Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 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 Speedily deleted as recreated after deletion at an earlier deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious India Award[edit]

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

Delete and salt please. We have deleted this five (!) times before when it was Glorious India Award - Rich and Famous NRIs of America Not a notable award and none of the coverage is in-depth and independent. Created by a COI and probable sock editor. Edwardx (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 21 August 2018 (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 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Puspa Inter College[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article with no claims of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL due to this. Checked Google, no notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple Sant Pushpa Inter Colleges:
- The Dhadha Bujurg one, Hata Block, Kushinagar, established 1998, also known as Dhadha Hata UDISE code: 09590608213 [1] [2]
- Dhadha PO in Gorakhpur, established 1992 [3] [4]
- Jamuwan / Jamuaon, Ballia, established 1998, UDISE code: 09630200105 [5] [6]

I don't see how the Hata one is any more notable than any of the others, and they only show up in directory entries without any significant coverage for the school. The directory entries are also fairy lousy, the Hata one says the student-to-teacher ratio is 132 to 1. Not enough useful information to meet WP:WITHIN AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 22 August 2018 (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 keep, as the nominator misinterpreted the process and nominated his own article and then voted to keep it. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banstead Woods Parkrun[edit]

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

Possible lack of Notability Middledistance99 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (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/2018 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for being only the third ever parkrun out of more than 500 different events. Almost 10,000 inidividuals have taken part. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (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. No consensus to delete. Feel free to propose a merge to Punk rock, but there is little consensus for it here. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian punk rock[edit]

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

It has three sources. It’s not a significantly covered scene. Though it might be good to have a section in punk rock. ~SML • TP 21:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic. Here are book more references that could be added: [7] [8] [9] [10] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a total of 7 citations. Which could be covered in an theoretical section in punk rock. Oh and 1, 3, and 4 I don’t think are reliable because they were self-published. But I could be wrong though. ~SML • TP 22:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Punk rock - doesn't warrant it's own article, but could work as a section. Also, self-published sources are likely primary - and we tend to not use those in Wikipedia. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Only one of the four books linked above (#4) is self-published; Invisible Publishing and ECW Press are reputable publishers. Three books is certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Arms & Hearts. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this definitely needs more sourcing (and a content overhaul) than it has right now — but a lot of quality sources do exist about this. In addition to the books Eastmain linked, there's Michael Barclay, Ian A.D. Jack, and Jason Schneider's Have Not Been the Same, Liz Worth's Treat Me Like Dirt: An Oral History of Punk in Toronto and Beyond 1977-1981, Joe Keithley's I, Shithead, Ryan Edwardson's Canuck Rock: A History of Canadian Popular Music, Bob Mersereau's The History of Canadian Rock 'n' Roll, Chris Walter's Argh Fuck Kill: The Story of the Dayglo Abortions, Randy Rampage's I Survived D.O.A., Don Pyle's Trouble in the Camera Club: A Photographic Narrative of Toronto's Punk History, 1976-1980 and Geoff Pevere's biography of Teenage Head, and even that is just off the top of my head — there's certainly a lot more that could be dug up if somebody actually put some effort into a serious library search. (Did either Art Bergmann or Steven Leckie ever publish an autobiography? Is there a published bookform history of Og Records? I don't know.) And there's also metric shit-tonnes of stuff that can be dug out from Exclaim!, ChartAttack, BeatRoute and newspapers — the whole Dayglo Abortions censorship thing comes to mind as something that definitely got into the major dailies, for starters. We judge GNG on the quality and depth of the sources that can be found to improve the article with, not just the quality and depth of the sources that are already present in it at any one time, so needing improvement is not a valid deletion rationale if improvement is as readily possible as it is here. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Edwards[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. reddogsix (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Additionally the only sources in the article are Twitter and IMDB. Neither one can be used as a Reliable source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 05:33, 27 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folk soul[edit]

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

No reliable references this is a genre. All I've found searching is references to the country group Folk Soul Revival. The portmanteau "Solk" in particular appears to be entirely unsourced; no web results and the only Google Books results are transcription errors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Could probably have been speedied. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure it was WP:A11, and the page's creator (now blocked) removed a PROD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable musical genre. I get really tired of these efforts to create genres out of the thinnest of soup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for "folk soul genre" reveals only passing mentions of this apparently quite broad genre in perhaps unreliable sources with no discussion of what it means. [11] [12] [13] [14] Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:30, 28 August 2018 (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. Consensus of keep is very clear. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 05:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Sudac[edit]

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

the article is dealing with a person, who does not fullfil the relevance criteria. he seems to be a catholic priest, once with a cross-shaped wound on the forhead. i can see no additional relevance. there is just one source (one link dead). if one gets a translation of certain croatian internet pages one has to read that the catholic church has stopped the public apperances of this man. sudac has his own website , where he shows his wounds. i think, the whole thing is a typical showmanship by an eccentric. also an internet hype, using the mechanisms of this media. wikipedia should not help spreading such a show. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the additional references at [15]. This may be a hoax, but it's a notable hoax on the strength of the available references. If the Catholic Church has commented unfavourably on him, that belongs in the article as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself is not a hoax, although its subject undoubtedly is a hoaxer. He passes WP:GNG, here's just a few links to sigcov in national media [16][17][18][19][20]. The internet would definitely benefit from a cool-headed NPOV article on Sudac's antics, which ATM this admittedly isn't. Daß Wölf 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is perhaps unfortunate that we do not have a detailed explanation of the Church's antipathy to the subject. However that antipathy may be enough to make him notable (or perhaps notorious). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive, continuous coverage by sources. One of his books sold 20,000 copies, which is apparently a lot.[21] He also claims bilocation and levitation.[22] (That doesn't make him notable, of course, but it's interesting.) A priest on top of all that, and much has been made of his suppression by the Church. GregorB (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONGOING, SIGCOV in WP:RS in several languages, countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2018 (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 EHealth#Cybermedicine. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberdoc[edit]

