Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges


 * 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 null outcome with no objection to immediate renomination. I have to agree with Djm-leighpark that major changes to the nomination after others have already commented is disruptive to the process. This would likely have ended up at delete in any case, but it may not have done. Inserting a source analysis matrix post-nomination at the top of the page might lead later editors to disregard keep arguments which apparently ignored that analysis. The nominator is entitled to submit a source analysis or make further comments, but these must be placed in the appropriate place (ie at the bottom of the discussion an indented reply) with a new signature and date stamp so that everybody can properly follow the development of the discussion. I also think it is especially egregious that the nominator refused to discuss this issue when requested to do so on their talk page, simply deleting the post with an insulting edit summary. SpinningSpark 17:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamela Rai Menges

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page Sources Analysis by


 * Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. One of the sources is not reliable, the other of University of Cincinnati has a COI with the subject and is not reliable. See deletion discussion of Aerospace Research Systems, Inc., as another articlespace has been nominated for deletion with the same references. Multi7001 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

*Comment: *Speedy keep: There appears to be a case for SK under WP:SKCRIT 2a obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) though perhaps obvious may be disputable. The article was newly created. The nomination is erroneous in claiming another articlespace has been nominated for deletion with the same references ... the difference here being ''Menges, Pamela (17 August 2021). "Dr. Rai Menges on Aliens, UFO/UAP, and Multidimensional Life #127" whereas uses Menges, Pamela (3 September 2019a). "20 years in Space with Female Founder, CEO, and Doctor Rai Menges Part 1".''. I've really only become actively involved when the nom. here may a speedy deletion !vote at the ARSY AfD: and also felt appropriate to raise a concern on their talk page ... dismissed as "Spam"   Following multiple changes to the initial nomination here, finally topped by this at the ARSY AfD, after having pinged me specifically,  concerns were dismissed with the comment: "removed spam from unknown user"  ... it is difficult for  to claim I am an unknown user to them at "22:00, 16 September 2021‎". There are indicators (but not proof) the AfD nomination was prepared in haste and possibly in "red mist" ... This was initially raised at "01:33, 16 September 2021" ... the previous contribution was at "01:28, 16 September 2021" albeit at the ARSY AfD; a mere 5 minutes earlier. The ten minutes it look to keep adjusting the nomination is hardly a consideration of a considered before. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing speedy keep !vote relevant when made at when it was relevant, but now made to look daft by untimestamped alterations above this !vote.  The relist gives this nomination a chance for a baseline fresh start, with the matter disruption to AfD to be dealt with at ANI/DRV at conclusion of the AfD.  Thankyou. 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two references were removed; the first is of an unreliable source and the other has nearly no mention of the subject and is a PR booklet for a convention. The remaining listed do not provide significant coverage from reliable sources, independent of the subject. The University of Cincinnati source is considered self-published due to COI, it is not independent of the subject, but may be used to verify biographical information. Overall, there is no established notability in the sources listed that indicates the subject's significance and fails WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a disruptive removal showing a lack of WP:COMPETENCY so I've reverted it. For people who are trying trying to delete an article there is generally no need to edit it unless there is a specific worry it might be retained.  I am going to take a wikibreak to avoid being uncivil.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Removed one likely spam link that was reverted from my edit; the source is unreliable. More independent, reliable sources are needed to establish it meets WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @: That repeated removal was distruptive per CITEREF and CITESPAM. I've put it back, The CITEREF disruption is not showing COMPETENCY and suggest referring for advice e.g. TEAHOUSE or if you think you are right feel free to take me to ANI on this for a PBLOCK on this article for myself.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind: Wikipedia is a site open for any user to give their opinion. All opinions propagated in these AfD processes should be respected and be free of subjectivity. I assert that your edits/revisions lack objectivity; your behavior is also reminiscent of a user with a COI to the subject of the articlespace. Since I opened this deletion request, please allow the potential spam link to be removed from the articlespace without a revision and let the AfD process progress in a non-biased fashion for a decision if this subject should be deleted or kept. At this point, there is no indication that the subject meets WP:BIO, nor WP:GNG. Let other users decide. Multi7001 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I declare I have no more COI than on any one article I've heavily contributed to in a major fashion, save those mentioned on my user page, and perhaps trains related in general. OK I did briefly and fleeting consider leaving the missus and hopping on a transatlantic to the Bengals land on the off-chance of a possible liasion but felt the Lavant needs me.  There's WP:COIN if you feel that way; if I self reported there on this I'd probably been seen as more super-weird than normal.  I've again reverted as you seem to wish to continue to keeping breaking CITEREF on the article, Broken CITEREF can't happened, a bot might (or might not) revert it anyway, though I think it is dudes who eventually fix it.  While you attempt to seemingly BLUDGEON that and the discussion here, I'd prefer to leave the matter here for other's to look at but if you wish to EDIT WAR the process to look at you're preferred version and to have the last work at this point that is your choice; there may be consequences.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. I've already made multiple revisions and do not intend to continue with this tug-of-war-like revisioning. I've already listed my comment above on the possible conflicts with the subject and why it does not meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and will now let other users decide this AfD process. Multi7001 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Based on the following issues with the listed sources, in the same order that they appear on the page as of this revision:
 * 1) This is basically a blog and, if one reads carefully, likely a glorified interview made to look like an article. Not a reliable secondary source.
 * 2) The subject appears twice in the book, once as a thank you for providing information and once as being the lead on a design project. No in-depth coverage and passing mentions only.
 * 3) Interview, not a reliable secondary source.
 * 4) Again, another interview. Not a reliable secondary source.
 * 5) This is perhaps the strongest source; while it only mentions her on the title of one of the slides, I did a bit of research and this was when she was awarded a Phase I NASA grant (50-75K, according to the grant website). However, it appears that she never went on to Phase II of this program. So it looks like she was on the way somewhere, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. There were no other related news sources connected to this grant, that I could find anyway.
 * 6) This bio page from the University of Cincinnati is also a primary source. Not good for establishing notability.
 * So far, one source only gives passing mentions, one source is a bio page, one is a preliminary grant that perhaps did not lead to further advancement, and the others are not reliable secondary sources. Of course, the fact that the article does not list sufficient appropriate sources does not, in and of itself, mean that it should be deleted. Keeping that in mind, I have tried finding other sources to establish notability, but have come up with nothing. No significant news items, no scholarly articles. She may have undoubtedly done good work, but she simply does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia; there needs to be more reliable, independent, secondary sources. Perhaps this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON? - Pax  Verbum  22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @, in my opinion, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, the subject can't have its own articlespace over a pdf formatted PR booklet with nearly no mention of it. As I've said before, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there needs to be in-depth coverage from 'multiple' reliable sources to establish it needs its own articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: This AfD has been seriously, and I mean very serious, interfered with, and the nomination changed under minor edits. And that is a very, very serious matter as it disrupts the discussion.  The book, (Bently, 2009)   is sufficient for RS - it is to be remmembered this article encompasses both Menges and her companies.  It goes beyond passing mention of the project, it is significant.  The NIAC grant, which makes her a fellow is sufficient for RS.  (Adkins,  is not simply a blog, and her selection for that is important as is the advice, so it is not just glorified.  Then comes onto the matters of the articles that link in here.  Her 1995 report to the AAIA is significant.  All interviews are WP:V for comments made by Menges herself, if attributed to her; her selection for interview however and research behind that can be a matter for RS; good journalists will identify the difference between what they have verified and what is attributed to the interviewee. She has claims her ARSY company was the first private venture space launch vehicle; its a credible claim but not a verifiable claim.  However the flapping wings" are verifiable.  The hocus pocus of the appearance of the out of order table at the start of the article attempting to re-incarnate the diabolical before is another matter.  Of course in the end the onus is on the keeper.  But I've turned to other matters while CIREREF's were being broken.  I guess Menges was unluckly to be a woman in a male dominated profession, she blogged on that of course and that was picked up and re-published by an author.   Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note: The following user: Djm-leighpark, has had WP:COI with various past drafts moved to articlespace, possibly monetary trade. In my opinion, there may potentially be a conflict of interest between Djm-leighpark and the subject of this articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I regard that as a personal attack but you are welcome to your concerns and please raise them WP:COIN or WP:COI; add a uw-coi to my user page or the paid equivalent to my user talk page or add {tl|Undisclosed paid}} to this article as you think fit. Indeed review Paid-contribution disclosure and follow procedure there.  I hope I have been relatively clear to the community of how my disclosures on my userpage have arisen.  Thankyou. 17:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the following bundled article for co-consideration past this point, I expect it to fall if Pamela Rai Menges falls; if Menges remains it should be a redirect, and probably does not need disucssion unless someone objects to that: Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Artificial neural membrane ([ edit] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ protect] &#124; [ delete] &#124; [ links] &#124; [ watch] &#124; [ logs] &#124; [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=&project=en.wikipedia.org views])

