From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

The review department of the Chicago WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.

This department provides a convenient collection of Chicago content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

Several other discussion types use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for

External peer review

WikiProject peer reviews
A Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject.

You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too.

To list your review below:

  1. Create the peer review following instructions here.
  2. Add [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - June 2024 at the top of the list of requests below (where N is the archive number).

When the review is finished:

  1. Follow the general instructions for peer reviews here.
  2. Move [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - MONTH - YEAR from the list of active reviews to the list of old reviews.

To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.


Joseph Berrios

Benet Academy

Previous peer review
Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.

Thanks, Benny the mascot ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am sorry this is taking me so long - will review in the next 24 hours. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No need to rush...I have other ways of keeping myself busy. :) Good luck on your FAC, by the way. Benny the mascot ( talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • One thing that is sometimes hard to do is to provide context to the reader about things the author is familiar with. I am fairly familiar with the Chicago area, but was not that sure where Lisle was. A brief description would help (x miles west of the Loop / downtown Chicago) or a map with a dot would help too.
  • I also was confused by mentions of the college, but no real resolution on what happened to it - it took me a little searching here, but I assume it is what is now known as Benedictine University in Lisle. The article mentions the university as the site of buildings The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[20] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[12], and in terms of a scholarship at the academy, but I think it needs to explicitly say what happened to the college after the academy split. I realize that this article on the Academy, so it need not be a lot of detail, but some is needed.
  • The map is nice, but I am guessing the Census does not show buildings (only streets and water), so the source for those needs to be given explicitly - this will be checked at FAC.
  • The capitalization of College and Academy by themselves seems a bit odd, though it is done consistently as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions says if it is the generic word (college, academy) by itself it should not be capitalized.
  • The lead just seems sparse to me - especially the second and third paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to make sure every header is in the lead somehow - are Demographics and the Christmas Drive there?
    • I mentioned the Christmas Drive a little bit, but the Demographics section is already somewhat covered in the lead. ("Benet's average ACT test score has exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students have gone on to college after graduation")
  • The language is decent but I noticed a few rough spots reading - I will try and come back and point some more out soon, here is one to start
    • Classes began on March 2, when Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street for four months. FOur months in one day? Wow that's concentrated teaching! Perhaps Classes began on March 2, and for the next four months Rev. Procopius Neuzil taught two remedial high school students in two small rooms at 704 Allport Street. would be better. I am also not sure students can be remedial - I thought classes were? Could be wrong
      • Sentence replaced with a small revision regarding the usage of "remedial". Benny the mascot ( talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your feedback! Benny the mascot ( talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply
More from Ruhrfisch

I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice

  • Lead It was founded in 1887 as the all-boys St. Procopius College and Academy by Benedictine monks in Chicago, who also operated the St. Joseph Bohemian Orphanage, which along with St. Procopius later moved to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago.[6] Could this sentence be split into two? As it is now it is quite long and complex - I would start the new sentence after the word orphanage. Also could the year(s) for the move(s) to Lisle be added to provide context?
  • Capitalization of college? The orphanage closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which then separated from the College in 1957. (In Internet Explorer you can search for a word and it highlights all the matching terms in yellow - might be worth checking caps on college and academy this way)
  • Tweak sentence Sacred Heart merged with St. Procopius Academy in 1967 on the St. Procopius campus to establish Benet Academy [on the St. Procopius campus].
  • Also, any idea where the name "Benet" came from? a ha - here it says Benet is an English form of Benedict
  • Unclear Benet's performing arts program stages multiple musicals ... I think it would be clearer to say Benet's performing arts program stages a musical annually... perhaps saying since when
  • Need to be consistent on names - in the text it is "Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict..." but the image caption is just "Abbot Nepomucene Jaeger" (no John). I also wonder since St John of Nepomuk is not well known in the US, if a link would be in order?
  • Suggested reoganization Reverend John Nepomucene Jaeger of the Order of St. Benedict was the pastor of the parish[.] , which served approximately 16,000 to 20,000 parishioners. Chicago at that time had the largest Czech population of any other city in the world outside of Prague and Vienna. Roughly 50,000 Czech immigrants were served by the three Czech parishes of Chicago, which included [16,000 to 20,000 parishioners at] St. Procopius.
  • The source says they were teaching high school classes then, so I would clarify that in Only a two-year [high school] program was offered at the time; the college offered its first four-year high school program in 1904.[9]
  • Might flow more smoothly as The first Bohemian abbot in the United States, Abbot Jaeger[, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States,] founded a Bohemian monastic community in 1894...
  • What does better atmosphere mean? The college and academy continued to grow in Chicago; in 1896 the Abbey bought the 104-acre (42 ha) Morris Neff farm in Lisle to gain more space and a better atmosphere.[9] Cleaner air than in the city?
  • Since I am assuming that the present Benedictine University still is on the site because they are the re-named St Procopius College, I think that needs to be made clearer in this: The St. Procopius monks decided on March 12, 1900, to build a new college[21] on the site of present-day Benedictine University at the southwest corner of Maple and College Avenues.[13]
  • OK I am stopping the rough spots here. I think this would benefit from a copy edit before FAC. There are a few other things I noticed:
  • What makes Remembering Lisle a reliable source? See WP:RS
  • The alt text for the mascot should desribe it as a bird, not a redwing (there might be those who think of the Detroit Redwings or even Red Wing Shoes