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

Not really notable, and the term has been used in various other ways since 2002 Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Daß Wölf 03:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Daß Wölf 03:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EHealth#Cybermedicine - technology neologism article of unclear notability, and no substantial content. Synonym for Cyber Doctor / Cyber Physician referenced in the suggested redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether it is just a website or a term. Redirect seems fine. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to eHealth seems appropriate. The article appears to be just a definition of a new-ish term that exists. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Sfekas[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and reads like a poslished up Linkedin-page The Banner talk 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does he pass WP:PROF? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet any of the possible criteria in WP:PROF, at least verifiably, with low to no academic impact, no major awards, no top-level posts or editorial roles, etc. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG not met either. Added find sources AFD template for Greek name from article just to be thorough. Bakazaka (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). References can and should be improved, but no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes you think that I did not research it beforehand? The Banner talk 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the final choice only when the article is beyond salvage. Cart before the horse. If you read the cited materials, I assume you would not arrive where you did. You have skipped past the river only to magically appear on the other side. But we can agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, you still think somebody can deliver a substandard article and then a third party is mandatory to fix it? Maybe you skipped the river a few times. The Banner talk 15:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this article. Nor did I say you should fix it. We are not the only editors in Wikipedia, and the world doesn't revolve around us. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination; just an academic like anybody else. And another thing: There is not really such a thing -as stated in the article- like "Webster University in Athens, Greece" etc. According to the Greek Constitution only the Greek state-run Universities in Greece are considered to be "universities". Any other foreing faculty or similar educational establishement operating in Greek territory is functioning as privately run business, as schools of liberal arts etc., even if they have a connection with universities abroad, and style themselves commercially as "universities" (usualy as the "Athens Campus" of a foreing University, e.g. [23]; actually just a "study-abroad program", not a real university, according to the Greek law). ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As far as the "12 televised episodes of the documentary From Aristotle to Hawking, a Pissanos Production" (cf. [24]) is concerned, Pavlos/Paul Pissanos (in Greek: Παύλος Πισσάνος) is a rather peculiar or absurd "philosopher" who self-publishes his books and self-produces his TV series or DVDs. His TV show "Απόκρυφη αρμονία" (=Apocryphal Harmony; an example of a full show: [25]) was hosted in a minor, no mainstream Greek TV station, one of those of the lowest-rated channels of Greek TV. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run of the mill academic philosopher who does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2018 (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. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeextraordinary! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports clichés[edit]

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

As noted in the previous nomination, the topic of sports clichés is notable and could have an article (prehaps Sports cliché). However, a list of them is subjective and therefore inherently POV and indiscriminate. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To avoid being indescriminate, we should adequately reference all cliches used. A table may make the page more organised. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - appears to be an unneeded list; any situation that I can think of having a list like this being beneficial seems fairly niche, but that's my opinion and shouldn't be taken as fact. Recommend making an article on sports cliches instead of a list, as nom suggested. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we WP:SALT? And what precisely is your deletion argument? I see no basis in guideline or policy. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precisely what is the argument here? The topic is notable, even nom admits that, I'm not sure what the issue is. Any list will be subjective as to what to include, that's not a reason to delete, only to reference. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this list significantly overlap with List of sports idioms? Also, The New York Times recently ran an article called "We Use Sports Terms All the Time. But Where Do They Come From?" with explanations of each term, like the list I linked does. Doing that is something this list if kept would benefit from. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:43, 28 August 2018 (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 Father of the House. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of the House[edit]

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

WP:OR. The article creates a title which didn't exist before, creates theoretical rules for it and applies it after the fact to people from the past. There could be an article for a list of most senior woman in the HoC but not one that makes up rules for a title that didn't exist then and doesn't formally exist now. May and Corbyn praised Harman with this term but that doesn't mean it's a real thing. Also, there is nothing that could theoretically stop a woman from assuming the position that is now called "Father of the House", at which point one would expect the title to change to suit the gender. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Father of the House. I understand the sentiment the article is trying to get across, but the term will change when a woman takes the office. If necessary, I'm sure the page could be changed to Dean of the House, as is the term in Canada. Bkissin (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Max Ross[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Max Ross. As the previous deletion discussion noted, he was a repeatedly unsuccessful politician. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article for Robert Max Ross was created due to the fact that his name continued to show up in news searches while this author was researching the election of Otto Passman. The article was written to serve as a reference for fellow researchers who are researching the resurgence of the Republican party across the deep south and more specifically, in Louisiana. This author agrees with Robert McClenon in that Ross' defeats do not meet the requirement of notoriety, nor does the fact that he was an unsuccessful perennial candidate. This article's relevance and ultimate purpose is to provide a record of Ross' public involvement as a candidate on the forefront of the shift in support for the Republican movement at a time when it was virtually non-existent. Following the election of 1876, Republicans did not win one statewide election in Louisiana until the election of Dave Treen in 1979, a span of more than 100 years (Political party strength in Louisiana.) As a candidate against Dave Treen in 1972 and again in 1983, Ross has a unique distinction in that he is a candidate receiving much attention and press, in the quest for the first Republican victory in more than a century, and in the 1983 election, Ross was of particular concern in that his candidacy further complicated Treen's re-election due to the new jungle primary, an election Treen did ultimately lose. Additionally, Ross holds distinction for being the only other candidate other than Treen to have participated in a Republican closed primary in a Louisiana gubernatorial election.^[1] Prior to the Treen and Ross candidacies, Louisiana was essentially a one party state, with elections being solely decided by Democratic Primaries. Future elections would be determined by the jungle primary system. Because there were no Republican candidates in virtually any elections in Lousiana with the exception of Eisenhower on the national ticket and later Goldwater in 1964, voters were registered almost solely as Democrats in the state. In 1960, less than 1% of Louisiana voters were registered Republicans, while 98.6% were registered Democrats. By 1972, when the Republican candidate Ross first qualified to run for statewide office, the number of Republicans had only risen to 2.8% of the electorate. By 1986, which was the last year that Ross ran for statewide office, Republican registration had risen to 13.6%, bolstered in part by the election of Ronald Reagan.^[2] As of August 1, 2018, Republican registration has risen to just over 30%.^[3] The first Republican elected to the Louisiana State Senate during the 20th century did not occur until the election of Edwards Barham in the 1975 cycle.^[4] This same cycle, Ross was also a Republican candidate in an adjacent Senate district at a time when Republican candidates across Louisiana were truly almost non-existent. In conclusion, this article should be published not because Ross was a perennial candidate, nor just because qualified for numerous election, but because he was an early and active participant in developing a two party system in Louisiana, and was an early and active participant in the pursuit of the Republican party movement in Louisiana. I was not familiar with Ross until I researched his candidacies as a result of seeing his name continually show up. A search for "Robert+Max+Ross" in Louisiana newspapers returns more than 66 press references^[5] and a search of Louisiana newspapers for just "Robert+Ross" with "Republican" returns 142 results spanning 1952-1990.^[6] Ross was never a candidate who qualified because he believed he could win, but rather he was a candidate because he wished to build the Republican party platform in Louisiana at a time when it did not exist. Startbosshogg (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Treen Says Louisiana Needs Two-Party System to Develop Leaders, Minden Press-Herald, September 3, 1971, p. 1.
^ Bullock, Charles S.; Rozell, Mark J. (2010). The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 115. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
^ "Statewide Report of Registered Voters" (PDF). Louisiana Secretary of State. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
^ Edwards Barham became the first Republican elected to the State Senate in the 20th Century.
^ "Search for "Robert+Max+Ross" in Louisiana Newspapers". Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
^ "Search for "Robert+Ross" and "Republican" in Louisiana Newspapers from 1952-1990". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC and borderline WP:GNG.--TM 14:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A continuously unsuccessful candidate - all coverage of him is relevant to his failed candidacies. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:48, 28 August 2018 (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. Consensus is that this is one of many minor political memes. Can be userfied (though not by me) for the purpose of merging into another article if desired. Sandstein 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walkaway (political movement)[edit]

