Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Complaints over the WP:POINTY language of the nomination have inhibited participation and productive discussion. While some good faith attempts at policy based arguments were made by TimTempleton and St★lwart111, its unlikely that a clear consensus will develop given the objections over the nomination itself. It would be best to wait a few weeks before re-nominating in order to give conflict time to deescalate. Any future nomination should follow AFD policy and be written with extreme care in language to avoid similar objections and set the groundwork for a productive AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamela Rai Menges
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The consensus from all who gave input in the first nomination process was to have the articlespace deleted, as it does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

In this second nomination, the subject still lacks notability and WP:SIGCOV. Multi7001 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Neutral : *Null and void: per the earliet nom. this has been irregularly raised. No objection to a correctly raised third nomination.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I am choosing to recuse from this highly disrupted AfD where the nom. has left allegations about be at the top of the nom.  I have seen my !vote collapsed and uncollapsed by good faith people but ultimately if not null and voided will inevitably need DRV where peoples may be WP:TROUTEed.  To be clear I have no objection to an immediate 3rd nom. where the immutability of the discussion is respected; and welcome the table suggested by the nom. of a variation thereof to be presented.  This AfD perhaps is useful as a training example for the nom. but little other purpose.  Please also note Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've sort of come out of recuse to call for this to be speedy closed .... see below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. What's going on here? Typically nominators provide a rationale and sign their nomination. Who is the nominator? pburka (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking, as the nomination has been cleaned up by other editors. pburka (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close or Procedural Close: With recommendation to closer to make it clear there is no objection to immediate renomination. (The hope on such a renomination is the nominator (and others) will not keep changing the nomination after it is posted but follow proper discussion ettiquette).  To quote perhaps loosely from the ANI discussion: "The ongoing AfD will not lead to anything worthy, and it has caused and will keep causing people to waste their time. So it's disruptive" & "he first thing to do is to call for speedy close or procedural close from within the AFD".  Three points: I have fingers all over this, I may have bias in making this vote; and I tried to do this over 12 hours ago but failed to hit PUBLISH rather than REVIEW and lost the edit.  I do expect the the non personal attack source analysis etc. to be brought to any re-nominated AfD; the key reason for call to close to prevent peoples waste of time.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not close the AfD. This article has been nominated twice in a short period of time. It's been at AfD almost continuously for the last three weeks. The first AfD closed as "null outcome", which isn't a clear result but certainly wasn't an indication that the article deserved either keeping or deletion. Let's have this discussion here to the end, whether that be "keep", "delete", or "no consensus". I am not expressing a recommendation of my own because I haven't yet started to care either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * as long as that nominating statement is allowed to remain, any delete result is almost guaranteed to be overturned at DRV for the chilling effect it has on good-faith participation. The only result that will ever stick is keep, rendering this AFD completely pointless.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The correct thing to do here was for somebody to redact the obvious personal attack. The AfD otherwise seems to have a valid rationale (whether it is correct or not), so there is not a valid reason to speedy close this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An out-of-process nomination, two hours after another was closed, with a bunch of (the same) technical mistakes, peppered with personal attacks, lunched to make a point... there's five reasons to close this without thinking too hard. Admins must have pins and needles from all of the sitting-on-hands that has been going on lately.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Having !voted in the previous discussion, I am still mulling this one over. The article's main contributor has added a few sources since the last nomination. With the addition of the sources from Cincinnati Public Radio, we are starting to lean towards sufficient notability. Add in the selection as a NASA NIAC fellow, which was already known, she might begin to qualify either under WP:NSCIENTIST or WP:ANYBIO. I'll think it over for a couple more days, although I think if we could find just one more suitable source (secondary, independent, reliable), I'd feel just fine about changing from last time and keeping this one. As a side note, there seems to be an unusual amount of conflict between the article contributor and nominator. The nominator's insinuations in the opening statement are completely inappropriate and discussions between them both throughout the process have been...uncharitable. My own two cents are that, in order to avoid further conflict, both should avoid commenting on this AfD further and let the process simply carry itself out. - Pax  Verbum  05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - As I see it, she just doesn't pass notability test. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - I have avoided actually !voting here because I was of the view that this sort of nonsense shouldn't be entertained, or dignified with a response. To be clear, in addition to the personal attacks and insinuations from the nominator, this nomination was clearly pointy; it was first (incorrectly) nominated for deletion while Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc was open and leaning towards merge and redirect to this this article. The first nomination of this article was procedurally closed and this (equally incorrect) nomination was launched in its place two hours later. It is clearly designed to achieve the delete outcome that the nominator advocated for at that related AFD (in addition for providing a opportunity to publish personal attacks). This whole thing is incredibly poor form. Want an actual discussion about notability or an opportunity to fix any issues the article might have? Follow WP:BEFORE and you'll have plenty.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And just in case that isn't enough... good old fashioned keep per WP:ANYBIO for having made a significant contribution to her field. Until recently we had articles for 3 of her contributions to aeronautical engineering including Star Sailor Energy, Artificial neural membrane, and Aerospace Research Systems, Inc. #3 was merged to her article (as above), #1 was preemptively merged to her article, and #2 remains. But the fact remains she has made those contributions to her field and they have been recognised for their significant by her peers who have subsequently interviewed her and written about her to discuss said contribution.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sourcing isn't there to demonstrate notability. I did a Google search for additional media coverage, including Google Scholar to see if her papers were cited and we could try with WP:NSCIENTIST, as suggested above, but came up empty.  If her companies were notable, they'd be candidates for their own articles, but I can't find decent coverage for them either. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:08, 22 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.