The following redirects for history will also fall if this article falls:Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aerospace Research Systems, Inc ([ edit] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ protect] &#124; [ delete] &#124; [ links] &#124; [ watch] &#124; [ logs] &#124; [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=&project=en.wikipedia.org views])
 * Star Sailor Energy ([ edit] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ protect] &#124; [ delete] &#124; [ links] &#124; [ watch] &#124; [ logs] &#124; [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=&project=en.wikipedia.org views])

I contend the previous round of discussions had serious interference to the discussion process and also to the article itself resulting in withdrawal from both discussion and article improvement. However it is ultimately totally reasonable the fate of this article is considered at AfD to see the viewpoint of the community. However I would hope disruptive interference to the discussion and to the article will be dealt with promptly and severely. For the avoidance of doubt I strongly recommend the article Artificial neural membrane is considered at the same time, with that article having a result of redirect if Pamela Rai Menges survives at and delete if it does not. There are two key redirects (with history) that point to Pamela Rai Menges, namely (SSE) (where I have commnets on the talk page) and  (ARSY) ("Overturned to merge from delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc).  From an RS point of view there is little additional directly present in the history of those articles that I can see but there are leads to stuff ... and dead-ends also at a ratio of e.g. 1:10+ ! ).  For the avoidance of doubt I will likely be improving Menges article with WP:V sources and there is little point bringing those here, at some point in the next 168 hours, probably midwayish through it but subject to RL, my intention will be to bring the best sources here, there is no point CITEBOMBing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. We have the (NIAC, 2005) grant, associated to a degree with her 1995 work; The (Bentley, 2009) reference remains good, significant mention of the subject. Menzies has more significance being the owner of company than than the brief mention; the article is a totality of Menzies and her companies.  The AAAS (Adkins, 2019) work cannot be other than a moderated blog therefore RS; and backed by (Thompson, 2019).  The Star Sailor work is fascinating but certainly over egged with limited trials that are difficult to cross verify; though the the SSFE PR claim should be cross verified that would be significant.  The claim Los Alamos award might be notable; except that I haven't been able to find it or cross verify it.  Menges was/is to a degree a master of getting innovation grants, getting patents, trademarking slogans, protecting innovations, claiming partnerships, and egging up future products.  The irregularities with the first section seem to have continued influence here .. which remains an unbalanced.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Per source analysis but there isn't great consensus bop34 • talk • contribs 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.