Non-notable Democratic Party official. He received some in-depth news coverage when he was first elected county party chair, but ever since then, pretty much all coverage is passing mentions. It doesn't seem that Texas media considers him an especially notable figure.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
22:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in
WP:NOTADVERT.
P3D7AQ09M6 (
talk)
Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate
Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself.
P3D7AQ09M6 (
talk)
04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe delete both of them.
Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.
In the spirit of
WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!
re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors as the nominator states they didn't mean to nominate this article (so a withdrawal of sorts) but an editor is arguing for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I can't evaluate the source reliability due to the language barrier but the idea that it is unsourced is false, there are two sources here and at least one of them appears to be from a news organization... though India has a problem with paid news organizations so that could be an issue, I am unsure. The other is a forum post. Two of the external links also appear to be news sources that I cannot evaluate.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Parappurath#Novels. 2 sources on the page, one is an unreliable forum thread and the other is a news site
Mathrubhumi. Fails notability because the book has not been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
RangersRus (
talk)
19:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article has been around for 15 years and has not included reliable secondary sources showing notability (and I am unable to find any). Not to mention it's written in a promotional tone. I tried to remove the non-neutral wording but it does not leave much to indicate significance. ...discospinstertalk17:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article as nominated already had enough in-depth sources about his books (four about one and three about the other) for
WP:AUTHOR. Citation counts are often not meaningful for academics in book-publishing fields. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems wrong to me. First Bbb23 removed all text from the article, then nominated it for deletion. See the version of 04:45, May 3, 2023 by GoodDay for what it looked like before all content was removed. It seems to me that Mr Brandegee was a minor painter but he did exhibit at notable venues (the Society of American Artists, the Exposition Universelle (1889), the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, the National Academy of Design, and elsewhere). As these were juried shows, he seems to meet at least notability citerion 4(b) "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". with best wishes
Daderot (
talk)
15:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Lack of notability. Note that the first cited source, which is the only one of any seeming solidity, is about the father of the article subject.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.
Here are all existing sources I could find about him:
[1] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to
this site here)
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including
Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate
List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known.
Geschichte (
talk)
12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The SAF was a splinter of the SAC which existed for 10 years, between 1928 and 1938, before merging back into the SAC. As far as I can tell from sources, it didn't do much other than criticise the SAC for certain tendencies it disliked. It has very little
significant coverage in
reliable sources. The cited SelfEd chapter (not what I would call a reliable source) gives it two paragraphs of attention.
[3]Gabriel Kuhn's history of the SAC only devotes it a single paragraph.
[4] This is the extent of coverage I have found in sources; no more. In both cases, it is only mentioned in the wider context of the SAC, not as an independently notable organisation.
As this article is unlikely to grow much larger than the stub it has existed as since 2008, I don't think this organisation is
notable enough to merit its own article. If it needs to be discussed, we could very well give it a mention in the main article about the SAC.
Grnrchst (
talk)
10:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Note:Soman has just rewritten the article using a source I hadn't found, removing the previously-cited SelfEd source. Lennart Persson wrote 4 paragraphs about the SAF, which are more or less what you can see
paraphrased in the article now. While I appreciate the attempt to rectify this, I'm still left thinking that this organisation isn't independently notable of the SAC and information about it could easily be merged into that article (albeit in
summary style). --
Grnrchst (
talk)
12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - article is expanded and sourcing improved now. From what I gather SAF was a notable phenomenon at its time, a militant union movement with thousands of members, with 50 local federations and a weekly newspaper. Eventually the organization was unsuccessful, but during its existence was notable. I'm looking at kb.se for newspaper clippings, which I can't access due to copyright, but the snippets are interesting. See
[5], talking about a revolutionary strike called by SAF and the entire factory staff arrested. There are a number of other articles on the SAF in same newspaper (constituting in-depth coverage) seemingly on the same strike and the following court case.
[6]Dagens Nyheter and
[7]Aftonbladet followed the case. If we had full access to contemporary press archives, the article could be expanded and improved significantly. --
Soman (
talk)
13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. This is a complementary list to an article that was redirected in 2018 for having no sources. Looking at
the article, it consisted of original research and synthesis, and should probably have been deleted rather than redirected to
Ariosophy, which it says constitutes one part of its subject.
There is no useful definition of what to include in the glossary; it says the list "should also not include terms not specific to German mysticism", but most of the entries are about runes or from medieval and early modern Icelandic culture. If we remove those entries, what we are left with are two entries from Ariosophy (Armanen runes and Armanen), one from a 1990s novel (Black Sun), one from 19th-century vitalism (Odic force), one from Nazi esotericism (Esoteric insignia of the Schutzstaffel), an academic field (Runology) and an outdated philological theory (Uthark theory). Rather than a defined subject, it comes off as a list of someone's personal interests at a particular point in time.
Ffranc (
talk)
09:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The article has numerable issues, it relies on questionable sources, and as well as contains original research. But most of all, it seems to be a
WP:POVFORK of
Human rights abuses in Balochistan. It doesn’t have a really good verifiability argument. Any content that is reliable should be moved to the Human rights abuse page, as this page is better established and has more to say. This page just seems extremely unnecessary.
VirtualVagabond (
talk)
05:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not a single source refers to a "genocide" and barely any scholarly sources, usually news sites being used for making
exceptional claims and commentaries which would need further review.
