Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 10

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. czar 16:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Karda

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

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Sources are either interviews or pure churnalism. buidhe 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. buidhe 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. buidhe 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no claim, legit or otherwise to notability.
  talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, meet A7 & G11 criteria. Dede2008 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to this. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally not a notable person. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2020 (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 Degree of a polynomial#Names of polynomials by degree. Sandstein 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octic equation

Octic equation (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)

Nonnotable class of equations: every single mathematical statement on the article is equally valid for algebraic equations in general, and no sources cover octic equations as a subtopic of the more general topic (let alone as a significant subtopic). The article should be replaced with a redirect to

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge somewhere? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing in the article that might not already be contained elsewhere (e.g., in

talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect, no merge, per nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. There doesn't look to be anything that ought to be merged. There are a smattering of Google Scholar hits for the term, and I could be convinced to change my mind if somebody takes the time to dig through them and find more substance about octic equations specifically than I did.
  talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lemon

Green Lemon (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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - They got some local news coverage in relation to individual gigs now and then, often from college newspapers or alternative weeklies. Even so, those tend to brief gig reviews or softball interviews, which I don't think is enough for the
  WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Prey Veng

Battle of Prey Veng (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)

Having just extensively expanded

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is not enough coverage to make an entire article out of this one minor engagement. Talrolande (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2020 (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. This is somewhere between keep and no consensus as Pontificalibus's compelling keep argument has neither been seconded nor disputed; for the abundance of caution this is a "no consensus" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur (meteorite)

Akbarpur (meteorite) (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)

Some meteorites are notable and have been subject to in-depth study (ex. [4]). I can't find evidence that this one is subject to such studies. As such, I don't think it deserves an independent article, mention in some list should be enough. Not all meteorites are notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a couple of coverages and mentions about the meteorite, I'd say it should be kept if not for anything but for educational purpose Delibolt (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL is not the best argument, I am afraid. Educational purpose is better covered by a list of meteorites than by two-sentence stubs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete No substantive sourced. Cited to a database of meteorites that includes "This is 1 of 39 approved meteorites from Uttar Pradesh, India. This is 1 of 143 approved meteorites from India (plus 10 unapproved names)" They don't all need separate articles absent further coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment @
  general intelligence? In my personal view, this article is way more encyclopaedic than the articles describing which celebrity threw urine on who. Shouldn't we retain an article about truly encyclopaedic subject like this? Thats why WP:Ignore all rules is there for! Pretty please! In the name of science, and encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect with anchor to the matching entry on the Meteorite fall article and link the bulletin. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantive argument has been advanced to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of this particular meteorite or that it is independently notable for scientific, historical, or educational reasons. Arguments are essentially
  WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Meets
  WP:ROTM should be enough.----Pontificalibus 13:12, 2 February 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global empire

Global empire (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)

Still a badly auto-translated essay-like piece of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 07:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article's talk page, it is horrifically bad and should be deleted. It's nonsense written in often incomprehensible pseudo-English. For instance, I challenge anyone to tell us what just these words mean:

"It is the demographic limitation that is almost throughout history that even the most populous countries can not occupy the entire world. The concept of global imperialism, therefore, is a concept that does not emphasize the sovereignty of the whole world, but dominates part of the world, but must necessarily spread in space. In addition, the concept of global imperialism underscores the aspect of influence, empires that are considered global imperatives to excel in influencing world politics against all other nations, and that influence must be widespread."

Besides much of the article's text being unintelligible, most of its assertions, as far as they can be deciphered, are unsourced, like this gem of historical explication:

Portugal dominated the spice trade from the East to Europe, gaining a lot of profits and becoming prosperous. Portugal, due to the small population weakness, did not give them a military advantage, so they often used tricks to build their businesses, often using force only to fight when trade was threatened.

