Talk:Oriana Skylar Mastro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. TompaDompa (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Really short, large portions of unsourced/poorly sourced content, and article leaves much to be desired. Sources are largely primary(source 1 is an interview, 13 is a product page for a book, etc) and this page really doesn't show that she's notable. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/11/11/combining-military-service-scholarship/	interview			✘ No
https://www.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1177093/af-reservist-is-leading-scholar-on-chinese-military/	dead link, though based of title alone(she also is in the air force) this probably not independent			✘ No
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2007/07/press-release-chinas-military-escalation-could-destabilize-taiwan-strait?lang=en	stuck loading, dead, though this is a press release of her work			✘ No
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2007/07/assessing-the-threat-the-chinese-military-and-taiwans-security?lang=en	same as above - this is her work			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20191005132659/https://www.aei.org/profile/oriana-skylar-mastro/	literally just her author profile		no content about her	✘ No
https://fsi.stanford.edu/people/oriana-skylar-mastro	she works there			✘ No
https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/china-and-east-asian-security-expert-oriana-skylar-mastro-become-fsi%E2%80%99s-newest-center-fellow	see above			✘ No
https://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/news/center-fellow-oriana-skylar-mastro-named-2022-air-force-individual-reservist-year	she works there			✘ No
https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/congratulations-to-oriana-skylar-mastro/	she also works there			✘ No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-769507-4	it's her book.			✘ No
https://www.ft.com/content/bcc32b19-2eac-434a-af2c-82f58903eead	interview :p		not about her, per sey, she's acting as a pundit here	✘ No
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/7-Boskin_DefenseBudgeting_ch2.pdf	her work			✘ No
https://www.csis.org/analysis/project-atom-2023	also her work			✘ No
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/SiliconTriangle_Chapter5_230828.pdf	still her work			✘ No
https://www.hoover.org/research/silicon-triangle-united-states-taiwan-china-and-global-semiconductor-security				✘ No
https://www.hoover.org/research/silicon-triangle-united-states-taiwan-china-and-global-semiconductor-security	bit confusing, but she's part of the research team			✘ No
https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/the-costs-of-conversation-obstacles-to-peace-talks-in-wartime/	ditto, her work			✘ No
https://www.campion.ox.ac.uk/news/georgetown-visitors	she's a visiting professor			✘ No
https://fsi.stanford.edu/people/arzan-tarapore	this is her hubby			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

comment that the sources that were removed after these edits are also all written by her monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delist, article is so substantially below GA standards for length, tone, scope, and sourcing that I'm amazed it even came remotely close to passing. The bullet list of her works is longer than the rest of the article! It doesn't say anything about her before her professional career, and there's only one line about her personal life at all. As shown above by Monkeysmashingkeyboards, none of the sources in the article are wholly independent of her, several of them are 404, and only a couple are even reliable. Had I seen this at GAN, I would have quick-failed it on length alone.

@Lee Vilenski:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Trainsandotherthings: do any of you support the motion to speedy-delist this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should really be speedy delisting GAs outside of blatent copyvios and housekeeping. However, if the person isn't notable, AfD is the solution. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm cautious about speedy delisting for length, as the community has never found a firm consensus that would help guide that. I agree with Lee that if sourcing is an issue, AfD is the correct forum. I also encouraging tagging the article appropriately for sourcing concerns given the source assessment analysis. CMD (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I added a handful of maintenance tags. Monkeysmashingkeyboards already proved the lack of secondary sourcing, so I added a {{primary sources}}. Also, I added {{missing}} and {{expand section}} to appropriate sections. If the article's short length alone may not be enough for a speedy delist, then I think the other maintenance issues are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

While I agree the issues are egregious, speedy delist is usually only for cut-and-dry cases, as @Lee Vilenski says: copyvios/housekeeping, and other uncontestable issues - perhaps attack pages, if one ever makes it through GAN. This delist is possibly maybe perhaps??? contestable, so I'd suggest just leave it be.

Pinging author and reviewer: @W9793, @Riley1012 monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Lee Vilenski and CMD that we don't need to speedy delist this article. That doesn't mean the issues aren't serious, but those should be addressed through normal editing. If substantial improvements aren't forthcoming, this will close as a delist, of course, but I don't see a reason not to let the reassessment play out. I'm not sure why this was initially passed with sourcing in this state though. I wouldn't pass any article at GAN without secondary sourcing, and it's made significantly worse that we're talking about a BLP without secondary sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: The FAR process has the WP:ROT13 rule, stating that FAs can be speedily delisted if they're deemed to be extremely below the standards. I've considered whether WP:ROT13 should also extend to GARs, but I can also see the argument that GAR is less formalized and therefore less needing of a "speedy delist" equivalent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Unlike at FAC and FAR, the coordinators here aren't god-kings but normal community members who have volunteered to be points of contact when there are questions or disputes in the GAR process. We are a lot less formalized, which makes sense given the lower stakes between GA and FA status. This already has attention of the GAR process, so it will be delisted if not improved sufficiently to meet the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, tl;dr is "we don't have a formalized speedy delete because we really don't have an urgent need for it" monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that this is poorly sourced, notability is not shown, and even if the article were to be kept, it isn't even close to GA standards. The military history project banner shell is incomplete, which may be the reason or a large contributing factor as to why it was never assessed by the military history project bot or a human assessor. I would favor deletion on the basis of non-notability but it should go through the proper deletion process to accomplish this. I am a military history project coordinator and have assessed many military history articles. Given the deficiencies that have already been pointed out, if the article were kept, I would rate it as Start class for the project. I also agree that as a matter of propriety, this GAN should probably run the proper course of time even though I doubt it will be upgraded. It may eventually be deleted. I am not familiar with any guideline with allows the GA rating to be removed without running the full course of time with time given for any editor who can improve the article to come forward to do it. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)