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

Empty article about an empty slogan/hashtag. No independent sense whatsoever that this is a real and/or notable thing. Calton | Talk 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reliable source cited (the Washington Post article) undermines the notability of the subject: There’s little actual evidence to suggest that #WalkAway represents a mass conversion of millions — or even thousands — of Democrats to the Trump Train since Straka’s video. Without that, then this is an article about a recent meme, and contains nothing of encyclopedic value. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. There's zero evidence this is notable; in fact, the only reliable source in the article says otherwise. It's a made up meme without any basis in reality. Truth is still truth. We are still an encyclopedia, not a soap box. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one line article, on a non notable topic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's still a notable article. It is a phenomenon at the current time, people are going to want to find out about this. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There's no evidence of notability to this random political talking point. People leave and join political parties all the time; that doesn't equate to a movement. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While there is definitely a question as to how extensive this “movement” actually is, There is a notable topic here... the “movement” has been discussed extensively in reliable news media sources (even if only as an example of how social media can be manipulated for political purposes). The article needs to be re-written, not deleted. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...even if only as an example of how social media can be manipulated for political purposes
Then that would make "media manipulation" the actual topic, then, not this -- and I'd like to see some evidence for this "extensive" discussion. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are three sources on the article. One saying it's basically bullshit. One that is not from a reliable source (RT) and one from Yahoo which interviews the person who is credited with starting the Hashtag. There's no suggestion of WP:SUSTAINED coverage; and ephemeral Twitter drama isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how RT, the Russian propaganda wing is a reliable source. Explain to me how a Norgwegian Alt-right website is as well. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that RT is definitely not a reliable source. I would also dispute the reliability of a Norwegian Alt-right website if I knew what you were mentioning. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hashtag "movements" are a dime a dozen. No evidence that this one was more than a temporary bit of entertainment on Twitter. If it ever gains legs and is documented in reliable sources, then we could have an article. As of now, it's non-notable without enough reliable sources to support an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Russian web brigades#Troll brigade activity. Enough citations here for a mention there, but this is still just another one-off hashtag brigade. There's not enough substance to support its own article beyond "it happened." Citations can be added to expand the target article and if this somehow grows beyond yet another isolated brigade-tag, we can always undo the redirect & expand the original article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the redirect Brandon Straka should be added to this list.--Calton | Talk 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Nom and all 6 editors opining delete do so without showing evidence that they searched fo the term, some actually claim only to have looked at sourcing already on the page. Seriously guys, the quesiton at AfD is whether the topic is notable, not whether the article is comprehensive. I have added a couple of more reasonable searchbars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

