Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 August	27 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accademia Filarmonica Romana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

for as long as this group as been around, I'm not seeing any sort of coverage of it Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To see "any sort" of coverage about this orchestra we simply need to click on the words "news", "books" and "scholar" above. One example among hundreds is this review of a book about the orchestra. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, I think there are enough news articles about the organization—all easily readable via Google Translate, if in Italian. The Tempi article states that it is "one of the oldest Italian music institutions." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources appear to be there for anyone who can translate them. --Deskford (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments, but would prefer to say that the sources appear to be there for anyone who can read them. No translation is needed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, solid and extensive coverage in the two main Italian newspapers, Corriere della Sera [1] and La Repubblica [2]. A useful overview of the history of this music institution is in the book Teatri di Roma 1980-2008 by Fernando Bevilacqua, Gangemi Editore, pp.45-51. Cavarrone 05:27, 31 August 2016 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Bayou[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only sources are a web page for the group and one for one of the condos. No coverage from independent reliable sources. The author could not find any independent references either but claims notability is established because of its size (4 condo developments with over 1000 residents). There is no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our policy requirements for inclusion. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure yet but just a heads up to some of the usual suspects here at Afd: Google does reveal lots of hits for various things called "long bayou." Care must be taken to be sure that those results are for the subdivision in Florida. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable about this condo or any major events that I can find occurred here. There are thousands of condo associations, unless there is notability they shouldn't be listed. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching turns up plenty of real estate listings, but nothing else. Seems to be a entirely un-notable condo complex. MB 03:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't pass WP:GNG, per above comments. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty much one of those condo pages masquerading as a place. I have seen this happening multiple times and I vote for keep only if a certain importance about the condo can be demonstrated. This case fails WP:GEOFEAT so accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:47, 2 September 2016 (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. Sandstein 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Beck[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable SS captain; significant RS coverage cannot be found in Google books; what comes up is by neo-Nazi author Patrick Agte; Waffen-SS apologist Kurt Meyer and other Waffen-SS admirers, such as Marc Rikmenspoel.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000). This article is part of about 500 similar articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in late 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This award was granted too often for the holders to be notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until consensus has been achieved one way or another about whether or not the KC meets the notability criteria. Deletion of valid KC winner articles for which other sourcing cannot be found is premature until that has happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't believe the above to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion as WP:SOLDIER (which is a project-specific essay) does not trump WP:GNG, which still needs to be demonstrated via significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas & Wegmann's multi-volume series on KC recipients will have a page or two on this chap. Add that to other sources and he will meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Additionally, current sources appear to be listings of individuals who received the Knights Cross during the time period. They appear to be out of print and could not find a scan of them, but unless anyone has greater knowledge, I'm assuming they are obits/short bios of people awarded the Knights Cross. I don't think this meets the criteria of WP:GNG and unless someone can provide more context to the sources, I think deleting is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for context, here's how the source is described in the aforementioned discussion (emphasis mine):

Authors such as Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide a detailed coverage of the military career based on the military records of the German National Archives. This information includes trainings, units assigned to and commands held and date of promotions and other awards presented. In many instances, if this information was not lost, they also state who, for what actions, and who approved the nomination of the KC.

This does not sound like "significant coverage" to me; this is still BLP1E situation and a brief bio, using which would result in a WP:PSEUDO biography.

Separately, I've seen Thomas and Wegmann used in dozens of articles to cite various awards, but I don't recall seeing them cited for biographical data. See, for example: Clemens-Heinrich Graf von Kageneck or Felix Adamowitsch. Collection of materials by Charles Hamilton's Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich does include information on low-ranking soldiers; see for example this edit on the Heinrich Debus article.

So stating that Thomas & Wegmann will have this coverage is an insufficient argument in this discussion, as the source has not been produced and the extent of biographical data is unknown. Similar to TonyBallioni, I do not believe that, even if the Thomas & Wegmann entry was produced, it would be sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. This confirms my opinion above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from the discussion mentioned above - "it’s possible to meet WP:SOLDIER#1 ("Were awarded their nation’s highest award for valour") and yet not meet notability requirements." I agree wholeheartedly with that statement; this soldier does not meet notability requirements. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability guideline. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable captain in the SS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having voted in analogous cases before, I feel the same way about this article here. Merely winning the aforementioned award doesn't inherently convey reasonable notability. It also pains me to see this page referring to the odious Kurt Meyer as some kind of reliable source. Deletion is the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C venues[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Certainly it does not cite any IRS's. It is a hard name to search for, however.

Declaration of potential COI: I am a former director, and very much an active member, of another company managing venues at the Fringe, Paradise Green. However this nomination is made with my Wikipedia hat on.

Wikipedia does not have an article on Paradise venues, and I believe that this is correct. Both C Venues and Paradise Green are mentioned in Edinburgh Festival Fringe, appropriately in my view. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing amounting to substance and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:V, as I cannot find much at all. The language is strictly advertorial, such as:

C venues has a Festival team of around 200 people, and the core management team are engaged across the UK in professional theatre and events whilst the majority of operational staff are students, working on a semi-voluntary, freelance basis. (no citation given).

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and possibly promotional. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:52, 2 September 2016 (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 to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horn of Change[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons or Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, as that was the original target when this article was originally created as a redirect.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (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 to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horned Society[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flanaess, or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per J Milburn.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Greyhawk, this subject is not notable in and of itself. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2016 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CapTech[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see the history which has consisted of nothing but the company's own PR and the company itself apparently actually removed my own PROD in March. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. Significant RS coverage cannot be found, while COI / SPA editing is a concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Captech (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Content has been updated to remove PR and marketing material. All content supported by valid external resources.[reply]