There is a place in WP for an article about the concept of "Global empire", but this gibberish is not it. Carlstak (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect to world domination. Literally just world domination by an "empire," whatever that means. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete but certainly do not redirect to world domination. I do want to point out that "global empire" is a longstanding term of art used by historians to describe empires like that of Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Dutch Republic that controlled territory on the other side of the world. For example, Roger Crowley's book Conquerors: How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire, or Sugata Bose's A hundred horizons: the Indian Ocean in the age of global empire. The article as it stands is appalling.IceFishing (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please watch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltreich and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltherrschaft. Different phrases and different terms. Đông Minh (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An example, "How can British building their's Global empire?" and "How to dominate the world?" i believe they have difference. Đông Minh (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense, Đông Minh. Apparently you wrote most of the gibberish, and it is obvious that you are incompetent to write in English, as you are unable to communicate coherently in the language in an article. The article makes no sense, and fails to express its intended ideas (whatever they are, it's impossible to tell).

As stated at WP:INCOMPETENT: "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:

the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.

Sorry, but your unintelligible writing indicates that you do not have this ability.

And I see in the archive of your talk page, Đông Minh, that you wrote on 5 September 2018: "So sorry everybody!..., because my English not good, I just can use simple English. I'm used Google translate to write Global empire page. I do love empires, but I do not know how can write a best wiki-page in english wikipedia."[sic] Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Mr. Carlstak. I leave my article on god's hand. Đông Minh (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:OR. This is a personal essay that does not improve the project; a disservice to the readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research.--Staberinde (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Imperialism which gives a rather better coverage of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete terminate with extreme prejudice. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Trade Commissioner Service Office in Houston

Canadian Trade Commissioner Service Office in Houston (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies and consulates are not inherently notable, this is a mere trade office with no consular powers. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see under what criteria this could be considered notable. A search for sources that went beyond Google turned up nothing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 17 February 2020 (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 Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapture CRM

Kapture CRM (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)

Minor software company. No evidence that it meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Schwartz

Dennis Schwartz (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)

Fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No secondary coverage that I could find. Sources provided either don't work or don't seem to mention the subject at all. The statement about "having reviewed 10,000 films", even if somehow implying notability (a false assumption), is unsourced. StonyBrook (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article does not meet
  WP:GNG. The sources also lead to pages that no longer work and I can find no other sources on the subject.Nurtam85 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete he is a critic for a non-notable publication, this seems to show he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2020 (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.

Mezfin (name)

Mezfin (name) (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)

Another version is currently tagged as db-hoax at Draft:Mezfin (name). I wouldn't call this a blatant enough hoax for speedy deletion, but on the other hand, I couldn't find any supporting evidence for the bizarre and contradictory claims made in this "article". buidhe 03:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. buidhe 03:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. buidhe 03:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. buidhe 03:24, 10 February 2020 (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.

Goatse.cx

Goatse.cx (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)

Isn't notable. Goatse is, in my opinion, just another shock website. Wikipedia is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references show that this juvenile meme got significant coverage in a variety of RS over a significant period of time. 24,289 pageviews in the last month. buidhe 03:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't like it, but the article's few good references and additional coverage found via Google News appear to be enough to scrape by
  WP:WEBCRIT. The article needs substantial cleaning, but that's a surmountable problem. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Honestly, how many times do we need to go through this? The Cunctator (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Obviously notable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not sure why this gets a sixth nomination, lots of RS. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has been around for 20 years and still shocking people despite the original site long gone. Obvious lack of
  WP:BEFORE done here. 94.117.1.60 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Almost 50 refs in article, over 170 hits on Google News. Deleting this would create a gaping hole in Wikipedia's coverage. Yes, the nominator's rationale is a real stretch. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2020 (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. Sourced indicate notability through GNG. Please remember that notability is not temporary. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home Interiors and Gifts

Home Interiors and Gifts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable company fails to comply with

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It should be listed as a defunct company, but it was a big deal back in the day. Reliable sources abound.IceFishing (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome since nothing comes up in Google search. If abundent sources do exist and the article is kept, they should be added to it. So, what and where are they?