possibly keep. WP:HEY, there's actually been quite a bit of coverage in WP:RS media, especially around allegations of fake news (fake accounts of liberals who "left". But now there is also INDEPTH, yesterday's NBC News: Meet Brandon Straka, a gay former liberal encouraging others to #WalkAway from Democrats. Black Lives Matter is perhaps the most notable example of of a hashtag that made the big time, see: Category:Hashtags, and Hashtag activism. Page needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit like the garage band arguing that, like the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, are also a band which uses guitars and drums and therefore deserves an article. --Calton | Talk 22:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The movement (if we want to call it that) is marginal. Straka himself is a wee bit more notable but I still don't see sustained and in-depth coverage. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the improvements made since the article was nominated. Please note the nomination is in error. The nomination reads: that the subject is not a "notable thing". This is wrong. The subject meets WP:NOTE on account of the widespread coverage it has received. For example, the issue was covered in July by Arutz Sheva of Israel, by CNN, and by Australia's Morning Herald. In august, it was covered by Aftenposten, the newspaper of record of Norway. The nomination ought to be withdrawn on these grounds alone. XavierItzm (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I recognize the effort that went into finding new sources I still see an article that is entirely WP:RECENTISM without much indicator of sustained coverage. The notability seems to be that it was picked up by "Russian bots," and if we start putting up an article for every idiotic thing "Russian bots" amplify all day we won't have a very high quality encyclopedia anymore. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday's INDEPTH NBC News article does show SUSTAINED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That, like everything not about the "Russian bots" in the article is actually a profile of Straka, not of the purported movement. See also WP:INHERITED and, for why Straka isn't notable himself WP:BLP1E Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Stratka redirects to this page. Also, article needs a subhead on the Russian bots; news searches bring up INDEPTH coverage of Russian promotion of this hashtag that ran in WP:RS 2-3 months ago. Once we have that material on the page, it should be added to the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Effectively we've already accepted that Straka is not notable under WP:BLP1E - and all the coverage of this "movement" falls into two categories: 1) Profiles of Straka (irrelevant as he's not notable) or 2) It's all just Russian Bots manufacturing a movement that doesn't exist. I'd suggest a non-existent movement fronted by a non-notable minor actor is the very definition of non-notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the redirect occurred before the NBC national new profile?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E would still apply even with the NBC profile. Because it's referencing the same one event in an otherwise non-notable life. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A hashtag "political movement"! With hundreds of retweets! Delete. The NBC article could eventually be used in a bio on Straka, if anyone ever writes another profile of him. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
new vote below ~~Delete too soon. Perhaps the effects will be examined after the midterms.~~ wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme (yet). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a logical target for a Redirrect? Most interesting aspect of topic is the swift and well-documented support for this meme by Russian BOTS. It's an issue I follow in real life, but haven't edited on. Are we collecting instances of stuff, including hashtags, memes, promoted by Russian bots on a page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s Web Brigades Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Web brigades#Troll brigade activity, where I have added 2 brief sentences.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I still prefer just deleting this as being a non-issue, I'd be satisfied with a merge as per E.M.Gregory too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this merge as an acceptable compromise. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone wants to add a mention to Web brigades, go to town, but I don't agree with a merge and/or redirect, because that would be using a false title. --Calton | Talk 16:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning here, would you care to elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious: it's NOT a "political movement", it's a (failed) ad campaign. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote a falsehood. --Calton | Talk 17:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I hear what you're saying, but a redirect to Web brigades#Troll brigade activity is kind of the opposite of an endorsement of this as a political movement and would make it much less likely that somebody will try to bring this back at AfC five minutes later. Simonm223 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it *is* an implicit endorsement of this as a "political movement" because it CALLS IT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT IN THE TITLE. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then how about E.M.Gregory's compromise proposal below? That seems like it would resolve your concern. Simonm223 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect this specific title. The claim this is a "political movement" is far from settled. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating that I think the subsection and link E.M. Gregory created is sufficient at this time and this entry should be deleted. I took a stab at revising to see what could be verifiably summarized from reliable sources; there's probably still more to cut and one paragraph fully covers it. If there's sustained coverage, we can revisit but for now it is far TOOSOON for wikinotability; the entry itself says it's not clear whether this anything more than, as JBL puts it, a bunch of tweets. In the limited extent to which tweet activity could be encyclopedic content, E.M. Gregory has found a place to cover it within a topic that has notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal, We could redirect page to #Walkaway, then redirect #Walkaway to Web brigades#Troll brigade activity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the reasoning for having some search term direct there, but I still don't believe it's justified to put the Wikipedia imprimatur on "Walkaway (political movement)" in any form, and think it should be deleted (if it's recreated repeatedly, it can be salted). And then I'm not sure what I do think would be an appropriate alternative. "Walkaway (hashtag)" or "Walkaway (meme)" feel overly anodyne. What about just listing the subsection link you made at the Walk Away dab page? That would give space for a little more explanation than a title alone. But folks just looking through the search results for it also seems like an acceptable outcome to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have added it to the Walk Away dab page, and it has a brief, sourced section at Web brigades#Troll brigade activity. That's probably as much as the sources justify.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a viral phenomenon with no established impact or historical significance at this time, this instance of hashtag activism is not notable per WP:EVENTCRIT#4 ("Routine kinds of news events"). — Newslinger talk 11:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete changing opinion, as described above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well if you are no longer of the opinion your compromise position is warranted I'll keep my !vote to what it was originally. IE: Delete. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF, snarkiness, dismissiveness, and, in general, displays of attitude damage the project. To be clear, the factor that I had not considered until the dab page was mentioned was how many disparate other uses "walk away" has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, I was assuming good faith. All I meant is when you proposed merge I was leaning toward either that or delete; I'd originally been firmly on the side of delete but saw a merge as a way to effectively salt the topic without needing to do something as forcefully as actually salting it, but didn't care that much. But if you have changed your mind on the issue I'd probably not bother changing my !vote. Honestly I was not intending to come off snarky and perhaps I should have another coffee. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Your comment provoked me to run more thorough searches).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep but move to #walkaway (with apologies for vacillating.) It now seems to me, that with coverage of intervention by Russian bots now in the article - excellent sourcing to NBC News, Coverage has been sufficiently INDEPTH and ONGOING to keep, provided we move this meme/hashtag to #walkaway. Nom's rationale (and i-Votes of early visitors ot this page were made obsolete by the August NBC News INDEPTH story. In addition there has been INDEPTH ongoing both in rightwing but INDEPENDENT sources such as The Daily Wire, "The Daily Wire Speaks With #WalkAway Founder Brandon Straka About Why He Abandoned The Left And Became A Conservative", leftwing, Aftenposten: "Da frisørens video plutselig tok fullstendig av, ble mange mistenksomme. Så fant de spor av russiske troll", and center The Daily Beast: "The Right’s New Viral Star Is ‘Red-Pilled’ Hair Stylist From New York". Plenty of each visible in a news search on walkaway + Straka.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:HEY,article has been completely rewritten during this discussion. Reliability and international nature of the significant and sustained coverage are now easy to see. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aftenposten is a newspaper of record. wumbolo ^^^ 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to #Walkaway and redirect to Web brigades#Troll brigade activity I appreciate the WP:HEY effort that went into this, but I still don't believe it's notable outside the boundaries of its connection to its enactor - who I still think would be excluded per WP:BLP1E and its connection to Russian Bots. As such, while it's definitely a notable example of a bot campaign, I don't think it's sufficiently notable to be due its own article. I have struck through my previous Delete !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (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 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Chizzola[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate notability. Magazines and other clients are par for the course for a fashion photographer. Of 3 sources, one is the subject's own site; The New York Times source is a lifestyle piece about their farm; and the third is a non-reliable source (The Fashion Spot, and its forum at that). Lopifalko (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "lifestyle piece about their farm" has appeared in print on November 24, 2011, on Page D1 of the New York edition with the headline: Not Far From the Tree. (source) and does contain information about his life that is more detailled than the deletion nomination text might make it sound like. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously only skimmed the NYT article. I've just skimmed it more thoroughly, reading the first few words of each paragraph, and by that measure every paragraph is about the farm and not about his photography. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit about photography, even if it's the photography of a previous occupant and how Chizzola regards this. But Chizzola is here as a photographer, not as a resident of an old house, or as the custodian of somebody else's photographs. User:ToBeFree, can you find anything significant about his photography? (Or enough about his residence/custodianship to show notability there?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(raises imaginary glasses, rubs eyes) You're correct, this is about someone else's photographs. I have now also taken more time to look for other sources. This one might be worth consideration, but not even this is addressing the person directly and in detail per WP:GNG. Its independence is possibly questionable as well; maybe this is a paid article. Their "advertisement" page makes me skeptical. Also, the person does not appear to meet any of the four examples in WP:ARTIST. There is a nice essay about this: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. In a nutshell, Delete. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2018 (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said Mhamad[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate notability. In terms of notability, it lists 4 items of recognition, one from a non-notable source (topteny.com) and 3 from a non-notable source (XXLPix) that judges by "The Web Popularity Index (WPI) takes into consideration the three key factors of the social web: reach, interaction with users, and external references". Lopifalko (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was made by a user with a talk page that lists numerous notices of articles nominated for deletion, and all bar one there were. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment comment: That one article that wasn't deleted strikes me as very feeble. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the creator is unfortunate, but not a factor when I look at the article and see nothing worthwhile in it. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a violation of the terms of use. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - upon review of the article, all sources were found to be copyrighted and as such WP:G12 applies. Template added in case admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Computer Room Expert Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Article has been here 9 years, supported by a single self-published website. We need secondary sources, and all I'm finding is Wikipedia mirrors and Linked-in level self-publishing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; couldn't find sources to establish notability. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NORG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:31, 21 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Saltojanes[edit]