This is still not convincing or substantial enough; the article is altogether questionable and simply making some changes is not taking away the concerns as a whole. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several valid reliable sources but the tone of the entire article right now is like a press release. Blow it up and start over -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:52, 2 September 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Drum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This cheese is only made by one company (which is the only link on the article) and a quick check on google reveals it is not notable as it has coverage only from the businesses it supplies. ツStacey (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As a single producer cheese which hasn't been made for a few years, this is not an important article. However some rudimentary web searching shows that the online cheese press (yes, it turns out that's a thing) discussed it and reviewed it substantially enough to meet our WP:N standards. We judge notability on the basis of attention paid, not the inherent significance of it. This is one of the somewhat surprising cases that result. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley can you please add that as a reference to the article. If this article is going to be kept I hope we can improve it to have more information and references. Thanks for your research - I would have probably looked over the cheese press websites thinking they were a joke! ツStacey (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This award winning cheese,[[3]] one of the most expensive in America[[4]] and favourite of Mark Hix[[5]], probably deserves an article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two of Ykraps' cites to the article and changed it to read in the past tense, since the cheese is no longer made by it principal producer, Denhay, which continues to make other cheeses and bacon. Interesting note in one reference (The Cheeseboard, which I suppose is part of Andy Dingley's "cheese press"), that there is an export cheese being sold under the Dorset Drum name, but it is reportedly not the same cheese. That might explain why a cheese of that name seems to be available through igourmet.com, Ykrap's 3rd citation. I didn't add that reference as it seems to be an online retailer and not a reliable source. Since notability is not temporary, the fact that the producer ceased making the cheese and that the stocks of maturing cheese were nearing exhaustion in 2013 is not determinate for purposes of this debate. There is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per above, also seems to have coverage in independent books. It may also be a good idea to just merge this into a "List of cheeses" or something of the sort.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from Here[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure band that has not made any significant contribution to the indie music scene. The article's lack of sourcing affirms its lack of notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick Number (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2016 (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 redirect to Perfectionism (psychology). (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atelophobia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Med lit, as usual, draws a blank on this supposed phobia. Book hits are made a bit more interesting by several books using this as a title. But in the end there's nothing here but a WP:DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perfectionism (psychology), maybe? They seem to be about the same topic, but perfectionism is the more developed article. Altamel (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, no merge; just dicdef . Staszek Lem (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owu Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not have reliable source according to WP:RELIABLE Jamzy4 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed by the nomination process? Those links are there for a reason. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - topic beats WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND as it stretches to Kwara, Osun and Ogun States per The Nation. Reputable people including Ibikunle Amosun, Samuel Adegboyega and Olusegun Obasanjo per City People Magazine. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Jamzy4: make researches first per WP:GD before listing articles for AfD. This already looks like another failed consecutive AfD nomination. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, needs sources on the page, and fast. But this is definitely meets GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Owu Kingdom is clearly notable, based on all the books which include extensive information about it. Article needs a huge amount of improvement but that is not a valid reason for deletion. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjini Das[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR for someone whose career comes with PR, searches are not substantial nor is the information (Forbes Under 30 Summit Leader is basically a PR position, no notability comes it) and my own searches are not finding better than PR and mentions. The PROD was removed simply with the this basis "other sources available".... SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual is not notable and information is PR, not substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golems24 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is puffery - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. This is a weakly sourced vanity page. The subject is not notable as sufficient RS coverage is not available. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual isn't notable, and the article reads like their resume.Bhupsyclopedia (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2016 (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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tirso del Junco[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion was contested by its subject, previous rationale was "WP:TNT. Yes, this article contains indications of notability. However, the article is so unencyclopedically written that it just reads like a list of appointments, most of which are trivial (owing, admittedly, to it being legally copied from a public domain source). I say we blow this up and start again." Laun chba ller 19:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep since the article mentions he was part of the 1948 Olympic team. Now, the only thing is that we need a source, but I have asked the author about this as we speak. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SwisterTwister (I never thought I'd get to say those words). The source in the article confirms the Olympic participation, and plenty more evidence of notability is found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination statement. If the nominator wants to blow this up and start again then he can do so without us having to delete the article first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I agree that the current wall of text is nearly unreadable and resume-like. On the other hand, Dr. del Junco has been a well-known figure in Republican politics for decades, among other things the 2 time chair of the California GOP, in which role he was in the news often, as one may see by searching his name at, for example, latimes.com or sfgate.com. He was controversial enough at one point that, in an unprecedented action, the majority-Democratic state senate voted him out of his spot as chair of the state Board of Regents. [6][7] (And his Olympics appearance is notability gravy.) I suggest creating a lead that clearly states his notability as a political figure, and then the rest can be winnowed down in a more readable text (including a more concise summary of his extensive and admirable but perhaps not Wiki-notable medical credentials). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is 100% clear that Junco is a significant historic figure. One of the books on google books seems to suggest he may have had important imput on Reagan's Cuban policy. His two terms as chair of the California Republic Party, his being a key voice for Prop 209, his 12 years on the University of California board of Regents, including 14 months as board chair, there make him notable. If you look through google books you will see mentions of his time with the US postal office. He is clearly notable for his roles in California. I have tried to improve the readability of the article, but admit that it has a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notability obvious from available sources, such as Cubans, an Epic Journey. Would probably be considered a notable politician. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, passes GNG but not by that much. Does have some independent coverage; does need re-writing/ce work. Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meika Hollender[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E. All press coverage is to the safe-sex product. Brianga (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - page needs an incredible amount of work, but the coverage does in fact seem to focus on her as much as the company. For example, this Fast Company article refers to her directly in its title: These 10 Powerhouse Women Want You To Talk About Sex, and and also focuses on her predominantly. Yvarta (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You have done a good job. I would just like to mention that the person who created the article works for the company run by Hollander and has ignored my warning about conflict of interest.Deb (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the most positive outcome, if the COI editor has ceased actively editing the article, perhaps we can coerce them to the talk page, so any edit requests they have in the future you could screen for bias before it's added. I can work today on cleaning it more. Yvarta (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable businessperson. Quis separabit? 18:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this still only emulates an article existing for only PR, none of it comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted to invite more analysis of the sources. The only source analysis so far has come from the "keep" side, while the "delete"s are almost all bare assertions of non-notability. Sandstein 19:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If analysis is needed, tI will then mention that the sources themselves are all essentially PR (being a notable news source alone is not a claim of notability) and then also consist of interviews, which essentially in turn become PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is a vanity page on a non-notable businessperson. The coverage in Fas Company is the most interesting, but even it is based on the subject's promotional activities. The rest of the coverage is trivial or PR like. This is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable business person. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:16, 2 September 2016 (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. Sandstein 07:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Truth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Unsuccessful, and much of the info is week-by-week results and moves. Only notablilty are the two separate subjects in the tag team. Sekyaw (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Pinguinn 🐧 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable. Never even won a championship.*Treker (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Prefall 09:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one for the tag team purge, this one is also WP:TOOSOON and fails the WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all arguments made. MPJ-DK 21:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a wrestler or a team does not actually have to win a championship to be considered notable. That's only one possible way to achieve notability. The team has received a consistent amount of ongoing coverage for most of the year, definitely a notable team. Ranze (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article might leave great room for improvement, this team was the subject of a WWE storyline (the formation) that lasted for months and appeared on various shows, including pay-per-views. That many were bothered by the storyline and the resulting team basically amounts to a comedy act and hasn't and probably will not win any championships is beside the point. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977: Kingston and Truth were a more notable tag team the Golden Truth, holding the tag team titles about 140 days. Kingston and Truth were involved in various feuds, defending their titles, recovering ongoing coverage. But, Kingston and Truth don't have an article. Golden Truth on the other hand are simply not notable. Never won a title and rarely finds success. The team is very much comparable to The Social Outcasts. Sekyaw (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That such an article doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't exist nor that this article shouldn't exisr. The existence of a team name, while not deciding in of itself, also gives the duo a more team-like feeling. Social Otcasts were not a team but a stable and again: the pros and cons of that case dp not determine this case. See WP:OTHER. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Week-by-week updates are NOT "ongoing coverage" (WP:NOTNEWS). Breezango (now deleted) was in the exact same storyline that solidifed the two respective teams. Both are common; they rely on week-by-week updates, moves and themes, and are WP:TOOSOON and fail WP:GNG. In the words of Matt Hardy, this should be deleted. Sekyaw (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - Non-notable. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:16, 2 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tuttle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable teacher and writer. Was not able to find any notable, RS about her. Natg 19 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her books are on amazon.com, but I don't see any reviews of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/DebraDavisHinkle. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My sweeps did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2016 (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 no consensus. Note that after closing I'm going to move this to Endeavour College of Natural Health as it seems to be operating under this name now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian College of Natural Medicine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this has any notability. It has been around for some years yet has failed to find a single independent reference. Fails WP:GNG. It doesn't even have a congruent title and content. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no independent sources and it is not even clear what it is about. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quite straightforward actually, it was originally called The Australian College of Natural Medicine and is now called The Endeavour College of Natural Health, it has a cricos no. so provides courses to overseas students, look up the no. on the oz govt website and voila - [8], shows campuses, courses offered and so on. ps. as a tertiary institution this will most probably be kept (see college and uni notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A private higher education provider is not a university, nor a college. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a private higher education provider (i don't see any exclusions for that) that offers certiv, 1 year diplomas, 2 yeard advanced diploma, and 3 and 4 year bachelor degrees - [9]. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google news for "Endeavour College of Natural Health" and "Australian College of Natural Medicine" produces only a handful of detailed stories on this institution, so WP:ORG isn't met. This "college" is one of many small scale private sector higher education providers in Australia, and is in no way comparable to a university. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't have to be a uni, have a look at College (which is included in the "notability" blurb i referred to above} - (from the lead) "College (Latin: collegium) is an educational institution or a constituent part of one. A college may be a degree-awarding tertiary educational institution, a part of a collegiate university, or an institution offering vocational education." and from the oz subsection - "In Australia a college may be an institution of tertiary education that is smaller than a university, run independently or as part of a university.". i just mentioned that tertiary institutions (which is what this is) are mostly kept. i do, however, acknowledge that a gsearch doesn't bring up much at all. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep but rename Endeavour College of Natural Health. As an accredited degree awarding institution per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm not the biggest fan of this criteria but it's what we have. LibStar (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're allowed to disagree with a consensus if you're not a fan of it, LibStar. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Soukoulis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently "reviewed" by a new user with no other contributions and they then removed my PROD with the basis that his career is sufficient for notability; but none of it, including after examinations shows convincing for his independent notability. Searches are not finding better than a few simply mentions. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the sources actually about Soukoulis, and too many sources about Western Bancorp, his own thing, are primary - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. This is a weakly sourced vanity page with no indication of the subject's notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear vanity page, agree with the above editors on all their well-made points CrispyGlover (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:PROMO. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:20, 2 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Life Without Doris episodes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of episodes of a non-notable web comic on YouTube. No type of notability is established or present RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if parent article is also deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Without Doris, as there is no basis for keeping this article independently of that parent. If parent article is kept, then redirect to Life Without Doris#Episodes; all of this information is already contained there. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. I'm not able to find any sources or reviews, except for the series itself. This is also an indiscriminate list since the information is already included in the other article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (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. The keep !votes (aside from being SPAs) are not giving rationales as to why the article should be kept that are in line with policies or guidelines. The delete !vote on the basis of lack of notability (PROMO concerns are a bit vaguely stated) carries the day here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life Without Doris[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have also nominated the list of episodes for the same reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete since the notability has been established. The series was created by Richie Verdi. Pizza890 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Pizza890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I also say don't delete. The creator is confirmed. Luigiman789 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Luigiman789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Luigiman789, so you created an account just to !vote here? There is no article for the creator either. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. I'm not able to find any sources or reviews, except for the series itself. Richie Verdi does not have an article, so I'm not sure how him being the creator affects the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:PROMO -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:19, 2 September 2016 (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 Deleted as G4; almost identical to the version deleted at AFD in 2011. — Diannaa (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aviv[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restarted after being deleted in 2011 but this imaginably is not going to be G4 material, my searches and examinations are not finding anything actually convincing considering he's not notable for WP: AUTHOR (no significant listings at WorldCat) and then not convincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this through the academics deletion sorting page but he's primarily an industry consultant, not an academic, and I don't think he passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The more appropriate notability standard is WP:GNG, but that requires multiple in-depth independent sources about the subject rather than publications by the subject or stories that briefly quote him as an expert. The only one we have about that is the reputation-communications interview from the external links, but that looks highly promotional, unsuitable as a reference, and in any case it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Speedy delete G4. I stand by my comment above but this is very similar to the previous deleted page. If I had discovered this before formulating an opinion in the AfD I would have gone ahead and done the speedy myself, but as it is I'm tagging the page {{db-g4}} and letting someone else do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hui martial arts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is misleading. The name suggests that there'd be a thing called "Hui martial arts" - just like there are Chinese martial arts - but in reality, there isn't. Instead, the article is a largely unreferenced mishmash of various Chinese martial arts with a few famous Hui practitioners. For example, the following sentence (with probably the only references in the article) goes: "Famous Hui practitioners of Piguaquan today include Ma Xianda", then followed by 16 references. We sure could try renaming the article "Chinese martial arts with some famous Hui practitioners", but I don't think that would be wise.