For a start, there is this PhD dissertation: The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader, Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449. IceFishing (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And coverage in this PhD dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955. Manko, Katina Lee. University of Delaware, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2001. 3013632. IceFishing (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm. So a few general comments. First, dissertations are not usually considered reliable sources because they are mostly primary and aren't peer reviewed. Second, neither of these are about the topic. But about other subjects that probably only mention the company in passing. Which wouldn't meet the whole "substantial" thing. Third, there's no way to even find out because the first one is only mentioned as existing in a Google search but not accessible anywhere and the second one returns 0 results. generally, whatever details a source might contain its completely worth if its not varifiable and can't be added to an article because there's no way to access it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's easy to download in any research library. I just downloaded The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader and it is a detailed history of the founding and history of this corporation under her management. Anyone interested in sourcing a good article can do so using this dissertation and other sources, some of which are now on the page. PhD dissertations certainly are reliable sources.IceFishing (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "PhD dissertations certainly are reliable sources", wrong. PhD dissertations aren't automatically reliable sources "because PhD dissertation." Per

Reliable sources, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Also, "Completed dissertations which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." So what I said is correct. The important thing is if the desertation is a primary source or not. Also, it's in extremely bad faith IMO to add sources to an article that has an active AfD containing an unresolved discussion about the reliability of those sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

IMO, phrases like "extremely bad faith" should be reserved for those who vandalize, troll, and violate copyright. It's a good faith move to

talk) 04:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A few things, I did think about what word to use as a caveat to the bad faith comment, and "extremely" was what I came up with because that's how it feels to me. To me, bad faith is mostly a personal evaluation of someones behaviors and I felt like the users actions where in bad faith to me, as a participant in the discussion. Why participate in a discussion about something if your just going to ignore the other person and do the thing your discussing anyway while the conversation is going on? To me, that's bad faith. To me, vandalism is a very specific thing against the community that is above and beyond being bad faith. I didn't say there needed to be consensus on the classification of a source prior to improving the article. I said it was in bad faith to do so. "improving" an article is subject though and an AfD is a community based process, that involves other people's opinions. Otherwise, it's completely pointless to participate in it.

Further, if all the dissertations in Proquest go through the peer review process, then why is the caveat about them in the reliable sources article even needed? That's what I'm going off of. As a for profit company that makes money simply off of having dissertations, I'd bet their standards are pretty low. Also, I don't think a dissertation going through an IRB is a Wikipedia standard of notability. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to be in peer reviewed journals. As all PhD dissertations go through an IRB. There's a brief discussion of IRB's on Ethically researching Wikipedia and I agree with the sentiment there. Mainly "there is no universal IRB - it is all local, and different boards have different interpretations that make them more or less strict than others." Along with "IRB requirements differ between countries." Although, I know that's not directly related to them establishing notability, but I think those same issues kill notability with other sources. Especially the regional thing. Someone who has their PhD dissertation reviewed by say an IRB in a local California State University wouldn't automatically become a notable expert in their field due to it. Just like regional newspapers aren't good or reliable sources because of the vast differences in quality and journalistic standards between them. If you can find somewhere on Wikipedia that disagrees with that though I'm totally open to it.

Allriiiiiiiiight... 1. Of course you can continue to question the source, but you don't have it in front of you, and as the other editor does, so that editor is better informed than either you or I. You do imply that there should be (not must be) some degree of consensus if you say the editor acted in extremely bad faith because you feel that your say regarding the assumed shortcomings of a source that you have not viewed has not been heard... Disagreeing is one thing, but accusing of bad faith? Ouch. We are to assume good faith. If you don't want the source used, or if you question the editor's use of it, get access to it through interlibrary loan or by other means and then tell us specifically how it falls short of Wikipedia's standards. Or ask the editor about its makeup. 2. Regional and local newspapers are reliable sources and follow journalistic standards. Their staff attend the same journalism schools, cover events of similar importance to their audience, and can be sued for libel. A company newsletter or a blog post, though, would have those "vast differences in quality and journalistic standards." 3. Some dissertations and theses contain original research, so Wikipedia is right to all too briefly explain the ins and outs of that type of work. Bottom line is that the content, citations and all, is king, rather than perceived esteem of its authorship. One should proceed to use dissertations where one can. 4. I never said Proquest was peer-reviewed. 5. The dissertation doesn't need to be notable. It needs to be reliable. 6. You forgot to sign and you provided a redlink.