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

I was tempted to A7/G3 this as it's clearly largely fabricated. I can't find coverage of Saltojanes and I can't find any verification he has held a guiness record. Fails GNG and possibly V. The only piece I can find about this supposed record is from Forbes, which we've learned is 50/50 chance of being usable depending what it is and in this case, appears to just be a freelancer writing about it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this person exists, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most of the assertions in the article cannot be verified, and the current referencing is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sourcing to substantiate claims, and merely being a Guinness World Record holder does not confer notability. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims of notability here are referenced to primary sources, not reliable ones — and (purportedly) holding a Guinness world record is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from still having to clear WP:GNG on proper reliable sources (especially since as near as I can tell, he was one participant in a troupe which achieved the record collectively, not a solo performer who got singled out for the distinction as an individual.) Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Profiled[edit]

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

This does not meet notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS: it was a limited edition promotional album from 1990, with short clips (mostly 30 to 60 seconds) of interviews to play on the radio. It barely receives an entry in group biographies/discographies; there is nothing written about it, so its WP article will not be more than a track and personnel listing (its AllMusic article only has a track listing).[26] The FL Led Zeppelin discography doesn't include it. It's been tagged unsourced since 12/2009 and was created and mostly edited by since banned sockpuppets. Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have obsessive geek knowledge of Led Zep history, and can say with confidence that this record is not notable as a stand-alone item, and is just a minor promotional curiosity. The nominator is correct on how it never received coverage as an album in its own right. It is already mentioned at the associated Led Zeppelin Boxed Set and that is enough. Even for such a well-known band, items like this still have to get past the WP:EXIST standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This began as a redirect to Led Zeppelin Boxed Set, but was reverted. ~~Maybe a sentence or two could be added to that article and have this redirect there.~~[see my comment below] Since discographies by definition are "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings", an interview album doesn't fit there. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good plan to me, but if a redirect was reverted before then it will probably happen again. If "redirect" is the outcome of this discussion, admins should do the WP:SALT thing to prevent more reversions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the redirect because it was pointing to the wrong album, Profiled was part of the Led Zeppelin Remasters release. Also, the redirect resulted in the Led Zeppelin Boxed Set redirecting back to itself (in the chronology section). So, I would ask, if you do delete or re-direct this page, please fix the chronology links on the albums that precede it and follow it. Robman94 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a redirect can be pointed somewhere else without reverting it. The redirection instruction page can be tough to find, but once you find it, it can be edited like anything else. Here is a current example: [27] ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Both the Led Zeppelin Boxed Set and Remastered articles indicate that Profiled was first released on Boxed Set. However, since the references are unclear, it is not verifiable which album it was released with. So the article is best just deleted and then it may be unlinked in both articles and the chronologies. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2018 (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 by nom - thanks to user:Icewhiz for improvements.. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 13:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1988 in Thailand[edit]

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

Incomplete list with 1 entry and some basic information about who ruled Thailand in that year. » Shadowowl | talk 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to large numbers of periodicals and history books. Year X in Country Y will always be notable unless you are dealing with pre-history or possibly an exceptionally small country. James500 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure something else happened in 1988 in Thailand other than winning a beauty pageant. For instance, we have a Category:1988 in Thailand, and it is quite obvious there are additional events that pass V and merit inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added Thai general election, 1988 and the end of the Thai–Laotian Border War, making this a 3 entry list.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added Vietnam Airlines Flight 831, Kuwait Airways Flight 422, and Phra Narai Lintel - making this a 6 entry list.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2018 (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 ~~14th century philosophy~~ 14th century in philosophy due to naming conventions and redirect avoidance. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1347 in philosophy[edit]