The article was created at 26 October, 2006. Ever since February 2007 the article has been tagged with a {{Refimprove}} template, and since June 2011 with a {{Synthesis}} template. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are about individual martial artists. I don't see any significant coverage on the actual topic of the article. Astudent0 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator, "Hui marital arts" do not exist and not covered in any RS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:23, 2 September 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man 2 (toy line)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a list of toys without anything to establish notability for the toy line itself. TTN (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Looking at Template:Superhero toy lines just makes one wonder how much fan-cruft like this we need to prune. This kind of stuff belongs on a toy wikia or such, but WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I can totally see how such a list would be useful to somebody, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not what Wikipedia is about. Again, I hope we can find a wikia somewhere where such articles could be moved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fluff advertising.--YHoshua (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basing my comment on not paper; this is the sort of article that expands our coverage of areas better than a paper encyclopedia would. It should be thought of as appended to Marvel Toys. It's quite a tidy, informative article, certainly not subject to the excesses of some. Hiding T 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there an accepted guideline for what makes a toyline notable? I browsed Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys some, but all I found was Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games), a failed proposal that focused on specific, individual toys. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing coming close to suggest this can ever be an informatively substantial article by itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pink lightning (storm)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete bunk. No sources after 2 years, and no sources exist, because it's complete bunk. Additional side note: created by user with only one edit. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC

Delete I so wanted this to be true, it looks awesome! I can find no citations in the usual places. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting topic. 1. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid citation for the supposed phenomenon though. Even that article says the pinkness was "caused by neon lights". We need meteorological or scientific papers to support this, obviously. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RSes I could find either - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NOTE: I've recently trimmed a lot of the obvious baloney from the article under consdieration here. I can't say that I've ever heard of this particular topic before, and I've been a meteorologist for over 20 years now. Colors in the sky that we see with the human eye tend to be either optical illusions or a construct of the way our eyes have evolved over many millions of years. Guy1890 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Higher chance of causing wildfires" my aunt... (and the random, unsourced, misreported lightning strike stats don't do anything for the article either). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charades (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM, completely unreferenced. Has been about this bad since its creation in 2009. GWeb shows directory sites, GNews shows literally one hit on "charades" "eckelberry" and one relevant hit on "first degree" "eckelberry". David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film was not a success but it had a notable cast and did receive some attention and coverage. Note that it was released under several different names, which complicates the searching. I've added 4 reviews. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- nice one! I was wondering at the lack of sourcing on a film with so many actually notable names ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it meets the standards set in WP:NFILM, but maybe just barely. Nice work by Arxiloxos. I did not find all of reviews myself, amazed at your websearching prowess. IllinoisPolska (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. Notable cast, and it meets the necessary standards. I started the article a long time ago, but somehow it got lost in the shuffle of improvements. Thanks to Arxiloxos! Thief12 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (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 Speedy Deleted (G11) by Maile66. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourseven[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an A7/G11 advert by a COI author. The source material seems focussed on the startup's fundraising rather than any notability to the business itself. Lacks notability. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability. As noted above, coverage seems to focus on initial funding, not detailing the company. Meatsgains (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - puffed-up but not actually WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this was in fact speedied before, I would have tagged sooner myself but was not interested to have it removed. None of this comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and WP:A7. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Deleted previously. Author has COI. David.moreno72 16:24, 27 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmyshow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Created as part of an apparent promotional cluster. Creators have improved the article from its previous dismal state, but, even given the RS mentions present, very little evidence of notability that passes WP:CORP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Hemrajani from the same cluster - creator keeps removing tags and tried removing that AFD. David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable website. Promotional content should be removed. 1. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so notable subject with bad article? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this is actually entirely PR with not only the information focusing with what only clients and investors would want to know, but the sources are symmetrical with PR also; none of it is amounting to both substance and non-PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is entirely advertorial where it hints at G11, as my analysis shows above; none of this comes to substance or how any supposed "improvements" would be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure if this is DEL4 territory, but it's not far removed. Between the poor promotional-esque prose (DEL4), the subject's debatable notability (DEL8), ~~and, to a lesser extent, the sockpuppetry,~~ I believe deletion would be consistent with policy. Rebb ing 01:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've amended the rationale for my vote as it's not clear the sockpuppetry is connected with the article—something I ought to have verified before mentioning it. Rebb ing 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of the COI walled garden. The subject is not notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross.tv[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability under WP:CORP. No good references - all primary, press releases or nonnotable. The article has never been any better than this since creation. Was killed at AFD once already in 2009. David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any better sources than what's in the article either. shoy (reactions) 12:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this A7 material. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and unreliably sourced. My searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2016 (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 Deleted after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caternow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of WP:RS. All listed sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 12:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffery - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, looks like the company is trying to gain some notability by having a Wikipedia page. VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The company is a new company, how many other sources do you expect it to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoroe (talk • contribs)
Delete (possibly CSD A7): A page on a new firm with no evidence or claim of notability. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2016 (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. Sandstein 12:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sobha City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure advertising. Previous afd was no consensus because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NGEO AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Thrissur. If you look at the references, you will see that it really isn't a "township" or "city" as the term is usually used but is rather a non-notable business park / real estate development in the city of Thrissur. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no need to redirect. This is no city - this is a real estate development. Accordingly WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply here. What should apply is WP:GEOFEAT and I don't see this article coming close to passing it. Is is also very clear that the page is being used as an advertisement by the developer's group, so WP:NOTPROMO applies as well. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; article exists to promote a subdivision, per the article text and sources listed, with copy such as:

"Sobha Lifestyle contains 40 Super Luxury Villas in 4.582 acres with sylvan landscaping. It has 4BHK and 3BHK villas." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2016 (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 to Elf deities. MBisanz ^talk 18:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenmarel Mestarine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character fails to establish notability. Being included on a generic "Top X" list doesn't really help. TTN (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Kotaku link helps, or merge to Elf deities. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Kotaku link helps provide some evidence of notability for D&D deities more broadly, but it is not enough, alone, to demonstrate that this particular deity is notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ as I think the Kotaku link is sufficient; failing that, merge and redirect to Elf deities.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - has one indep source but will be hard to find another I think so elf deities a feasible parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge to Elf deities, is mostly a WP:NOTPLOT problem. Sandstein 07:14, 3 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar J. Doctor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was speedy deleted on 24 August (G11/G12) and has now been recreated copy-pasting part of or closely paraphrasing http://ascrs2014.abstractsnet.com/acover.wcs?entryid=100158 The prizes subject have received do not appear to count towards WP:ANYBIO, and searches on Kumar J. Doctor suggest that subject does not meet neither WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:BASIC. — Sam Sailor 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt not notable and subject to promotional pressure to boot. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "bio spam" & due to insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. Salt too. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current sources for this bio are webpages including: the medical institution where he works, a medical society where he is an office-bearer, some conference posters and materials, and a link to a book (with multiple editors) where he has contributed. There is not sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2016 (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 redirect to Miss Nebraska USA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hollins[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hollins is not notable. She was Miss Nebraska USA, which is not at all a sign of notability. Her reality telvision apparence is equally no where near the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator; my sweeps didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA: The page for Hollins was just randomly created one day and despite knowing it didn't belong here I didn't do anything about it. While some titleholders 100% are notable, Hollins is definitely not. She received little to no promotion prior to the pageant and also did not place. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's nothing to suggest the needed substance for her own article thus delete is suggested because of this. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; not independently notable. Redirect is not needed IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there, in part as the 2016 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 1 September 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video 125[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. Promo The Banner talk 15:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable production company for stand alone article; a passing interest or local interest at best. Kierzek (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable company. There is only one source which is their own website "About us". Fuortu (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS found. Cabayi (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find any sources except their website and stores offering their videos for sale. Need at least one write-up in a small paper, or something. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find any third party sources. Sorry but this is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2016 (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 redirect to Miss Michigan USA. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Leica[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If Leica's being Miss Michigan USA was even marginally notable we would have an article from the Detroit News or Detroit Free Press on her, not that such an article would neccesarily demonstrate notability. However the total lack of such articles shows that she is totally and completely unnotable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

different medium same deal. I think you need to bring your googling ability up to your snark ability. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Still fails under the most recent precedent but at least pretend to try before you make outlandish claims. PageantUpdater (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable state level winner. All coverage relates to BIO1E and is considered routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I contest that BIO1E applies. "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". I contest that being a state titleholder and competing at Miss USA is not "not significant' as per the third condition. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Michigan USA: Non-notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Michigan USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2016 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 1 September 2016 (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 redirect to Miss Alabama USA. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brown is not notable. She is Miss Georgia USA, but this is not enough to pass notability. In the previous discussion it was claimed 5 of the articles were not related to her beauty pageant crown. Looking at the articles, it seems all are. This is at best passing, one event notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on a non-notable individual. State level pageant win is a WP:BIO1E and does not add to subject's notability. Coverage is trivial, WP:ROUTINE or local. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama USA: Non-notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state titleholder twice, has received media coverage, meets WP:GNG PageantUpdater (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also interested in why you think the outcome here should be any different than in December at the first nomination? I don't see anything that has changed since then and notability is not temporary PageantUpdater (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason we should not follow the December 2015 precedent was actually explained in the nomination. I have no idea why I put Georgia when I knew this was Alabama. I knew one of the papers was from Huntsville, which I know is in Alabama. However the fact is that they were articles related to the pageant. For state pageant winners we should require sources that cover the person without any regard to their winning a state pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why should we require that? Is this something you've made up to fit your point of view or can you point towards something? Because plenty of editors seem to disagree with you. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Alabama USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state winner of a beauty pageant, all mentions of her online are in reference to the state-level win; not notable as she didn't win Miss USA and has no other claim to notability besides the Miss Georgia title. CrispyGlover (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply did you read the article or just the incorrect nomination? Because she wasn't/isn't Miss Georgia. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama USA, there is no source of notability aside from winning state-level beauty pageants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Alabama USA. State pageant win not enough to establish notability. MB 22:44, 6 September 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Donaldson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Donaldson is a former Miss Florida USA, but this on its own is not enough to make her notable. Donaldson's career in journalism is just not at a level to make her notable. The article is a horrible example of coatracking, which is one reason to avoid articles on unnotable people. Half the article goes into allegations against her non-notable then boyfriend. It is possibly a violation of biography of living people guidelines, since such guidelines apply to defamatory material against non-subjects as well as subjects. Wikipedia's purpose is not to right great wrongs, which means that Wikipedia articles are not the place to carry out diatribes against those accused of domestic abuse. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her "career in journalism" gets coverage from the Washington Post.[15] She's worked for national networks, multiple ones, and in major stations of major television markets. That is prime notability. And she was Miss Florida USA. Whether or not the latter would have sufficed, the former certainly does. --GRuban (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GRuban PageantUpdater (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You had me at Washington Post. p b p 03:19, 1 September 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smoke Burger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreliable sources for notability � DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AFD was closed as Keep in March 2015, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger. I added the references discussed in that previous AFD to the current article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as consensus can change and as it is that 1st AfD was questionable along with with questionable voters; I am still not seeing enough for an actual substance to emphasize a better formed article. SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable international food chain, as seen by such articles as this. and this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (see below) I definitely agree with SwisterTwister's comments, as March 2015 was quite awhile back. Also, @Shawn in Montreal:, please keep in mind that MANY restaurant chains are not really notable. Please see WP:NOTABILITY for these guidelines. The article seems to have way too many primary sources such as this for there to be any sort of notability for the inclusion of the encyclopedia, at least from what I'm seeing... Regards— MeowMoon (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I daresay know our notability guidelines a darn sight better than you. this and this, to name but two, are from Canada's two largest circulation newspapers, the national Globe and Mail and Toronto's broadsheet Toronto Star. You understand? And secondly, you've just added this Afd a second time to the Food and drink and companies delsort. I don't give a WP:FUCK what happens, but this ridiculous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Sorry. I didn't mean to use delsort a second time (another user had apparently already done it). I just added the script and am very new with it, my bad. But being uncivil is not needed here. Going back to what I said earlier, I was mainly concerned with the sources that the article provided, not with the ones that were or were not notable. After some research though, I did come up with a number of different sources that I did not see in the article when I initially posted my first comment above, so there is probably a good amount of merit to the notability of the article... On a different note though, I would like to get DGG's opinion on the matter since they initially nominated the article for deletion. I'm not sure what they saw (or didn't see, rather...) in the article that would classify as having "unreliable sources for notability" (or which sources were unreliable for notability). I have changed my vote to neutral for now, in pending DGG's response. MeowMoon (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. If I want to respond I will. As for "DGG's response," he's a regular fixture at Afd and I don't think I've ever seen modify his position, no matter how untenable or removed from policy. So I wouldn't hold my breath for that. You are going to have to make your own mind up and again -- I don't really care. Please stop pinging me. Thanks very much. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