talk) 05:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I'm not questioning the source per say, I'm questioning how the source fits in with the guideline about using dissertations and more specifically where it came from. Those are completely different thing. Since like you say, I don't have the source the in front of me. Only the origin of it. Which is 100% something the notability guidelines discuss and so is completely within my right to question. I would really care less though if the guidelines didn't specifically say something about it. Ultimately they aren't my standards and its not on me if you don't think they are adequate. 2. I did ask the editor what the content of the article was. Mainly if it was primary or not. Obviously, this is a conversation. I probably would have gotten a response eventually if you hadn't of involved yourself. I'm not just blowing hot air to hear my own voice here. 3. It's on the person suggesting the source to make sure its reliable. It's not on everyone else to subscribe to some obscure, pay walled website or whatever to verify reliability. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest otherwise and that I should subscribe to ProQuest if I want to find out if its a good source 4. Yeah obviously regional newspapers follow journalistic standards. That doesn't mean those standards don't have variations though. And no, my local newspapers journalist did not go to the same school as a New York Times one. There's nothing wrong with that, but if your talking about one versus other on the same subject, I'm pretty sure the New York Times journalist would just be more authoritative. It's not an attack on the local guy, It's just life and how academics work. Same goes for journal published articles versus not. Again, the journal published standard for academic writing isn't my standard. Plus, it was an international company. There should at least be some intentional or at least national coverage of it. 5. Yeah, I fully agree content is king, but quality does matter. "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." In academic writing who reviews it or not determines the quality and reliability of it. The editor didn't even add content to the article based off the source anyway though. They just slapped the references on stuff that was already written. So you can't claim it's all about the content when literally nothing from the sources was added to the article. 6. Esteem of authors, or editors, does matter. Again, reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." How is that not about perceived esteem? Can you really call a PhD student someone who is "regarded as an authoritative" source on an international company? Nothing against them, but Personally I wouldn't. "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." 7. It needs to be none trivial coverage of the topic or to put it another, "notable coverage of the topic in the article." Which is what I meant. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The New Times article snippet is definitely trivial. Hopefully we can at least agree on that if nothing else. Christ, that was way to long. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh honey. Thank you for sharing what is on your heart. If you reread my comment you'd see that I never suggested you pay for access to anything... you can get dissertations and many other resources for free

talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The only source I have a problem with isn't a library book and it's only available from a pay site. Which means that I can't use an inter-library loan system to get access to it. And yes, I would have to pay to read it. It's on a pay site. Which you already knew. Also, your wrong on my academic experience. I'm not going to bother listing my many academic accomplishments though because anyone can participate in this website. Regardless of their education level. It's an extremely weak way to try and de-legitimize someone that you disagree with. Plus, most of what I wrote was quotes from guidelines. Clearly your more concerned with other users education levels then you are the rules. Which is your prerogative. Having nothing better then "your not in journalism. So how dare you have an opinion" is pretty weak though. I asked IceFishing again if the dissertations where primary or not. I still haven't gotten an answer. Given that and your utterly vapid response to honest criticism of the sources, by both me and other people, don't be surprised if they get removed and the article gets deleted. Ultimately that's the point in an AfD, not to insult others over their education levels like you decided to do. Anyway, enjoy your fake elitism. There's plenty of others around with the same mentality you can share it with. To bad it comes at the cost of Wikipedia's quality. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the two doctoral dissertations, Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press has discussions of this corporation that are both in depth and extensive. Especially in Chapter 5, but also in the Introduction and elsewhere. IceFishing (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IceFishing, since you have access to the two disertations are they primary or secondary research? Also, do you plan to actually add content from them to the article? or are you just going to call it good at pasting them as sources to content that was already there? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PAYWALLed content and paper sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they meet WP:RS. buidhe 14:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No crap? Except IceFishing cited them in the article. They just didn't add anything to the article. Wikipedia isn't a bibliography and adding five sources to a single sentence is citation overkill. Especially if no content from the sources is added to it. I'm not the only one calling the user out for it. Rightly so. 100% a user shouldn't indiscriminately ad sources to an article, while disregarding their usability as a source or if they actually add anything, just to get their way on an AfD. So I don't know what your going off about. I'm not sure what your whole thing about me having something against paywall's is about either. If you bothered to look at the sources you'd see the New York Times article IceFishing added is paywalled. I could really give a crap less about it though, because my issue had nothing to do with having to pay for a source. Thanks for your baseless comment that added absolutely nothing to the discussion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I'd be happy to summarize the NYT article for you. I have access through my local library. Vexations (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to that id appreciate it. I'd like to at least improve the article if it's kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witten by Allen R.Myerson, published as "COMPANY NEWS; From At-Home Parties To a $1 Billion Buyout" on July 13, 1994 (219 words)

Summary: Home Interiors and Gifts was founded in 1957 by Mary C. Crowley. Her son, Donald J. Carter (born August 1934) sold Home Interiors and Gifts to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in a $1 billion leveraged buyout. Home Interiors and Gifts sells silk and polyester flower arrangements, porcelain puppies and other household items at home parties. Sales are over $850 million a year, with a sales force of 42,000. Mary C. Crowley used the name of her second husband. She died in 1987. Crowley was introduced to selling items at home by Mary Kay Ash. Mary Kay Ash married Mary C. Crowley's brother. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A couple of old, arcane sources don't make it notable. Dorama285 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those "old, arcane sources" are:

Myerson, Allen R. (13 July 1994). "From At-Home Parties To a $1 Billion Buyout".

New York Times

.

A 2001 doctoral dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955. Manko, Katina Lee. PhD dissertation. University of Delaware, 2001.

A 1989 book from the University of Chicago Press: Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press.

A two articles in the

Dallas Morning News

, one from 2006 and one from 2008.

In sum, the article does need improvement, but Dorama285's inaccurate comment is not a useful contribution to this conversation.IceFishing (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I get many hits for this company's activities all over the United States in various newspaper archives. It was one of the most successful direct sales companies of its era and is relevant to women's history.
  talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge and redirect. Now that the AfD on Mary C. Crowley was closed as keep, the title should at least be a redirect. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources give credence to its notability of that time. It's not much but it's something. Businesses fail, what else is new? ⌚️ (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I just want to point out that I just now added to the article the fact that Crowley's son
  Wall Street Journal is headlined: Don Carter, High-School Dropout, Brought NBA Basketball to Dallas Air Force vet joined his mother's home-décor firm and made a fortune. However, what the article really needs is for someone to read the add the books that discuss this business and the doctoral dissertation written about this business (The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader, Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449,) and improve the page.IceFishing (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Editors in the simultaneous AfD about the company founder Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary C. Crowley reached a consensus NOT to merge that article into this one.IceFishing (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And I want to point out that editor Abishe, who nominated both this page and Mary C. Crowley gives no indication of having searched for sources on either article, and that Abishe has a track record of slapdash nominations of articles for deletion 40% of which have been kept of speedy kept[5]. I do not remember how I stumbled into this one, only that it, and the article about the founder, while poorly sourced, gave every indication of being about notable topics. Certainly they could have been marked for improvement, but nominating them for deletion looked to me like the nominating editor had not bothered to read them, or google them. IceFishing (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's far. As much as I'm against citation bombing to keep an article I don't like people requesting an article be deleted without researching it first. Although, it's worth a thought that maybe the user did look it up but didn't find anything because they lacked access to the pay sites you do. Which shouldn't reflect badly on them or their RfD's. I had the same problem to. It's just the nature of the thing unfortunately. Especially with older companies where the works they are mentioned in tends to get more obscure. I'd also add that just because the there is a kept AfD about a person who creates a company, that doesn't mean anything about the notability of the company itself. Maybe if it was about mentioning it in that persons article, but not to the worthiness of having it's own. So Mary C. Crowley being kept doesn't exempt Abishe from doing AfD's on articles related to her. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Re:
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY something can be more or less irrelevant or defunct in the present, but if it was once notable it still passes GNG. Ongoing coverage is not a requirement. This applies to everything from governments and individuals, and yes, even companies. IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Except it doesn't even seem to be notable in the past. Most or all of the few sources being cited that are from the present. If it was notable when it was around that wouldn't be the case. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the lack of access to newspaper archives about which you complain above is limiting your ability to see the news coverage that this company got in the mid-twentieth century, when it was widely covered not only in the business pages, but in a quaint section then known as the Women's page.IceFishing (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or I just don't think the coverage provided so far is reliable, broad, or indepth enough. That includes the paysite stuff and is totally my prerogative. The existance of "wide coverage" is completely pointless if 99% of it is useless and doesn't add to the article. Whatever you feel like telling yourself though. Feel free to continue going off about "wide coverage" the company got, like that's the only thing that matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A few minutes on Newspapers.com found a ton of coverage in newspapers:
  • "Eight More Industrial Park Acres Sold", McKinney Daily Courier-Gazette (Nov 26, 1972).
  • "Home Interiors founder motivates her sales staff with spiritual philosophy" by O.J. Parsons, Spokane Spokesman-Review (Oct 31, 1984).
  • "Home Interiors & Gifts Is Leader in Direct Sales", The Madison Messenger (Oct 19, 2001).
  • "Meredith backs line of products" by Patt Johnson, The Des Moines Register (June 10, 2003).
  • "Home Interiors knows it's what's on the inside that counts" by Joanne Bockman, The Des Moines Register (February 10, 2005).
  • "Home and Garden Party acquires Home Interiors and Gifts, Inc" by Steve Bandy, The Marshall News Messenger (December 19, 2008).

All of them are articles that are entirely and directly about Home Interiors & Gifts. I added these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. There's no question that there's reliable, broad, in-depth coverage in news sources.

By the way, if anyone wants access to Newspapers.com in order to check out these sources, you can get access for free for a year through The Wikipedia Library. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. I didn't know about that. Does it matter that much what you put when your applying where it asks why you want access to the resource? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Yes, you should tell them what kind of articles you generally work on. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: You should have no problems with getting access to newspapers.com: they have tons of accounts. Sadads (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per the sources, and the work of Toughpigs -- plenty of evidence that it had a long term impact on the American decorative economy. Sadads (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kennedy (Iowa politician)

Brian Kennedy (Iowa politician) (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)

The sources are not at a level to show actual notability. State party chairman are not default notable, and there is not otherwise any sign of notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge into Republican Party of Iowa - I say weak because there's no list similar to Indiana_Republican_Party#State_Party_Chairmen_since_1961. ミラP 18:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia has been moving away from state party chairs for some time now. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NPOL and other criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Being chair of a political party at the state level is not an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrated
  primary source that isn't support for notability at all; one just leads to an "all articles by this writer" directory listing, with no indication that said journalist wrote any articles that were specifically about Brian Kennedy; and one is just a straight reprint in another source of the same self-written biographical sketch from the primary source. And no, having been a candidate in an election primary he did not win is not a notability claim either. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - may pass
  WP:POLOUTCOMES since he has held a statewide office. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2020 (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.