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

WP:GNG failing list with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Shadowowl: I think you could perhaps try to combine all these "Year in philosophy" lists with only one entry into larger lists, i.e. something like combining 1007 in philosophy, 1073 in philosophy, and 1079 in philosophy into 11th century in philosophy or a similar title? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. The point is that some user created these pages for random years, and that you might have to search a lot for the others who were not born in the years randomly picked by some user. » Shadowowl | talk 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: the centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (all year articles in range) to 14th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Even 14th century philosophy is likely to be a very small category. It may need merging to the year category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (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 ~~14th century philosophy~~14th century in philosophy due to naming conventions and redirect avoidance. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1316 in philosophy[edit]

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

WP:GNG failing list with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: the centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (all year articles in range) to 14th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Even 14th century philosophy is likely to be a very small category. It may need merging to the year category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (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 ~~13th century philosophy~~ 13th century in philosophy. (retarget due to naming conventions) (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1270 in philosophy[edit]

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

WP:GNG failing list with 1 entry. It is not sure that the only person in this list is born in 1270. » Shadowowl | talk 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: the centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (all year articles in range) to 13th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Even 13th century philosophy is likely to be a very small category. It may need merging to the 1270 year category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Delfino[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Debatable that getting an MBE is a guarantee of notability. All the secondary sources I see provide only marginal or incidental coverage on her. Rogermx (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV and I do not think an MBE in itself would quality someone as notable.Tacyarg (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, source added, haven't found SIGCOV to meet BASIC/GNG. PROD material, really. Sam Sailor 18:00, 26 August 2018 (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 ~~12th century philosophy~~ 12th century in philosophy. (naming convention retarget) (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1142 in philosophy[edit]

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

WP:GNG failing list with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (all year articles in range) to 12th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Even 12th century philosophy is likely to be a very small category. It may need merging to the year category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2018 (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 ~~11th century philosophy~~ 11th century in philosophy. (naming convention retarget) (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1073 in philosophy[edit]

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

List with 1 entry, and it is not sure that that person was born in 1073. Fails WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (all year articles in range) to 11th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewhiz. Even 11th century philosophy is likely to be a very small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Jay[edit]

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

Absence of significant coverage in independent secondary sources for local radio host. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local radio host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2018 (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 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ingram (baseball)[edit]

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

I'm unable to find significant coverage in sources he's not affiliated with, and as his career takes place in the internet era, one would expect sourcing to pretty easily accessible if it existed in sufficient quantity. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio announcer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations[edit]

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

I originally created the first version of this page last year, but it was deleted at AFD as non-notable. I recently PRODded this particular page initially by accident because I didn't realize that, as this page has been to AFD before, PRODding is not an option. I previously tagged this reincarnation of this article for speedy deletion under WP:G4, but someone else removed that template. I think that this page should be deleted (as it has been several times already) because Jaiden is not notable, either as a person herself or for this channel. Coverage in reliable sources, while it does exist, is limited to passing mentions that do not convey nearly enough in-depth coverage to allow this person/channel to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guidelines. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search finds no good reason to overturn previous AfD decision, or any justification under notability guidelines for the article's recreation in Wikipedia. Note that draft was moved to mainspace after AfC declined multiple times for notability. Bakazaka (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous commenter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was the one who removed the CSD tag. I do agree that the article was moved to mainspace too soon, but I've tried to improve the sourcing of the article since then. Admittedly, coverage in reliable sources is still sparse, but she's a prominent YouTube animator who appeared in YouTube Rewind and frequently collaborates with other notable YouTube creators, so I think she's at least somewhat notable. I found some more sources that discuss her in slightly more detail, but I'm a bit unsure about the reliability: [28] [29] [30] [31] Ahiijny (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The linked sources above are blogs and clickbait sites, not WP:RS supporting notability. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one listed reference contains more than a trivial mention of the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or return to draft - Despite news coverage being sparse (which is unfortunately common for YouTubers that haven't done or said anything controversial), Jaiden is still relevant being involved in the 2017 YouTube Rewind and collaborations with other YouTubers. Not to mention the single she released with David Brown. More work does need to be done on the article, though. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AwesumIndustrys, then draft-ify ie return to draft? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user may have a conflict of interest with this deletion. On their user page they describe themselves as a YouTube personality. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 1) I would be perfectly fine with the article being moved back to the draft namespace as the article, as I've said, does need work to be a decent and informative article. 2) I don't really have a conflict of interest. While I do call myself a YouTube personality,that is only technically correct. I am not notable enough for a YouTube article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesumIndustrys (talk • contribs) 23:42, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Why would we draftify an article for which no reliable sources have been presented?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - passing mentions in the sources provided, blogs and unreliable sources posted above. Jaiden doesn't have the coverage that passes WP:Webcontent or WP:GNG . Maybe a case of WP:too soon but not a keeper, so delete. As an aside, the whole 'collabed with other well known youtubers' is fallacious: notability is not inherited. JC7V-constructive zone 22:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment I find it alarming that the page was moved to mainspace after TWO editors declined it's submission. The content of the page didn't change much between the decline and the current version. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this article already in user draft space User:ShemeshShlomi/sandbox. I've updated that copy with the current mainspace article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt A search turned up no RS at all in GNews or GBooks. The sources given in the article can be analyzed as follows:

First up is an article form Flourish. Flourish is a PR Marketing agency, not a journalism outfit. Check their about page, where it says "Everything you say and do as a brand or business is PR." So no RS sources so far.
second source given in their Youtube page. This is ok for non-controversial claims, but not for establishing notability. SO no RS sources yet.
An article on Heavy that only has this to say about Jaiden: "They were especially excited to see their favorite creators featured in the video, including notable animators on YouTube who were previously not featured in the annual video like Jaiden Animations and Rebecca Parham." Ok tally so far: one sentence of RS in a publication that I mostly see publishing articles like "Five fast facts you need to know about -insert name of latest murderer-".
A short blog-type post from Mental Music, which is a teen podcast on music topics. All we have thus far is the one sentence above from Heavy.
an Article on Tubefilter, which comments on Youtube channels. Jaiden gets a mention at the end of one sentence.