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice! I've fixed most of the issues you've brought up; I just need to get that copyedit completed. Benny the mascot ( talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Featured article candidates

Instructions

Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the featured article candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of candidate article}} to the top of the list.

If the article is promoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Add the article to the project showcase;
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:26, 9 April 2010 [1].

Michelle Obama

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply


I am nominating this for featured article because it was previously nominated two and a half months after she assumed the role of First Lady of the United States. There were issues with recentism and what her long term role is. Now that she has established her legacy objective and undertaken a role in running an administrationwide initiative, I think it is time to reconsider whether this article is among the finest at summarizing the bio of this living person. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The eligibility of this article is not clear for the cup. If it passes, we will request clarification.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comments: The books under "Further reading" are not formatted properly; an author's surname is always first, and I'm not aware of any standard style (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) that lists the month of publication as well as the year -- correct me if I'm wrong on the last point, however. Publication cities are also missing in all three instances. In addition, is there a reason why the books listed are not used as references for the article? From what I can tell after a quick skimming, most of the references are news reports and articles, which is great if that's all there is, but my belief is that if there are reputable, published works available, why not use them? María ( habla con migo) 12:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I can reformat the citations. However, if you are telling me that I have to read a couple of novels to advance this FAC, it is not going to happen. On many subjects there are far more references than are used in creating the article. Does this article appear to be lacking breadth, depth or WP:RS for the material that exists?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not telling you to do anything, Tony. But now that you mention it, what's so wrong about reading books for the sake of a gold star? ;) The question is, does this article -- which relies solely on online news sources when there are seemingly reliable, published works available -- truly present a " representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"? I obviously haven't read the books, or even the article in its entirety, but past FACs have been hit with such queries in the past. Because this is such an important article, and one that will continue to be scrutinized by many readers, the references should obviously be of the highest quality currently available. If the books in question are not worth the paper they're printed on, okay; but they should at least be assessed to find whether or not they can be of use. María ( habla con migo) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I have several times done research such as that to get a gold star. My WP is much less than it use to be. In most cases, for architecture articles I have read books that had 4 or 5 pages on a building or structure that I was researching. I was able to add a few books in a few hours. In this case, we are talking about entire books devoted to the subject. Compared to some of my recent FAs such as Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, or Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) where I was able to improve the perceived quality of the WP article by looking at a few passages in architecture books, this would take an industrious effort that I am not up to. I could not imagine it would take me less than 50 hours to read the references that you mention. I do not have that much time for WP anymore.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Has a delegate approved this nom, bearing in mind the 15-day rule and that this nominator's 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team was archived only on 6 April? Brianboulton ( talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I confess to not really reading the constantly revised rules with each nomination. If this nomination is suppose to be closed that is fine.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • With no opinion on the merits of the article (which I haven't read in any detail), I'd say this is a clear candidate for WP:IAR. That rule is intended to prevent FAC from being clogged by mass nominations of poor quality articles into FAC by people who don't really understand what's required; Tony clearly doesn't fall into that category. –  iride scent 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, that rule was put into place to stop editors from using FAC as a source of serial peer reviews, putting up a second nomination as soon as their previous nom was archived, clogging FAC and treating it as peer review, and regularly bringing back articles with little change as soon as the last nomination was archived. In fact, yes, this review needs to be closed, as the rule was put into place precisely for this purpose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article review

Instructions

Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the featured article removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Name of candidate article}} to the top of the list.

If the article is demoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the FAR candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Move the article to the delisted section of the project showcase;

Featured list candidates

Instructions

Featured lists are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the featured list candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Name of candidate list}} to the top of the list.

If the article is promoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Add the article to the project showcase;

Featured list removal candidates

Instructions

Featured list removals are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list removal candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the featured list removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Name of candidate list}} to the top of the list.

If the article is demoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Move the article to the delisted section at project showcase;

Non-article featured content candidates

Instructions

Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:

To transclude the non-article featured content candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name of candidate picture}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Name of candidate portal}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Name of candidate topic}}, or {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Name of candidate sound}} to the top of the list.

If the article is promoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Add the article to the project showcase;

Good article reassessment

Instructions

Good article reassessments are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the good article reassessment candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Name of candidate article}} to the top of the list.

If the article is demoted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the GAR candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};
  3. Move the article to the delisted section of the project showcase;

Articles for deletion

Instructions

Articles for deletion discussions are controlled by external processes; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for article for deletion review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the articles for deletion discussions, add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of candidate article}} to the top of the list.

If the article is deleted:

  1. Remove the transclusion code from this list;
  2. Remove the article link from the AFD candidates list at {{ WPCHICAGO Announcements}};


Illinois

Rob DePaola

Rob DePaola (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli ( talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Loch Lomond (Illinois)

Loch Lomond (Illinois) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb ( talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a sports database. This level of detail runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, while also not meeting basic notability standards for lists. A higher level summary (i.e. the first table under All-Time Series) may be appropriate for merging, maybe into List of Chicago Bears team records, but this does not justify a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adding that I would support a selective merge to List of Chicago Bears team records on the condition that the list of Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games and holiday games are not included in such a merge. Frank Anchor 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge. I don't agree at all that the information is trivial. On the other hand, this is simply a repetition of results reported at multiple places on the net. E.g., [2], [3]. If there were more context and analysis, I might view it diffferently. See NOT STATS "(Extensive listings of unexplained lists"). Gonzo's suggestion to merge the main list into List of Chicago Bears team records also makes sense. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 ( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif ( talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. –  Ploni 💬  00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White ( talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. -- hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 ( talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Judith Sewell Wright

Judith Sewell Wright (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
    Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM ( talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 ( talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking. Spiralwidget ( talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024
  • @ Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 ( talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.

Carl Faingold

Carl Faingold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. -- hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Duncan Turnbull

Duncan Turnbull (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough ( source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article. Tpd13 ( talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ GiantSnowman and Anwegmann: Some coverage: Shaw Network, Daily Herald ( 2), Portsmouth News ( 2). Thoughts? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again. Anwegmann ( talk) 03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. - Mjks28 ( talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Prestige Communications

Prestige Communications (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as there is a lack of independent significant coverage. Let'srun ( talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tony Andruzzi

Tony Andruzzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline notable magician possibly but complete dearth of any remotely reliably sourced biographical and career info. as far as I can tell. I don't think this link cuts it. Tkaras1 ( talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

New White Sox Stadium

New White Sox Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply


  • Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of Illinois on the proposal along with the new Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories... Roberto221 ( talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Neal Potter

Neal Potter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • delete I live in the county, and I only recognized the name on a "that rings a bell" basis. He lived, he was county executive, he did county exec things, he retired, and he died. I just don't see the notability; I'm sure he was competent (or else he surely would have an article!) but the language of his term is that of press releases, which argues he did nothing that attracted greater notice. Mangoe ( talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I would also point out that the Post and the Times are the de facto local papers of the area given the demise of almost all the county level papers, but in any case they would report such an obituary as a matter of record. Mangoe ( talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions ( WP:PROD)

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. Shimeru ( talk) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Jake Bernstein

Jake Bernstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable market trader and self publicist. Insufficient citations in WP:RS to satisfy notability. Prod removed without explanation by IP. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • a neighborly Response to TonyTheTiger
Whenever I guess, I often guess wrong, so I'd rather not mimic your guess he's a keeper this time.
The sheer volume of publication offers no supporting argument in favor of Wikipedia notability:
An argument popular at AfD proceedings is "She has X number of Y, which proves that she's notable" (or not).
We may establish notability not by the quantity of one's published work, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than with 1 million views on YouTube.
For more information, please see I Like It! : Arbitrary Quantity.
I would encourage you to reverse your recommendation — if only to a Luke-Warm Delete — unless you can accomplish what not one of the rest of us has been able to do in two years of trying in good faith:
to demonstrate Notability by revealing to all of us reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any substantial, comprehensive coverage of this subject.
— Wordsmith ( talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
____________________________________________
.
  • Strong Keep I'm a student of Jake Bernstein, I made the original entry and have occassionally appended it. Jake's work is objective and helpful. The entry should remain, without bias, as a simple identification of a very prolific author who is also a helpful teacher. Biased content added by the misinformed who do not know Jake or his work first hand should be removed as well as references to slanderous competitors sites. The entry should remain as a simple identification and bibliography of a prolific author. -- Thor1964 ( T/ Special:Contributions/Thor1964/ User:Thor1964/ WP:Santa Cruz, CA) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • a congenial Response to Thor1964
As I've said before, my first obligation is to presume your good faith, and I hereby renew that presumption in your favor once more.
I understand and I respect your loyalty to your subject, Thor, and I urge you to amend — and defend — your case for a Jake Bernstein article, but only if you can ingenuously establish his notability from substantial, extant, reputable, mainstream, secondary coverage of him by sources that do not "know Jake or his work first hand," in accord with the Wikipedia policy on Notability and acceptable Sources, in advance of a reincarnation of your article.
.
I myself have not, cannot, and I've failed to find even one objective person who can.
Nonetheless, I remain receptive to anyone anywhere who can do the deed honestly.
You weaken your case (when none of us should have a "case" or any agenda at all)
if you choose to neglect the only important issue here ( Notability), in favor of
such expressions of a personal point of view that our guidelines for this very discussion exclude:
"I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful
.
Please let me encourage you to cite genuine evidence of Notability if you can — or perhaps, if you find yourself agreeing that no significant, substantial, independent, secondary, reputable coverage of Jake is out there anywhere, friend, to reverse your recommendation gently to a Regretful and Reluctant Delete — since your argument here, as it stands, may carry no weight in this nomination for deletion, in view of what we find in Notability is Not a Matter of Opinion. Your statement here
  • is not supported by any policies, guidelines or precedents;
  • does not represent a neutral point of view;
  • and seems to suggest you've not had much luck finding any legitimate sources of independent coverage of Jake for your article, which is a clear sign that your charismatic teacher does not meet the notability criterion.
  • Instead of establishing notability, your arguments and your actions upon the Article as well as its Talk page serve to suggest that you may be feeling some frustration at the impossibility of resolving the troublesome issues of Jake as a suitable subject here, while you may have inadvertently been demonstrating the dearth of legitimate coverage, and his consequent inadmissibility in the face of Wikipedia's tests for notability;
  • Some of the properties of your statement are specifically listed as those to avoid in deletion discussions like this one, and it does more harm to your cause than any good.
None of us should feel committed to any cause, as such — don't you think? — except to the integrity of our encyclopedia.
Let me know if I can help you.
— Wordsmith ( talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
____________________________________________
.


I expect that it will just get deleted again-- this is the part that is always deleted by anonymous IP address editors every time it shows up in the article-- but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back into the article the material that has been repeatedly deleted, including the article in Forbes and the circuit court opinion:

  • William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 ( article at Forbes.com)
  • MBH Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)

Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

NOTE: Acccording to the wikipeda history of Geoffrey.landis edits, he regularly vandalizes other peoples wikipedia entries, propogates and participates in edit warring, and has been formaly punished by wikipedia in the past by being banned from making entries for a significant time period. Geoffrey.landis has proven to be an exceptionally arrogant and highly biased individual who thinks he knows everything about every subject, and should be premanetly banned from any making wikipedia entries and/or edits due to his uncivilized anti-social behavior therein. As an example, his election for deletion of other more notable and more widely published successful authors entries in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.184 ( talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. Please adhere to the civility policy, assume good faith and observe wiki etiquette. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your vote of confidence, User: 76.200.153.184. Just as a comment, I notice that 76.200.153.184 has made no edits to any articles other than Jake Bernstein-- and my user page. I'll also note that Thor1964 has made no edits to any articles other than approximately 60 edits to Jake Bernstein. In fact there are a lot of anonymous editors who have done nothing except add promotional material to Jake Bernstein-- 76.247.107.66 and 99.163.50.178 and 76.254.84.164 for example, to pick just three of many. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but the first step after keeping will be for someone unconnected to rewrite the article. Absurd promotionalism is not to be balanced by one-sided reports of adverse litigation, but by a fair treatment of the person. He's notable as an author because of the multiple books by major business publishers. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
See also materials from [5]. Looks like most of this is copied from his many self promotional web sites. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (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 Merge and redirect per previous consensus. I added an entry for Servicelive.com at Sears Holdings Corporation, using a more recent source. This article will then be redirected to preserve the history. If consensus emerges at Talk:Sears Holdings Corporation that this site doesn't merit inclusion, that works too - but it is operated by Sears and should still redirect there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