advertorials at best, even if published in major newspapers, DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See? Utter and complete nonsense. They are major bylined stories on a Canadian corporation in the business section, which is exactly where one would expect to find it. Also, words like "advertorial" have a meaning beyond what you concoct for them. In the case of the G&M, they have controversially proposed to start doing bona fide "advertorial" articles, as described in this 2014 Marketing piece. But as you would expect, for a national paper of record such as the G&M, such items are clearly branded "sponsored content," which is not the case of course for Maryam Siddiqi's 2014 G&M piece. As for the Star, they offer a list of sponsored advertorial content, which does not seem to include their coverage of corporate Canada in their business section, unsurprisingly. I offer this detailed rebuttal to your weak "advertorial" hand wave not so much in the hopes that you will retract it or change your mind, but that apparently at least one other editor seems to be deferring to you for some reason. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) [Strike delete, please see below] Original comment: TOOSOON. The coverage I'm seeing is mostly local about restaurants openings and the like. The articles on the chain overall lack COPRDEPTH. It may become notable in the future and then a sufficiently sourced article could be created. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources (with the exception of the QSR Magazine and The Canadian Business Journal sources, which are still reliable and independent). These sources are not advertorials; I find it very difficult to believe that these media companies were paid by Big Smoke Burger to publish these articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Financial Post
The Globe and Mail
Toronto Star
The Canadian Business Journal
Manhattan Digest
New York
Village Voice
Gulf News
QSR Magazine

Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Source #1 - Financial Post - How a Canadian burger outlet made its way to the Middle East

Source #2 - The Village Voice - Big Smoke Burger Brings Poutine, Canadian Style Burgers to NYC

Source #3 - New York (magazine) - Toronto’s Big Smoke Burger Opening Manhattan Flagship This Year

Source #4 - Gulf News (Dubai) - Gourmet burger for your palate

This !vote was decided based on the General notability guideline. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- out of the sources above, "How a Canadian burger outlet made its way to the Middle East" is the most convincing. Village Voice is a free weekly, while Gulf News Express is a routine restaurant review. But on the balance of sources presented I'm changing my vote to a week keep. I hope the article improves in the future, if kept -- it's rather barebones. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2016 (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 redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. Redirecting as a valid search term Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaci Stofferahn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stofferahn has multiple points, but none of them pass notability guidelines, and none of the coverage of her does either. She was Miss Dakota USA, but as is becoming clear from the discussion at the RFC on creation of consensus standard that alone is not enough to be notable, and may lead to a proactive assumption of non-notable unless another point is brought up. That is to say, we may not be willing to keep any article on a state beauty pageant winner unless we have coverage in reliable secondary third party sources that cover them without regard to being a beauty pageant winner. Beyond this, Stofferahn is the child of a former member of the North Dakota State legislature. I created an article on her clearly passing inclusion guidelines father, but that has no bearing on her notability. She worked as an intern for a US senator. That is not enough to make one notable. She was a candidate for the state legislature. It is not clear from the article if she even won the primary, but it is clear she was not elected. Unelected candidates at this level are not notable. So in total, Stofferahn is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on a non-notable individual. State level pageant win is a WP:BIO1E and does not add to subject's notability. Not notable under Politics as the subject did not win the election. Coverage is trivial, WP:ROUTINE or local. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2016 (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. Seems like notability is established here, although the article needs some cleaning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loefah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

spammy tone, dubious notability Jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loefah's notability:Here is some evidence of Loefah's notability. ^[1]

^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalexlb (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, based on sources in the article and Factmag bothering with an interview - the article is crappy, but he appears to have historical importance to the genre - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a guardian article and a journal I have now added into the sources. ^[7] Jalexlb (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC) ^[8][reply]

Keep sufficient notability and sources. --Fixuture (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.clashmusic.com/features/pleasure-principle-loefah
^ https://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/loefah
^ http://www.factmag.com/2012/04/20/loefah-on-the-enduring-appeal-of-vinyl-record-shopping-in-london-and-becoming-a-grumpy-old-man/
^ http://www.fatkidonfire.com/mixtapes/30-minutes-loefah/
^ http://www.magneticmag.com/2012/03/loefah-on-the-slow-and-gradual-disintegration-of-dubsteps-artistic-integrity/
^ http://blackdownsoundboy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/kryptic-minds-and-loefah.html
^ https://www.theguardian.com/music/2007/jul/29/urban
^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yC1oCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=loefah+paul+jasen&ots=9toFGRMp-l&sig=ThnEokACLFSQYzb240pXP-ce-b0#v=onepage&q=loefah%20paul%20jasen&f=false

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Ji-soo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not convinced of this person's notabilty, no notable accomplishments such as winning OnGameNet StarLeague. Most korean language searches bring up the more notable singer--Prisencolin (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources in the article. [16] is really a strong source that happens to be in English. Searches for ToSsGirL brings up quite a bit, mostly in Korean. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw seems to be some sources I overlooked.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2016 (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 Speedy deleted as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the universe by argel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ESSAY Savonneux (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Savonneux. This is not an encyclopedia article but more like a "C" grade homework assignment. It's someone's opinion rather than a neutral summary of reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Part CV of http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/ part CV of http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html Page creator even provides the links to where he got it. Tagged with G12 now. FYI (Savonneux—Cullen328) — Sam Sailor 08:07, 26 August 2016 (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 speedily deleted.If the creator wants this information sent to them, they are free to contact me. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LPS Grade 6 Maths Game[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As worded by Smjg: This looks like just some random competition in a random school, not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