Based on the five "refs" used in the article, there is no RS to support notability. I see other refs provided further up in this Afd, which aren't good either. And remember, human beings cannot live without at least some SALT each day. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, weirdly it looks like it ALREADY has been salted by User:Alexf. No idea how it could have been re-created. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 18, 2018: Danielcool123 moved the article, which was declined at AFC, into mainspace, and then removes AFC template. But you are right, it was create protected during this time! Perhaps create protection does not apply to an article already in Draft? Maybe someone tried to do a end run around the admin Alexf? I do not get it either. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, Wikipedia bug for WP:VILLAGEPUMP? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a bug, let's wait to see what Alexf says.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, already posted Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Salted_article_re-created --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Alexf --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comment. Sorry I was out of town as indicated in my page. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and (re-)salt, mostly per ThatMontrealIP. Two passing mentions do not constitute anything like the level of notability required for an article here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2018 (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 and redirect to Goode Behavior. Sandstein 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Datcher[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable screen actress. I initially redirected the article to Goode Behavior (the only series she appeared to star in), but it was reverted. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete guest roles in TV shows do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appear to be no WP:RS in which she is the primary subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the female lead in a widely released feature film (Passenger 57).LE (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NACTOR. Sandals1 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goode Behavior as suggested in the nomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 28 August 2018 (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 18:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary at the 1966 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

Per related discussions (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination)). This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA), 1966 FIFA World Cup squads, and 1966 FIFA World Cup Group 3. There is no prose to make the argument that this was a particularly remarkable tournament for Hungary, because it wasn't. You'll see on Hungary national football team that it shares a paragraph with Euro 1964, such is the normality of Hungary reaching the quarter-finals.

There would be an argument for Hungary at the 1954 FIFA World Cup, as that Magical Magyars team is mentioned in just about every print book about the history of football, and some historians believe that the shock defeat to West Germany in the final led to civil disobedience and eventually the 1956 uprising. But the 1966 team, no lore and memories at all.

As I've said before, there are pages for countries at each Olympics, even Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but even for the Marshall Islands that is an overview to cover three different sports – there is no Marshall Islands in Weightlifting at the 2016 Summer Olympics, for example. Harambe Walks (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK. Giant Snowman 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is better off just being part of the main article at most instead of an uneccesary fork. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator and see this as an unnecessary content fork. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree that this is really just go to the Hungary at the FIFA World Cup and not have its own separate article. We might as well add Hungary at the 1978 FIFA World Cup, Hungary at the 1982 FIFA World Cup and Hungary at the 1986 FIFA World Cup to this list as well. Animation is developing 02:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that but it might be better to nominate those in a different discussion. It would be unfair to throw them into a discussion which is already looking to be approaching a verdict. Harambe Walks (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needless spinoff. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2018 (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 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk[edit]

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

Not mentioned in any reliable sources, only on websites like spotify and last-fm, and fora, to describe one or two albums. Seems to have been coined for some 2016 youtube video? Not a genre that has received attention as required by our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to find out about this genre, but couldn't find anything. With the parts of information I found on the web, I made this page. This page could help others who want to read about the genre. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking around for more information on this, I mostly found the music of one Sister Irene O'Connor-- for the most part, it's people posting her works to Reddit [32] and captioning the genre as "Catholic psychedelic synth folk". I would propose just making this into an article on Irene O'Connor, but I don't think that she meets notability standards either (despite one article [33] in the Irish Times). Gilded Snail (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. I note that the page author is here. I had a look for sources, and couldn't find any. I would recommend merging this article (only a single sentence at the moment) with one of more of the articles on Psychedelic folk or Christian music. Please ping me if significant sources come to light. I note that the former of those two articles includes a well-referenced section on 'Freak folk', and that's possibly a good model for the topic under discussion here. Ross-c (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just search for many sources and try and make an article out of this. Otherwise lets just link it in with another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozart834428196 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. If you want to "try and make an article out of this" it should be done in draftspace. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect: I wish to redirect the page to psychedelic folk. Is that alright with everybody? --Mozart834428196 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are no reliable sources discussing this term, so it has no place anywhere on Wikipedia, not separately, but also not as a part of a larger article. Fram (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete blank on sources. Sounds like something that was made up one day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (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 Newsfield#Raze. Redirecting seems to be clear consensus here, particularly now that a lot of the content has been merged. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raze (magazine)[edit]

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

Have merged some content into Newsfield, recommend delete and redirect to Newsfield. Article fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Govvy. I checked JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, and Google Books and could find no RS about the magazine, which only existed for 12 months. Article currently lacks any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Does not pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom's rationale here. Nomader (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and redirect. When content is merged, the article history must be kept for attribution. Generally don't need discussions like this: Be bold and redirect when finished with the merge. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really is no point of a merge-hist, that seems completely unnecessary in this situation. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (I assume Czar meant Speedy Redirect, since Keep and redirect would be contradictory). Sourcing situation is as above, and it seems a reasonable redirect target, if material has already been transferred. BE BOLD is one option, but it is not unreasonable for eds to decide to do it this way if unsure about it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2018 (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. No prejudice against re-nominating (though try pinging Megalibrarygirl before you do) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Daflos[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The independent references are simply her giving interviews as part of her job, not significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources which clearly indicate her notability, e.g. [34].--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new page about the Los Angeles Innovation Delivery Team - it appears that there is notability, but her notability appears to be secondary to that of the project. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many sources that state her notability. Meets WP:BASIC [35].--cbratbyrudd (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as jewish journal, Smithtown Matters in addition to the sources listed above by other keepers. Just meets WP:GNG. Being the ~~creator~~ director of a notable organization is notable too (can't list all such examples) JC7V-constructive zone 20:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say notable organization because Jmertel23 basically said there could be an article for the organization on here. JC7V-constructive zone 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something about the Los Angeles Innovation Delivery Team. 100% of available sources are about her doing her job, as nom says. Even the Govtech source above by Ipigott is just an announcement of her doing her job. Take away the job, you got nothing.198.58.175.190 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments by IP. Individual isn't notable, suggest material is merged with an article about the Los Angeles Innovation Delivery Team. W C M_email 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the sources for the biography are indiscriminate. I'm not convinced the organization is notable either, but someone could try writing an article on it, and then a redirect could be made. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Govtech seems like the best source here, but none of the other sources remotely satisfy GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 16:59, 27 August 2018 (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. Given the debate has been relisted twice, and not much comment has been given to Tabletop123's rewrite, I don't think we can do much else with this for now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Tarquin[edit]