ServiceLive

AfDs for this article:
ServiceLive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for merge BACK IN MARCH FREAKING 2009 and nobody could be arsed. Use it or lose it. Sources seem too thin to even warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No need to discuss this any further, the old verdict of "merge" still stands. -- Pgallert ( talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (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. Shimeru ( talk) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Red Bar Radio

AfDs for this article:
Red Bar Radio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An "internet radio" show (somebody hasn't checked the definition of radio) previously deleted, recreated, deleted G4, AfD'd and deleted again, undeleted for the user to add citations, AfDd no consensus, and has been languishing with a notability tag since 2008. Creator was Redbarradio ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I wonder if there could possibly be a COI here? Tagged as A7 but given the history I thought it was probably better to bring it here. Guy ( Help!) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable pod cast. Has a dozen or so mentions on non-notable blogs (many in "comments" sections) but is altogether invisible in reliable print or web media. I also saw the various mentions made in Wired and Talkers magazine - and IMO they're not "significant coverage" enough to warrant its own article. (My rule of thumb: the more desperate a COI account is to get their blog, podcast, etc. covered by Wikipedia, the more non-notable it is. YMMV.) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this show is the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources referenced in the article, including Time Out Chicago, the Columbia Chronicle, and Newcity Chicago. The article needs some cleanup and the refs are bare urls but it crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky ( talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems like a local show with citations in the local press. I see nothing making this encyclopedic on the international level.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 3 April 2010 (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. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Candy Manson

AfDs for this article:
Candy Manson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Deleted after initial AFD, survived 2nd AFD based on now-rejected "one-nomination" standard and on subject's claim of upcoming mainstream TV work, which never materialized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment, leaning toward Keep vote I have tagged this article for rescue.
I have also added these three sources to the article. Silver seren C 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and the sources in the article are either unreliable or trivial. She has some reliable coverage here, but its not enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 ( talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per Epbr123 - Fails WP:PORNBIO and no significant coverage to pass GNG. EuroPride ( talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Robert Larsen

Robert Larsen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered also was a head coach at University of Chicago, added several sources." Upon an examination of the links in the article, not a single one of them discuss Larsen in substantive detail, as WP:RS requires, and half of them are simple collections of stats. Beyond that, the creator implies that the University of Chicago is, and was during Larsen's tenure, some big-time athletic school and therefore confers notability on its coaches. This is not the case; Chicago plays in Division III, a full three rungs below major college football and the lowest level of sport the NCAA sanctions at all. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both.  Ravenswing  10:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep I think many programs that have been both DI and DIII have coaches for their entire history considered as notable people here on WP. Since Chicago has such a storied history from the Amos Alonzo Stagg days, I think he is an important component to the complete history of Chicago football.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep clear-cut case of a bad faith nomination. FIRST: The "promptly restored" statement, which would seem to indicate merely a few days. In this case, the restoration took from November 2, 2008 until June 26, 2009, over seven months. SECOND: Nominator supplies a "creator implies" section, stating that the article creator (yes, that's me) implied that the school was a "big-time program" and yet avoides the statement in the article about the "modern era" when the school reinstated football at the Division III level. THIRD: Nominator calls for "prompt" deletion, implying a call for a speedy deletion instead of even having the discussion. Personally, I'm not sure by "promptly" the nominator means "right this minute" or the regular AfD discussion time period or seven months. FOURTH: Nominator states that "The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half" to which I have two responses: a) this is just not true either, as a simple check of the article history can provide, and b) who cares if it hadn't changed a bit in a year and a half, that's not a reason to delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: You're right on the "year and a half;" I meant half a year, and that's about the only accurate statement you make. As far as the absurd notion that I'm calling for a speedy here, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions, and know very well the difference between AfD and speedies, but if you were genuinely curious, you might have considered asking without violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Moving along, of course you implied that Chicago is a big-time program; why else would being a coach there confer automatic notability that being a coach of a far smaller and more obscure school did not, and why would that mere assertion suddenly qualify the subject for an article? Finally, you fail to address the article's failure of the GNG.  Ravenswing  12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Good Faith/Civility Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender where it seems we are having the same discussion. It should likely be here because I beleive that the bad faith violations are more prevelant here--they have sadly become linked. I have made no personal attacks and am simply calling to the Wikipedia community to review what I believe to be lies posted by the nominator, as well as providing evidence to support it for the community to review.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Request/accurate statement You stated that "that's about the only accurate statement you make" in your comment and then accuse me of not being civil. Okay, I can take it. Please take the statments I made that you find not truthful and let's address them point by point.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Big Time School History shows that the article Revision September 23, 2009, (edited by Huangdi) confirms that the program was an NCAA Division III School. While I did not make that edit, I thought it was a good one. It's been in place over six months.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Nominator's experience I'm sure you have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, but I don't see how that is a reason to delete the article. Why would you post such a statement??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Speedy-promptly Okay, you don't mean to speedy delete. Just strike the word "promtly" from your nomination. Until then, the statements are adding undue weight and distracting from the issue at hand--the article being considered for deletion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In order to have proper encyclopedic scope, WikiProject College Football has endeavored to establish articles on the head coaches of the significant college football programs. That does not mean that every coach at every small college should have an article. The question is which programs are truly "significant." While Carroll and Chicago have had significant declines in their programs in recent years (including the years when Larsen was coach), both schools have historically had significant programs. Carroll played big-time football throughout the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and has produced 13 NFL players. Chicago has won two national football championships and seven Big Ten championships, produced several members of the College Football Hall of Fame (e.g., Berwanger, Des Jardien, Eckersall, Herschberger, Maxwell), and is the place where football giant Amos Alonzo Stagg made his name. Admittedly, neither Carroll nor Chicago has had a major football program in many years (even decades). This makes it a tough call on Larsen or other recent coaches at these schools. However, if we conclude that these two programs are significant (as they certainly were in the first half of the 20th Century), WikiProject Football's encyclopedic approach to coverage of such programs supports articles for head coaches of these programs. Accordingly, I lean towards keeping the articles. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (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. Tone 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

David Weigel

David Weigel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BIO. Just because the person has written a lot via newspaper blogs does not make the individual notable. Note that article had already been speedily deleted but was restored. As per the policy on "journalists", his individual work is not 1)regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 2) had a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or 3)either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - Ave Caesar ( talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – Based on the fact that he is considered an expert in his chosen field as the following quotes show: “elite media journalist. ... David Weigel,” per the Washington Post on Oct 31, 2008 and by the Los Angeles Times quoting “David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of ... in the world of professional journalism” on June 11, 2008. In addition, there are quotes from NPR – Time – Dallas Morning News – the Irish Times – Washington Times plus several other reliable – certifiable – third party – independent sources that also attest to this fact, as shown here [6]. Based on this information, Mr. Weigle meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think as a well-known national journalist, he is notable. The above comment by Shoessss supports this thought.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
He is a blogger, not a journalist. That's not to say bloggers can't be notable, but there is no proof of influence. -- Ave Caesar ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Supporting the fact that Mr. Weigel meets the criterion of being a notable journalist is that he has appeared on multiple NPR shows (Weekend Edition, Fresh Air with Terry Gross - twice) and numerous times on the MSNBC evening cable news/political shows. In addition, he is frequently referenced when not on those shows by Wikipedia notables, including: Chris Hayes (Washington, D.C. Editor of The Nation), Ana Marie Cox (Washington Correspondent for GQ Magazine), and Rachel Maddow herself of the Rachel Maddow Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverstone ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: This is the first and only edit made by the above user...Further, the user offers no proof of wide citation.-- Ave Caesar ( talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments of Shoessss and Wolverstone.-- JayJasper ( talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

---

  • Keep per comments above and the fact that Weigel was just snatched up by the Washington Post because of the unparalleled work he's currently doing covering the conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.142.166 ( talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It needs better sourcing, but I don't see why he's not notable. Keep, although that is not an endorsement of his ideas. 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was looking for information on this journalist and I found it here. That is what an encyclopedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.71.241 ( talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable blogger per Wikipedia criteria.-- 98.218.126.193 ( talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:AUTH: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Evidence of this has been supplied by Shoes. Jujutacular  T ·  C 03:47, 13 April 2010 (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.

Good article discussions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Review&oldid=988739679"