) and do not know of a mirror site. As a stopgap, I'll post a slightly long excerpt from the two page article, outdented for readability. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(slimmed down per Tomwsulcer's advice re COPYVIO below) "I was recently introduced to Elinor Gadon’s spectacular treatise The Once and Future Goddess. It sits at my bedside table with an accompanying journal filled with notes. Goddess synthesizes archeological and anthropological research of the last half century to track the evolution of the feminine identity over the last 12,000 years, from the very earliest hunter-gatherers, to today’s still patriarchal society."

An additional source is this newspaper article Images Of Women In Art, Religion which draws on Gadon's work and travel in India to analyze developments in the study of female religious imagery. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I think this Women's Studies Quarterly article The Once and Future Heroine: Paleolithic Goddesses and Popular Imagination might be a very good reference but JSTOR only displays the first page. I believe we have some Wikipedians with JSTOR access, but I do not know how to contact them to ask if they can retrieve this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Toledo Blade source to article, thanks. The Forbes citation I can read, but first there is an advertisement to skip. Last, we probably should not copy swaths of the Forbes article here on the talk page because of

WP:COPYVIO maybe we should trim it substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It does seem to me that similar coverage for a male scholar, or for a scholar in a different field, would have been a definite keep by this point. The various reviews of The Once and Future Goddess, surely count as solid coverage, as well as the Hindu article (The Hindu is one of India's oldest and best known newspapers). The nomination may have been warranted at the time; it has since been improved more than enough to keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (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 fairly evenly split between keeping and deletion, and as this has already been here for three weeks it seems unlikely that a further relist will change this. Michig (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Black