userfy Either useful work outside of Wikipedia or sandbox work so deletion is probably suboptimal. But yeah, this doesn't belong in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)ii[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 as an article about an organized event that provides no indication of its significance. So tagged. Note also the corresponding discussion of Template:LPS Grade 6 Maths Game Groups at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 23. Do not userfy; Wikipedia is not a web host and this content is not about building an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but at least let them know we can mail it to them. Odds are good this is a kid learning how to do Wikipedia mark up. No reason to drive them off. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I agree it's speedy eligible, though I think that's unwise without the mail offer. Hobit (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 redirect to Miss Wyoming USA. Consensus is clearly in favour of redirecting or deleting, so going with the first as arguments have been provided that the article title is a valid search term. This close might be revisited though when notability guidelines for this topic have been hammered out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Norman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her one claim to notability is being Miss Wyoming USA, but that is not enough on its own to make someone notable. Recent discussions have resulted in the deletion of several articles on state Miss USA winners. Her other claim to notability, being on a group of 8 students given authority to invest $1 for Wyoming, is not even anywhere near considering as a mark of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of 8 students to invest $1? Wow, that's some investment! In all seriousness outside winning the state pageant there's just nothing else to show how she is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair it was not $1, I mistyped and meant to say $1 million. However even in Wyoming that is only a small slice of the state funds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was just having a little fun with the obvious typo RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion that has started has largely confirmed me experience with the articles on pageant winners, finding them to be WP:PSEUDO biographies on individuals only notable for WP:BIO1E. Thus delete & redirect is an appropriate action in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources and she has no historical significance. This is a 2005 pageant representative and really has no relevance in 2016, 11 years later. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:MODEL. There really is no good reason to keep this article. Or redirecting to Miss Wyoming USA is also a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Redirect however someone disagreed so am relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as it is a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Associated Press is a significant independent source, but the impact or importance of the subject investing money only to a college seems far too little. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect because there are no signs she will actually be independently notable soon thus delete is needed. SwisterTwister talk 16:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sister Twister - this should be deleted first, then redirected, because there is no indication she will be independently notable at any future date. Just not there. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not notable. In case a redirect is chosen by the closer, suggest deleting before the redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (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 redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaletta Porterfield[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Porterfield was for a short time Miss Wisconsin USA, this alone is not enough to make someone notable. Her resignation after being charged with identity theft is not really enough to justify a stand alone article, the mention in the Miss Wisconsin USA page is sufficient. The fact that we do not even know if she plead guilt, was convicted or was aquitted of charges that are about 5 years old shows that this was not a significant event and not worth having a Wikipedia article that gives in depth details on. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think she is notable enough. Dolotta (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rare pageant AfD where I come to this decision; didn't get to the national pageant due to her resignation, and the rest of the article struggles with mention of her Ford modeling contract and literal WP:WHOCARES info about who runs Miss Wisconsin USA. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Redirect however someone disagreed so am relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA This is a valid search term and subject is mentioned on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted the 5th source because it was an ad to get people to hire someone named Holly as their beauty pageant coach. It was not even used to source anything on Porterfield. Of the sources left, one is literally a list of Miss Wisconsin USA winners, one is an article on Porterfield published by Miss Wisconsin when she won, and two are no longer functional links so I can not say too much on them. However it appears that both only mention Porterfield in passing. This is not the level of sourcing we would want to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2016 (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 withdrawn after being redirected to 2016 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Depression Nine. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 99-L (August 2016)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When has any Invest articles been discussed as being allowed to made? This is just a pointless page and also that invests are just disturbances with no significant media coverage, except by NHC and weather sites MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this is very true, Invest 99L is different. It brought about much controversy among the weather community, and a huge difference between the GFS and ECMWF models. This is a disturbance with very significant media coverage, especially on The Weather Channel because of the nature of the storm and the way the two main models are so different. Back to media coverage, right now if you type Invest 99L into google; The Weather Channel (and Weather Underground), KATC, WKRG, WFLA, Brevard Times, WBRZ, WTSB, Fox 4, and NBC 2 all show up on the first page. This is more coverage than most storms get alone. INFOWeather1 (^talk/_contribs) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The models are all over the place because it doesn't have a closed center to which the models can latch onto, that's why it's getting this coverage. Plus, there are many tropical storms/hurricanes that didn't get an article yet were covered largely by the media. I don't see why Invest 99L should be exempt from this statement. Therefore, the article is redundant. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? It became a depression and I turned it into a redirect. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Karlberg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Roles have been minor. Previous versions had been speedy deleted, but there's enough of an assertion of significance this time that I'll look for broader community opinion on what to do with the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability, and I can't find sources discussing the subject. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog Was too trigger happy when I first added the article when it was unfinished, I have remade the article with new references and external link from IMDb, it's ok as any article, minor role player or not. This article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Asian 2010s (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find coverage of other people with the same name but not of the actor. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a largely unsourced BLP that reads like a vanity page. The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR; insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Blue[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, ~~I can find no evidence of notability for this film.~~ Changing to keep per MichaelQSchmidt, with some chagrin - that's something I should have found before nominating. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC) (Updated Tazerdadog (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources—although this could be a case of not being able to search for Thai-language sources. Film fails WP:GNG and thus also fails the notability guidelines for films. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. C.Fred and talk show some respect. This film is 21 years old and was popular at their time. Better to fix the article not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo Asian 2010s (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thai:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

year/type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep Since it won a Thailand National Film Association Awards for Best Picture in 1996, we have a reasonable assertion of notability to meet WP:NF and no need to delete for lacking English language coverage. Instead we let the stub remain and dig deeper for Thai sources under its original title, and ask for input from Thai Wikipedians. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll go with that. Winning a country's top film honour, as this does seem to have done, would meet WP:NFO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has won a top award passes WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to IMDB trivia, it's also top box office in Thailand for the year 1995 [17]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (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. On balance, this discussion is unconvinced of this politician's spouse's independent claim to notability. Sandstein 18:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Prusack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By our long-standing rule for political spouses, will not be notable unless her husband wins the election for President-- or unless she does something notable in her own right. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable assumption, however WP:INHERIT makes it clear that an article can exist "even if they are known solely for such a relationship". This covers individuals like Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio - she has no career except being a politician's wife, and Michael Haley (South Carolina), who has a job about which there would be no coverage if his wife wasn't Governor. The standard for keeping is GNG. The point is having a guideline is that when a spouse accumulates enough profiles, interviews, coverage to pass GNG, s/he passes, even though they have no notability aside from the relationship to a notable politician (this also applies to other close personal relationships - Tiffany Trump, perhaps even a valet or a nanny, provided multiple reliable publications write him/her up.

In this case, I decided to keep the article extremely brief for now. I could add banal material from many publications over the several years that they have been a couple - the coverage is both geographically extensive, and has been going on for a number of years. Frankly, I would prefer to leave this brief for now, but available to expansion if stuff happens (like coverage of something in her past; significant participation in the campaign, or, you know, they move into the White House.

As I explained on this article's talk page when I created the article this morning, during a campaign users expect articles on candidate spouses, and, therefore, they existed this year for spouses of all of the serious candidates in the Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, E.M.Gregory, are you writing Keep, in bold lettering?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:GNG with in-depth sources here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of being the longtime partner of a presidential candidate, she is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just being "being the longtime partner of a presidential candidate" suffices. See WP:INHERIT and my comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG per above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INHERIT: "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". She was not the first lady of New Mexico (if somebody wants to create an article about Dee Simms, I would think that article would survive). She's just dating somebody who is currently polling at around 10% in the United States presidential elections, 2016. Although that's an impressive feat for a 3rd party candidate, their dates are not notable. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for garnering some media coverage in the context of happening to be in a relationship with someone who, by virtue of his notability claim, is going to have his personal life invaded by the media almost by definition. WP:GNG is not passed just because sources exist; if that were true we'd have to keep articles about presidents of local PTAs and owners of hot dog stands, because coverage of people at that level of significance does exist too. Rather, the sources do have to be covering her in a context that constitutes a reason why she might belong in an encyclopedia. In the (unlikely, but never say never) event that Johnson wins the election, she'll qualify for an article as the incoming First Lady of the United States — but "is dating a candidate for president" is not, in and of itself, a reason why we would need to maintain an article about her if we can't really say much more about her than that. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? Your statement WP:GNG is not passed just because sources exist -- what kind of argument is that? Here's the GNG guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list -- and this subject does receive significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't see any guideline that requires sources to be covering a person in a specific context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if all media coverage that exists at all were able to fulfill GNG just by existing, then we would have to keep articles about presidents of local PTAs, and owners of hot dog stands, and smalltown city councillors, and winners of local poetry contests, and fire chiefs, and people who got profiled in a newspaper's real estate section for buying a condo, and teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for their high school football team despite having a non-standard number of toes on their feet, and many other classes of people who do have media coverage but are still not of substantively encyclopedic interest. But we don't keep those types of articles, even though they can be sourced to media coverage, because the context in which the coverage is being given does enter into whether that coverage counts as notability-conferring coverage or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy generally assumes that write-ups in local news sources (which might talk about a hot dog stand owner or PTA president) don't really count. But that is not a factor here. Prusack is the significant other of a presidential candidate -- which is why she's getting national attention in respectable national and international media sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when did "significant other of a presidential candidate, about whom nothing substantive can be written besides the fact that she's married to a presidential candidate" become a class of topic encyclopedias were expected to have articles about? Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the International Business Times wrote this and Daily Caller wrote this. They think Prusack is important; QED meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 26 Augus this].--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC) And the Colorado Statesman thinks she's cute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Business Times also recently published an article about a man with an abnormally large penis applying for disability benefits — and an attempted Wikipedia article about said man did not survive AFD just because the story had made the International Business Times, because the substance of what he was getting covered for was not something that would be expected to get someone into an encyclopedia. And Daily Caller is an ideologically-slanted clickbait site, not a real or reliable media outlet. So my point still stands: even if the coverage is going international, the substance of what the coverage is for still has to be encyclopedic in nature. And we don't care what the Colorado Statesman thinks of her looks either, because (a) people don't get Wikipedia articles just for being good-looking, and (b) the article is not about Kate Prusack, but merely namechecks her existence in the process of having Gary Johnson, not Kate Prusack, as its primary subject — a source which namechecks a person's existence, but is not about her, does not contribute GNG points. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, the New York Times has published articles about people with large penises, so does that disqualify the NYTimes as a news source? Of course not. The International Business Times founded in 2005 has seven national editions and four languages; do you really think anything they wrote about Kate Prusack -- including seven facts -- (contradicting your idea that it was 'substanceless' without context) -- anything in that article isn't true?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop misinterpreting me. The "guy with big penis" article doesn't permanently invalidate IBT or the NYT from ever being a reliable source for anything at all, and I never said that it did — what I said is that it demonstrates that the context in which the coverage is being given has to be taken into account in determining whether the coverage aids passage of GNG or not.

Having a big penis isn't an encyclopedic claim of notability, so the fact that the story got into IBT or the NYT doesn't help get that guy over GNG; being the spouse or common-law partner of an as yet unelected candidate for president isn't an encyclopedic claim of notability in and of itself, so the fact that IBT or the NYT happened to publish a story about her in that context doesn't aid passage of GNG. For some other examples: a person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because the real estate section of the New York Times ran an article about the interior design of their condo. A person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because he gave soundbite to the IBT about attending a parade. A person who has no substantive claim of notability does not get a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds just because her name appears in a newspaper's food column as the writer of a letter asking for a kale recipe (and I'll note, for the record, that you're the one who once tried to stake somebody's GNG claim on a kale letter.)

Coverage has to do more than just verify that a person exists to count toward GNG: that coverage has to be about the person doing something that would constitute a reason why they'd belong in an encyclopedia. Newspapers routinely cover lots of things that still don't belong in encyclopedias, so the mere fact that newspaper coverage exists does not satisfy GNG if the coverage isn't about anything significantly encyclopedic in nature. And sure, the IBT article "verifies" seven "facts" about her: but out of those seven facts, the number that are noteworthy facts that a person would get into an encyclopedia for is zero. That's what I'm talking about when I say the content is substanceless: it's not that the coverage contains no facts at all; it's that the coverage contains no noteworthy facts at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERIT and WP:TOOSOON. The woman isn't even married to Johnson, she was never first lady of New Mexico while he was governor. Fails WP:GNG in a big way. Unless being a real-estate agent is now notable for encyclopedic inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep explained below. Previously advised: ...and redirect to Johnson's entry, for almost entirely practical reasons. I agree with just about everything E.M. Gregory is saying here, to the extent I can easily imagine myself make the same decision about starting the entry, had it occurred to me. The tone of this AfD, though, has made me concerned with neutrality issues a standalone entry is likely to attract (e.g. some, let's call it, wide variation in perspectives on how their partnership should be characterized); I think E.M. Gregory has done a really good job selecting limited facts that can be verifiably and neutrally represented, and I think the best way to encourage WP coverage of Prusack to stay so judicious is to keep her as a section on Johnson's page (perhaps a subsection under Personal life?), until any more expansive coverage can be sourced equally robustly.

(My view's informed by my sense we may never get more major-outlet-level sources--since Johnson is being covered for the way he affects the campaign rather than any anticipation--barring some huge development--he and Prusack might become POTUS and FLOTUS, it's entirely possible to me that the press won't vet her the way they do for major-party Presidential and even Vice-Presidential spouses. If I felt more sure the sources were forthcoming, I wouldn't trouble us with the hassle of saying let's merge for now and re-expand later.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rational and pretty persuasive argument (not very different than what I said on talk when I started this page,) but I think we should keep it for now on a sort of level playing field argument. We had articles on all of the 2016 spouses, even those with no career outside marriage at all (Columba Bush, Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio) and on spouses of long shot candidates (Jane O'Meara Sanders,Candy Carson. We have articles on (Karen Pence and Anne Holton, although I see nothing to indicate that either of them would have an article if she was not married to a notable politician. We may indeed have to protect the page (this was recently necessary with Karen Pence). But WP:INHERIT is written to enable pages on spouses of well known politicians, and our users seem to expect there to be such a page, at least Ann Holton and Kate Prusack each got ~1000 page views yesterday [18], [19]. My fear is that it would appear partial to have a page on spouses of some candidates but not others. We do not want to appear to favor some candidates over others. My suggestion is that we leave this up until it is clear whether or not Johnson will appear in the national broadcast debates. If he doesn't, I will strongly support rolling this into Johnson's page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point too. I'm torn but at minimum I assume no one is suggesting we close this AfD early so I'll switch my ivote to neutral while I'm still thinking about it--I mean, if the Boston Globe runs a big reported piece on her in the next four days, that'd resolve this for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm persuaded. My big concern was that if I felt (as I think I still do) the best encyclopedic treatment we could give her (in light of present sourcing) would be through a merge, but I ivoted in some other way for fear of political blowback--that actually would be partial treatment! But the fact is there's enormous variation in what extent of coverage we require of a subject (I am currently also participating in one AfD where a subject has even less coverage than Prusack but may yet pass; and another with easily ten times as many sources that seems like to get merged anyway), so including a subject on the basis of the sources like what we have here isn't at all outside the bounds of the standard AfD treatment we give all subjects. And within those bounds, I do think it's good encyclopedic practice not to err in the direction of eliminating or reducing down the entry for a potentially significant figure. So, keep for now, we can revisit in a couple months. (And frankly should per guidelines about low-profile individuals.) If this comes back up and I overlook it, feel free to ping me--happy to contribute now that I've memorized the sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. We aren't looking at INHERIT since there is a GNG claim. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:TOOSOON. The subject is not individually notable yet per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no claim of notability here and I second the arguments by Bearcat. This is essentially a WP:BIO1E. Editors need to realise that a subject needs to be independently notable. Otherwise, every single employee of a company who is quoted in the article would be notable. GNG is a guideline which is supposed to be used in context of our WP:NOT policies. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not supposed to create articles simply because the subject is somehow associated with a political candidate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also GNG is not a free pass to an article. A certain "Casey Shomaker" would probably pass GNG by these [20], [21], [22], [23]. That's doesn't mean we create an article on the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lemongirl942, thank you so much for weighing in on this. I was thinking yesterday that this entry + AfD really illustrated how much better geodiversity can make Wikipedia/how impoverished WP is by the deficit. If you or others know more WP editors who work on politics (or biographies or gender or whatever) in countries other than the U.S. and might be willing to look at this, it seems to me it'd be quite useful and not canvassing to ping some of them? Unless I'm wrong on whether that's valid thing to do in which case ignore me on that, and just, thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ (change iVote to ~~keep~~ and perhaps post-election) merge into a brief section in Gary Johnson, expanding the material presently on that page with sources and material on this page. Reason is, that when I started this page Johnson had a tiny but mathematically possible shot of getting into the fall debates and becoming a major candidate. This morning, Reason [24] makes that look like a statistical near-impossibility. So, I move to redirect, merge. If - and Lord knows stranger things have happened this election cycle - Johnson steps onto the stage as a 3rd debater alongside Trump and Clinton, I will suggest that we move this back to mainspace at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
data wonks may be amused by the extent to which the pageview stats on this page track the Johnson fade picked up in yesterday's poll numberss [25].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, we might be chasing our tails a bit here--it's been up a week and basically those of us in this discussion are the only ones editing it! Which I think obviates my concern about neutrality within the entry--either she won't be in the press more and the entry will be ignored, or new press on her/Johnson will attract attention to the entry, and then we'll likely have more sources to base more content on. In the meantime, I think there's basically no harm in having an entry on her; you persuaded me of the potential harm in taking it down; and while I previously worried a little about false balance, on examination I think six sentences on her compared with, say, the Bill Clinton entry and the 18 standalone pages forked out from it are actually a reasonably good portrayal of the relative significance! (I also think the average WP reader--in contrast to the much small grouper of editors--has no idea we'd even consider NOT including her, so there's a risk of something like false imbalance, if I may.) I think benign neglect until this thing is over for sure is the best route. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC) (And by "neglect" I mean I added it to my watchlist and will both keep a close eye on it and also commit to soliciting uninvolved opinion if issues arise. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