WP:TNT applies. Would also support merging anything reliable to the Humans rights abuses in Balochistan page, which this article is a content fork of for which the reliability of content is to be first established per consensus.
Axedd (
talk)
Keep: The topic is worth keeping as it does appear in academic literature, the article does need an overhaul, and as some commenters here know (due to their active work in the article), we have already improved it from it's poor initial state. As some examples of of the literature, from a quick search:
Sarwar, Azam (2024). "Living ghosts and the Laapata: the episode of genocide continuum in Pakistani art". Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 38 (2).
Nawaz, Maryam; Akhtar, Shahzad; Asghar, Muhammad Faizan (2023). "Drivers of Ethnic Terrorism: Case of Baloch Nationalist Movement (BNM)". Global Social Sciences Review. 8 (1).
Patel, Pinal; Sharma, Saurabh (2022). "Enforced Disappearances: A Major Human Rights Issue in Balochistan". Journal of Social and Political Sciences. 5 (4).
Muzaffar, Muhammad; Karamat, Sidra; Saeed, Khalid (June 2018). "Balochistan Insurgency: Causes and Prospects". Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (1).
Dashti, Naseer (2017). The Baloch Conflict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle. Black Lacquer Press.
ISBN978-1-948288-10-1.
Prakash, Aarushi (2013). "Peace or War Journalism: Case Study of the Balochistan Conflict in Pakistan". Strategic Analysis. 37 (5).
Dashti, Naseer (2012). The Baloch and Balochistan: A historical account from the Beginning to the fall of the Baloch State. Trafford Publishing.
ISBN978-1-4669-5897-5.
Wirsing, Robert G. (April 2008). Baloch Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Energy Resources: The Changing Context of Separatism in Pakistan.
Strategic Studies Institute.
Bansal, Alok (January–March 2006). "Balochistan: Continuing Violence and Its Implications". Strategic Analysis. 30 (1).
Grodsky, Brian (2012). "When two ambiguities collide: the use of genocide in self-determination drives". Journal of Genocide Research. 14 (1). - also details the Balochi Provincial Assembly's accusation against the Pakistani central government in 2006 of genocide against the Baloch people in 2006.
In previous example sources they discuss the claim of genocide, or state the reporting of a genocide against the Baloch people. And again, these examples are from a very short cursory search. --
Cdjp1 (
talk)
21:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per
WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in
Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article.
hinnk (
talk)
04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links
[8][9][10][11] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to
a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't
significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers.
hinnk (
talk)
05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect?
GrabUp -
Talk03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand(
talk)14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: For now, however, should be reviosited and if still not fleshed out, should be Redirect as that would be the best move if there is still not much there
CassierREDDDD (
talk)
07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: It is a very common topic in India so it is notable. Perhaps a disambiguation page pointing later to the real Whatsapp University.
Sectioneer (
talk)
16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have a clearer discussion of the sources and whether they contain significant coverage of the topic? A source table would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk)
00:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's a stab at a source table. The strongest candidates appear to be a short article in the Navbharat Times, an opinion piece in The Hindu, and an in-depth blog post of questionable reliability. That last one is really a stretch, and I think we'd be hard-pressed to hit
WP:3REFS. Even more so to get something large enough that it'd merit being split off from
Fake news in India.
hinnk (
talk)
02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Whatsapp University is a real University of India, They even have a Linkedin page
Note, also, I just rolled back an addition about the actual "Whatsapp University" as it is patent nonsense with 4 followers on linkedin, and does not add to actual article notability being debated. Shotgunheist💬05:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
EXPLAIN: On behalf the Whatsapp University I would like this listing for Whatsapp University to be remove ASAP. The Whatsapp University and Whatsapp College is well known brand names of Brahma University since at least 2016. Associating with BJP party and disinformation and misinformation by Wikipedia is causing a great confusion and commotion in minds of the students. Hope you understand and remove this listing in your online directory immediately. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ShymalWhatsappUniversity (
talk •
contribs)
09:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - sources in the article mostly don't even mention the Order, and there doesn't appear to be even a single additional source available to help get it over the line.
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: there appears to not be a single source containing in-depth coverage of this, so far from
WP:GNG. (Question by the way: Is there a specific notability guidelines for things like this? I haven't found one but they don't always have the names you would expect). —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
17:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of
quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think?
QuantumFoam66 (
talk)
03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This type of article is known as a
broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at
Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. CFA💬04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --
Bensin (
talk)
13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.
2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.
3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.
The subject fails the criteria for
WP:SINGER. Subject also has no music chart history, notable awards, and notable featured articles. It might as well be delete for its lack of notability and significant coverage.
Sackkid (
talk)
03:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaning Merge with
Godenu. If this is notable, then there should be news/media stories about individuals who have been awarded this honor, or even obituaries mentioning it. A search of Google news and Bing news did not show any. If anyone knows of any Ghanan newspapers with such articles, that might change things.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
19:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 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.
Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN
[12], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met.
Axad12 (
talk)
06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep & fix article issues (or
draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (
WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified.
ButlerBlog (
talk)
12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf "
Axad12 (
talk)
12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information.
Lamona (
talk)
23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria.
Lamona (
talk)
16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply