Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Jessica Pierce

Rationale: Subject does not meet notability requirements. No secondary resources discuss Pierce, her life, or explain why she warrants a biography. There are a few book reviews for a book she co-authored but these reviews focus solely on the book. Perhaps the book should receive an article? I have removed passages that refer to how Pierce feels about her associations to certain universities. These statements were not sourced to anything. This biography was clearly written by her friends, and I believe her friends are obstructing the deletion process. I believe this is a vanity project. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"The page "Jessica Pierce" does not exist." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That works. Lol. Thanks for your time. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify for the record, the page was speedy deleted for WP:A7. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure A7 was technically correct; the article at the point it was deleted said "Pierce has authored or co-authored over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals and chapters in scholarly edited collections". DGG can you advise if A7 was correct here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Persons with a doctorate submit their work to peer reviewed journals. That's just a function of their job. Just googling around, it looks like some doctorate students who work hard can have ten or more papers and have over 100 citations before they graduate (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134555/how-do-some-phd-students-get-10-papers-is-that-what-i-need-for-landing-good-fa). Pierce with 30 articles authored and co-authored in 45 years is nothing particularly notable. Especially when there are no mentions of her in newspapers, no autobiographies, and no evidence that her work is cited extensively by her peers. Sagsbasel (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also found this: "Materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, former president of Tohoku University in Japan and a member of multiple prestigious academies, holds the record. He met our definition of being hyperprolific for 12 calendar years between 2000 and 2016. Since 1976, his name appears on 2,566 full papers indexed in Scopus." Sagsbasel (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I did start a discussion about the A7 at User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce. I mean she doesn't look like the most notable academic out there and quite possibly isn't but the fact that we're discussing this clearly indicates that she deserves an WP:AFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridi Corporation

Rationale: Article sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH requirements.

Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Orna Guralnik

Rationale: Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of Couples Therapy (2019 TV series).

Could someone please complete this nomination? 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambassadors

I'm new to the AfD pages so thought I'd ask a question here before messing up too many discussions.

A number of articles about ambassadors are currently in AfD as "Ambassadors are not inherently notable". However, each British ambassador I have looked up has had an article in Who's Who (UK) (I believe it's an editorial decision for that book to include all British ambassadors), which seems to make them notable under WP:ANYBIO #3. So I thought I'd get some thoughts here before going too far with the idea "Ambassadors are not notable but British ambassadors are notable because someone at A & C Black says so". Cheers, Mgp28 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:For what it's worth (I'm a AFD regular, disregarding no-consensus !votes, 76% of my !votes match consensus, I lean more towards keeping than deleting biographical articles) I think your logic is good and your argument is fair, I'd suggest framing it like:

• Keep, due passing WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary due to presence in Who's Who (UK) on page XX of the 20XX edition.

CT55555(talk) 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You would get pushback over this (but not from me) because many editors are more familiar with the US Who's Who publications and these folks will not believe that the UK version is any different, and (2) although the UK version is selective, the entries are written by the subject followed up by somewhat slight editorial oversight and so the independence can be questioned. On AFD generally, in my experience it is best to accept that it is an arbitrary process. Thincat (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. This source is also not "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", so it does not fit the WP:ANYBIO guideline. However, I encourage you to participate at AfD, including to offer sources and ask questions, because the format is a discussion. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is very good advice and nullifies mine! CT55555(talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you all for your responses. I had thought Who's Who's content might be questionable but that its main claim was that its entrants were notable.

  From WP:ANYBIO I thought I had followed a link for national biographical dictionary and found Who's Who as the first book referenced, but now I see that the link was only to biographical dictionary.

  Thanks again, Mgp28 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  PS Is there a list of countries' "standard national biographical dictionaries"? It sounds like the sort of title lots of publishers would like to claim. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia has decided that the content of WW should not be considered to be altogether reliable due to its autobiographical nature (although, in my experience, almost all entries are completely reliable and the waters have been muddied by a handful of over-exaggerated claims), that is an entirely different issue from its use to establish notability. People are selected by the WW staff to appear on the basis of their notability. They do not apply to be in it and they do not pay to be in it. I should also point out that, in the UK, WW is considered to be a standard and reliable reference work and in pre-internet times was held by almost all public and university libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is in my local library, and in general I thought most errors were of omission rather than outright false claims.

  Regarding notability, if the publishers have a policy to include all British ambassadors then their presence in Who's Who simply reflects that policy rather than being a comment on the individual's notability. (I tend to expect that many ambassadors would be notable but that's a separate discussion.) --Mgp28 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  And there's the rub. WP consensus has decided ambassadors are not inherently notable, WW has decided they are. Their editorial policy doesn't shape WP's, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Strict rules

This is an unnecessary redirect to Rules of golf that was clearly created only to match the name of a link on the Golf page, which could easily have used a link like this: strict rules. The page was clearly not meant to be linked to from any other page. (I can't nominate this article for deletion because I do not have an account.) 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the page and fix the link but we should still remove this article. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been done by Rosguill. (Just for future reference, proposals to delete redirects go to WP:RFD rather than AfD, and I believe IPs are allowed to nominate at RfD.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not know RFD existed, thanks. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Far-left politics

Rationale: Out of scope, the subject matter is something which cannot be defined by reliable sources.

The entire article reads as purely speculative and there are clear guidelines on Wikipedia about speculation under the no crystal ball policy also particularly category three on original research and what it may be. As per the article, no one has defined what "far left" even means yet. Even the article itself admits that there is not a single coherent definition of what Far left politics is.

Point 4 is also relevant to this article and why it SHOULD NOT be on Wikipedia:

"Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections."

So, if there isn't a single coherent definition of WHAT it is, it is UNSCIENTIFIC and HYPOTHETICAL then I am hamstrung to see what its relevance is. On the other hand, far right and alt-right are well defined political science terms. Just because some people on the alt-right and far right, as well as far right extremists like to throw around the term "far left" does not mean it has any relevance what so ever. There are a bunch of people who think the world is flat, it's a bit like adding scientific credibility to flat earthers. Once there is a relevant page for them to congregate and vent their spleen on it gives them a sounding board to make up pure nonsense about a theory that has absolutely no relevance to political science (which by the way is a science) mostly falling under systems science. To give credence to such contemptible and ridiculous nonsense goes against the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

Far-left is just a nuisance term like "woke" is now that is thrown about at moderate people to throw a cat among the pigeons every time the far-right doesn't like what a "leftist" or "leftoid" says. It's both unscientific, and unencyclopeadic in nature. It adds no collective benefit to this encyclopedia to have an article on something that is a thought bubble that doesn't exist in reality as anything more than a pejorative and it certainly doesn't have enough traction like other pejoratives like shit and cunt to make it relevant. That a bunch of far right extremists have dived off into the deep end to come up with this term does not mean that it is in any way useful to an encylopedia and therefore I fail to see why the article is still here or was even created. 120.22.38.19 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)