Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise

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

Recent AfD and a non-admin closure, but a bit late to simply re-open it.

They're a professor. But do they pass WP:ACADEMIC? I'm seeing neither the extent, nor the sourcing to justify this. This is another bio from a problematic community banned paid editor (KDS4444). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distinguished chair at a research university. It means he passes PROF, and its been worked on by other editors to try to make it comply with our guidelines. Not a fan of the paid stuff, but Jytdog and others have helped here, so it isn't solely the work of a paid editor or only intended to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're happy to take this on the basis of only a job title and a TV credit? This is supposedly an academic biography, yet there isn't even a publications list. A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role, let alone claiming to be NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of how North American academic ranks work. It means that he does meet the other PROF criteria without having to check. We also just had an RfC on this that confirmed passing PROF establishes notability independent of the GNG, and he clearly passes PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his "rank"? The infobox claims "Distinguished professor", but the staff list states "University professor". This is an article which might well end up labelled as "notable", but it's also painfully lax. We're not usually so accommodating to our editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, his details are on his university page. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps amazingly, I've already read that. And nowhere does it call him a "Distinguished professor", which is what the infobox claims. Now maybe in Arkansas a "University professor" is something special, but it isn't round here. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A University Professorship is a specific professorship given to academics with the rank of distinguished professor at some North American universities. It is different than simply being a professor at a university. It is a specific title for a highly regarded academic at the institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you wrote "A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role", so I assumed you hadn't found his page. For "University Professor", see Academic ranks in the United States. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Distinguished Professor" generally means someone with well-above-ordinary scholarship, and "University Professor" sometimes means something similar (at my campus it is like Distinguished Professor but even more rarefied). But at Arkansas it seems to mean someone with extraordinary contributions to service rather than to scholarship. So I don't think this is quite what we usually expect in WP:PROF#C5. Instead, in this case, it appears to be evidence of WP:PROF#C7, "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", presumably for his general-audience work on Petra. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a distinguished chair at a notable research university. It means he satisfies PROF. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHE (which is UK) someone with a "distinguished chair" would be titled as holding the "Zoidberg Chair in Psychoceramics" or similar. I can see no such description. Nor can I see "distinguished professor" being used anywhere outside our own infobox. As a BLP, we have to source such things, especially when their notability rests upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a " distinguished chair" he certainly passes WP:PROF and the renomination is a bit rushy with the previous AfD resulting in speedy keep barely 30 days ago. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C7, per David Eppstein's argument above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Dingley. In the US true holders of "distinguished chairs" hold named chairs. If he does not have a named chair, at least in the US, he does not pass Academic criteria #7.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? "Named chair" means: someone gave money to the school, and you were the best we could find in that subject. "Distinguished professor" or in this cases "University professor" may be more meaningful, because it generally has specific levels of distinction required (that I have linked to above) rather than merely an endowment fund. In addition, "Distinguished professor" is specifically called out as equivalent to named professorships in the relevant WP:PROF criterion (which is not #7). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra–Azerbaijan relations

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

No particular claim of notability. Unless all bi-lateral relations are notable, there's no reason to believe this one is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability. all there is diplomatic recognition and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relations between two entities with mutual recognition and notability. Tart (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simply having recognition does not give inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article. Now it has more relevance. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibsStar. Also, what expansion? What there is, is pretty much indistinguishable from a short directory listing. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that what expansion? Look at the previous version, when that article was nominated and now, please. The truth, I do not know why, instead of fixing it, you are making a vote to delete the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Articles_on_bi-lateral_relations may be of interest when closing this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The default criterion for inclusion is meeting WP:GNG and this bilateral- relationship doesn't meet it. After similar AfDs like this now there's this attempt to agree on policy or guideline concerning whether countries relationships are automatically notable. But in the meantime that's only proposal, therefore only WP:SIGCOV of their relationship can be used to establish notability. And for this article there is no such sources and the stub is nothing save to show each country know the other exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Azerbaijan and Foreign relations of Andorra, both of which have tables for keeping track of the details of visits that this article now includes. MarginalCost (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. While I agree that the article has been expanded since then, I don't agree that there's an awful lot more going for it. GNG wasn't met and still isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand why people create pages as esoteric as this and I certainly don't understand why people obsess and make a hobby of deleting them. This particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that you could not create esoteric pages. In that case, tell me what I have to create. Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 12 December 2017 (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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee house church

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

Tagged as needing sources for over 7 years. This seems to be a rarely used WP:NEOLOGISM. An (admittedly shallow) search didn't turn up any good sources, although the phrase does appear occasionally. Note that this article isn't about coffeehouses run by churches (a trend in the USA for a while), but about congregations who meet in regular coffeehouses. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources. No evidence provided that the Catholic Church would approve of mass in a non-standard location like this. On the other hand, it makes assertions that having a worship service in a restaurant is inherently different from having one in a standard church building. Considering that the Harlem 1st branch that started meeting in a room in Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem 20 years ago is the same organization as the Harlem 1st Ward that today meets in a regularly built LDS Chapel, I strongly suspect that the assertions of this article would not be held to be all people.Johen Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be classified as a dictionary definition. This is a genuine way of conducting mission. It might be transwikified. Whatever the outcome, the list of denominations needs to be removed as largely irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kruchinin

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

Scopus says h-index of 8, well below the threshold for WP:PROF. Editor of two journals that turn out to be predatory. WP:PEACOCK added by the WP:SPAs who are the main substantive contributors. However, Russian, so some of the issues with this awful article might be down to language difficulties. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a way to passing WP:PROF. GS citation counts for his listed publications: 0, 12, 15, 15, 18, 31, 14, 3, 30, 51, 14, 0, 2, 3. Even allowing for the irregularities of what GS sees and what it misses, there's no way this adds up to "influential". The 2010 textbook he coauthored has only 39 citations, and I can't find reviews of it. No evidence of awards or highly selective society fellowships that could indicate professional recognition. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the predatory editorships removed there is no evidence of WP:PROF. This article is puffed up in a particularly eastern-European way, but that's neither here nor there except that it makes any actual notability hard to find among all the noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the start is overly promotional and full of unneeded padding. If there was substance this might be overcomeable, but he just does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2017 (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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Applied Physics

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

This article was created by a WP:SPA - in fact, creating this article was their sole edit. Amazingly, they "forgot" to mention that the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory. Not in Thomson ISI, not in JIF, not in DOAJ. Not in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that a fraudulent journal could attain notability by being widely discussed as such, but this is nowhere near that level. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per the same reasoning as WP:FRINGE: Without sources discussing the predatory nature of this journal we have no way to write a properly WP:NPOV article. If we had an article on the publisher we could redirect there, but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following articles cite this journal btw: Prime number theorem, Taylor's law Tweedie distribution. It would also be more accurate to say that this was created by the journal's editor (hello massive COI here). In any case, delete.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is literally two short sentences, one external link, and a short table to make it appear better. Along with that, the article if you could even call it that, has four major issues tagged at the top which in my opinion constitutes deletion alone. definitely not WP:N and seems to be advertising somewhat, further more this information can all be found on the official website which not surprisingly was the one source for this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement that "the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory," here is support for that statement: The publisher listed in the wp article is World Academic Publishing, and that organization is listed as a predatory publisher here and here. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (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.