rethinking -again Chuckle. OK, you persuaded me. I changed my iVote above. I strive to be user-friendly, and the reality is that voters want a reliable, easy way to find the basic biographical info on candidates. They just do. I see it as a basic part of what we do here. We should keep this plain-vanilla article on this candidate'f partner because our readers find this sort of article useful, and because is reliably sourced to stodgy, mainstream media. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - couldn't you just use a redirect to Johnson article area describing their relationship to aid our readers? --Malerooster (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC) ps, sorry, I see you already suggested that. --Malerooster (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean adding more info there than is found on spouses in other candidate pages. Plus, while I've been out getting a sunburn in honor of Labor Day, Johnson has been making headlines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page gets 800 - 1100 page views every day, which persuades me that our users want this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume the notability is not very temporary, and that is what you seem to be saying in small type a little above, for all the information the page provides, a redirect would eerve the purpose equally well. Going by pgaeviews for the period a person is in the news is not a grounds for notability, but rather the reason we have BLP 1E and NOTNEWS. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying 1.) spouses of all candidates with a shot at occupying the White House have articles. 2.) Our readers expect to find such pages and our readers do use this page. 3.) If/when Johnson loses the potential (granted, it is small) to become President, I will merge this page into Johnson's bio page (presumably on Nov. 8, perhaps earlier, or later if the Electoral College redirects this question to Congress). Until then, I continue to think that it is best to have this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violent comment. I have no particular opinion along the keep-delete axis, but want to respond to the idea that the number of pageviews matters when establishing notability. To most other websites, CTR, DAU, and similar TLAs are what drives all product decisions. I should know, I work for one of those places. But, we're not most other websites. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and we have standards for what should and shouldn't be included. Just like WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good argument, neither should WP:THEYLIKEIT be. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments that there is no claim of notability asserted. No notability independent of her partner. MB 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, as stipulated in WP:INHERIT, "No notability independent of her partner," and "no claim of notability" aside from the relationship is required for the partner of a prominent politician to be notable, as long as coverage exists to pass GNG. Scroll to top of page for full explanation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:INHERIT reads: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not notable in and of herself. She would become notable if and when Gary Johnson becomes president, which is not currently the case, and unlikely to be the case in the future. In my opinion, she does not pass the WP:GNG as coverage of her is not "significant". And we should not include too much information about his partner in the Gary Johnson article, as Wikipedia is not a bin for all information, but only information that is relevant and is of some importance. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't hear your argument, it's that more of our users come to this page ever day [26]; she has the media profiles that would get a page kept if she was a minor singer, politician, or beauty pageant winner; all facts in article are reliably sourced to reliable media (stuff like her college graduation year, her major, and what she does for a living); WP:INHERIT contradicts your first assertion (we DO KEEP articles on people closely connected to political figures who are not "notable in and of herself," and, well, WP:IAR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to achieve notability on her own merits. I see no reason to believe she is "'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." *Seen a Mike * 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000+ readers each day disagree with you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are good arguments on both sides of this AfD; I do want to register, though, that I don't agree all political spouses are necessarily non-notable until their spouse is elected. At very high levels--certainly in the U.S., in other places as well--the press often treats political spouses as if they are essentially also running for a public office. We may wish spouses did not play such a significant role--we may consider it anti-democratic--we may find it sexist to premise a woman's notability on her role as wife or potential wife--conversely we may be inclined to presume wives don't play an important role in their husband's campaign--but if press attention to a political wife plays a role in the campaign (particularly one like this, which reliable sources are treating as an event of world-historical scale), I'm inclined to see WP:NPOV obliging us (mercifully permitting us??) to defer to editorial judgment of reliable secondary sources rather than deciding amongst ourselves how much spouses count for. So I'm much more sympathetic to arguments about adequacy of sourcing for notability, than to "she's not important" arguments. But thus far I continue to believe we've satisfied the spirit of WP:WHYN with the sources to develop a balanced, neutral and moreover stable entry, and I don't think she has less coverage than others who have sometimes passed GNG here. Combined with the significance of the event she's related to (I'm informed by the WP:BIO1E instruction that minor figures related to a single event may still merit a page when the event is as significant as, e.g., JFK's assassination), and the reader interest, I continue to think this standalone page does not hurt and rather helps the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Changing my iVote. Oddly, 2 dramatic events happened. Balanced Rebellion, which almost put him into the debates, but, yesterday, the Aleppo gaffe, which appears to have ended any probability of his becoming a major candidate. I say we redirect this to a condensed section on Gary Johnson, keeping sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out Balanced Rebellion: it's awfully clever and the most interesting idea I've yet seen come out of this election cycle. Rebb ing 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to record I nevertheless continue to think we should keep it--because of DGG's reminder of NOTNEWS! But whatever the conclusion of this AfD, most of all I'm glad the topic's been so thoroughly examined. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from page creator I promise that if this page is left in place, I will revisit on Nov. 9 (or, if outcome is still in doubt on 9 Nov. - and this year, God only knows - as soon as possible before Jan. 20) and either source and improve the article beyond reproach, or bring it back to AFD. However, due to the undeniable fact that not only is my personal WP:CRYSTAL BALL shattered to useless shards of glass, fact is that NO ONE in this country has any more of a clue than I do who will come down with pneumonia next. I therefore urge the next experienced editor who swings by to close this as no consensus, in the expectation that on Nov.8, Prusack's notability will become markedly notably less moot than it is is today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sums up my NOTNEWS feeling. I reiterate my promise also to watch the watchman, and note that the entry has continued to remain completely stable. If it's not broke, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after being unable to identity Aleppo, what tiny chance her paramour had to get a few electoral votes became zero, and anyway, she would follow the rule that notability is not inherited. As of September 2016^[update] I have seen virtually nothing written up in reliable sources about this woman. I would not oppose a redirect per E.M.Gregory, for the same reasons. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2016 (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.

[1] ttp://www.clashmusic.com/features/pleasure-principle-loefah

[2] ttps://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/loefah

[3] ttp://www.factmag.com/2012/04/20/loefah-on-the-enduring-appeal-of-vinyl-record-shopping-in-london-and-becoming-a-grumpy-old-man/

[4] ttp://www.fatkidonfire.com/mixtapes/30-minutes-loefah/

[5] ttp://www.magneticmag.com/2012/03/loefah-on-the-slow-and-gradual-disintegration-of-dubsteps-artistic-integrity/

[6] ttp://blackdownsoundboy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/kryptic-minds-and-loefah.html

[7] ttps://www.theguardian.com/music/2007/jul/29/urban

[8] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yC1oCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=loefah+paul+jasen&ots=9toFGRMp-l&sig=ThnEokACLFSQYzb240pXP-ce-b0#v=onepage&q=loefah%20paul%20jasen&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]