Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CHIREV)
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

edit
 

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]] - November 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

edit

Benet Academy

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

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

edit
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;
edit
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

edit
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 conmigo) 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 conmigo) 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. – iridescent 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

edit
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;
edit
edit
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;
edit
edit
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;
edit

Non-article featured content candidates

edit
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;
edit

Good article reassessment

edit
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;
edit

Articles for deletion

edit
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}};
edit


Illinois

edit

Illinois Farm Bureau

edit
Illinois Farm Bureau (edit | 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)

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:

Raffi Indjejikian

edit
Raffi Indjejikian (edit | 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)

Nominating on behalf of IP editors stating that they are the subject. The nomination rationales given are "this article is about me and was published and edited without my consent and I would like it removed", "article about me without my consent, non controversial to delete", & "this page is about me and I am uncomfortable with it being posted. Deletion should be non controversial." [No personal opinion offered at this time.] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Professor Indjejikian has confirmed by e-mail that he requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep. The subject is not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), at least not to my eyes, comparing his publication record to other economists at https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.hindex.html. and seeing no awards/editorships/named professorships. I must have been blind, because the subject clearly holds a named professorship as mentioned below. I don't see any book reviews for Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. either. But I think the deletion should be without predjudice - if the subject is deemed notable in the future, bring the page back. Qflib (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is being the Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Accounting not a named professorship? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Let me look more carefully. Qflib (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes, it definitely counts. I'm so embarrassed. Changing my vote to keep. See https://michiganross.umich.edu/faculty-research/faculty-excellence/named-professorships . Qflib (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There are thousands of named professorships across the country, at every University. A named professorship does not mean they are notable- just that a donor liked their research or teaching. A named professorship is not a reason to determine someone as notable. 2603:6080:A201:34CE:B04D:2FF2:54C4:1C39 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Tate

edit
Christie Tate (edit | 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'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sulentic

edit
Nicholas Sulentic (edit | 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 businessperson, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The attempted notability claim here is that he owned local businesses, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the only footnotes provided are a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a government report and a very short blurb in the nearest bigger-city newspaper to his hometown upon his death, neither of which are substantive enough to get him over GNG. (There was also a stack of primary sources contextlessly listed under the references section without actually being used to footnote anything in the article body, which aren't support for notability and which I've removed on WP:ELNO grounds.)
While this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it also warrants note (because it speaks to how much traffic and maintenance this is getting) that even though he lived and worked and died in Waterloo, Iowa, the article has spent six years incorrectly wikilinking to Waterloo, Ontario instead of Iowa, and the name of his department store ("Pinkerton's") was also incorrectly wikilinked to Pinkerton, Ontario despite that place having nothing to do with Nicholas Sulentic (or either of the Waterloos) either. And furthermore, there was an obvious conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was Tsulentic, indicating a member of the subject's own family.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dustclouds

edit
Dustclouds (edit | 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)

Not notable. No reliable sources found. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 10:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find it on MUBI and one or two user-generated movie websites but that's it; not so much as a single review and no SIGCOV. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per this it looks like this and the accompanying film Sandcastles were both student films. That would explain the general lack of info about the movies. Even with the biggest hitters, student films typically don't gain a ton of coverage. I'll still look, but offhand this looks like it could be covered in the director's article in a few sentences. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean that a redirect is acceptable, maybe, then.Mushy Yank (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It ended up being a quick search. Any mention I found about this was in passing and were typically "Filip Jan Rymsza (Dustclouds, Sandcastles) is directing this new movie". As mentioned above, this is kind of part and parcel for student films. It's extremely rare that a student film will gain coverage, regardless of the notability of the director. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

edit
AfDs for this article:
Adam Kotsko (edit | 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)

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
    FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

edit
List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons (edit | 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)

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
    Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see many P&G-based views here. The WP:TV essay says nothing about notability hinging on the originality of the programming, and adherence to GNG wasn't addressed here even once. We also tend to discard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type votes, exemplified here with the retributive, "Keep or delete other articles". As always, a critical source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reliable sources such as ABC News and Variety Magazine covered MeTV's programming when they launched, so it barely passes WP:NLIST.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just deserve a paragraph or two in the main article giving examples, and mentioning original programming there, rather than listing everything the channel broadcasts on this dedicated list article? --woodensuperman 22:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article provides more details about the kind of programming the channel carries instead of just "cartoons". Such as it doesn't have more adult themed cartoons. However, if this article is kept, it needs to be tagged for cleanup. Right now it looks a bit messy. Msw1002 (talk)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Andruzzi

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit
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

edit
Jake Bernstein (edit | 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

edit
AfDs for this article:
ServiceLive (edit | 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]
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

edit
AfDs for this article:
Red Bar Radio (edit | 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]

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

edit
AfDs for this article:
Candy Manson (edit | 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. SilverserenC 09:15, 6 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

edit
Robert Larsen (edit | 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

edit
David Weigel (edit | 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]

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]

---

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

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