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

I'd be grateful if reviewers could consider this, and perhaps the linked articles on his discography. The article has been largely created by an editor with, what appears to be, a very direct but undeclared COI. They have existed in this state for some years. They don't have inline sourcing and would appear to be promotional. I suppose the first question is, does the subject meet our Music Notability criteria? If he doesn't, the answer's probably pretty easy. If he does, then the question as to what to do about the COI remains. I raised the issue at the COI noticeboard and the suggestion was to "stubify", but others appear not to favour this approach. Would really appreciate advice. I've let the author know. KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tarquin has won two Daytime Emmy Awards, in 2003 [36] and in 2005 [37] (page 4), for the music on All My Children. If these awards have the same status as the main Emmy Awards, then along with the AllMusic biography [38] and articles like this in Vintage Guitar [39] this looks like a straight keep according to criteria 1, 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. His album articles need looking at though – not sure any of them pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Automatic~~ keep. Subject is winner and nominee of major awards and has featured in independent sources of good standing. I have done some housekeeping to the article (structured the article, removed puffy statements, added sections, general cleanup and punctuation). With time and contribution this could evolve.--Tabletop123 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the two Emmy awards his name is listed among a dozen or so of contributing composers for the entire TV season, all working under teams of musical directors. It's his good fortune to have been on the winning team, but he doesn't get singled out for significance (that is recognition that is given to the overall Music Supervisor and various Musical Directors). It looks good on a resume, I suppose, but much like those countless regional Emmys often touted by recipients, it's not the same as what we all usually associate with as being an Emmy Winner. Certainly not "marquee level." I'm refraining for ivoting for now, however, as 31 references are asking too much of my time to investigate, but at a glance most are the usual self-download, user submitted sites, although as mentioned above there may be a few good ones that add up worthy of a keep vote. But, yeah, cleaning up the reference clutter will help. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established, clearly created by the subject himself and maintained as such along with several album articles. I've removed sources that were either dead links, links to his own website, or links to product pages. What is left appears to be a mix of blogs and PR content. WP:NMUSIC talks about winners of music awards; being listed in a large group for an Emmy isn't the same thing. Melcous (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple Emmy awards and nominations should easily satisfy WP:ANYBIO, enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first sight the Emmys appear to signify a keep but on inspection it becomes apparent that the daytime emmys do not enjoy the same respect as the main awards and he was one of a dozen recipients in that category. I suspect if anyone else had created his page other than himself (and they were otherwise notable) they would not have chosen to mention these awards Lyndaship (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I emphatically disagree there is such a thing as an “automatic” keep based on a rote checking off of bullet point criteria. The whole reason of Afd discussions is to debate how a subject meets criteria after editors have clicked on links to sources and verified the validity of claims, and research the deeper context behind references. As pointed out above, the Emmy’s are a bit of a red herring. Because several hundreds of these awards are cumulatively given out each year the TV academy has designated the Primetime Emmys as the major awards which equate to something like an Oscar or a Tony (I hesitate to include Grammy because those, too, are not equal in merit). Among the Daytime Emmys are several that could also be considered marquee. But here in one of the lesser recognized categories we have “All My Children” routinely being nominated (and at times winning) in a category contested by a very narrow pool of "Daytime Drama" candidates (in the 2000’s there were only around a half dozen Soap Operas left) Anyone who worked over the entire season is included with the award. It's really the luck of the assignment. He has also won ASCAP awards (not mentioned in the article) but these, too, are numerous and misleading the way the Emmys are. Otherwise, this subject appears to be a solid professional, making “musical pool” contributions to many projects/shows doing session work and composing, and releasing several CD’s on both small labels and his own. But a significant number of reliable, independent sources to indicate that this subject stands out are missing, just mostly niche industry “inside baseball” stuff and self-authored material. The AllMusic profile in particular seems suspect; over the years (since AllMusic acquisition by the Rovi database) the site has relied on less editorial oversight for its content, and the entry here, like this wiki article, seems more promotional and also suspiciously COI. But I give this a “weak delete” based on the Vintage Guitar article being a decent source, but it’s the only one. I could change my vote with more like it, though. ShelbyMarion (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A single Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, or Tony should be sufficient to earn a Wikipedia page. Same for a Nobel, Pulitzer, etc. While the delete votes have made a good case for minimizing the accomplishments of such a prestigious award, I respectfully disagree and submit that these folks deserve to have at least a brief history available for Wikipedia users to enjoy. Rusty Eichblatt, Aug 6, 2018

This vote was added by a new account, as their very first edit, immediately after the account was created. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unnecessary and confusing character-bolding. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note: There is no such thing as an automatic keep. A Nobel Prize is awarded to a maximum of 3 persons simultaneously and there's only a handful of awards worldwide once a year, which seems to be a fundamentally different situation from the awards listed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This needs work, and I support shortening the article to remove the COI. But he's a multiple Emmy winner and he is notable for multiple things. This should be kept. Redditaddict6 9 12:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like an advertisement (Brian Tarquin is an American multi Emmy award winning...), and I agree with the argument that being part of a big group award is meaningless. To be honest, this article is so badly referenced, it's difficult to evaluate it properly. For example, the statement, Three Emmy Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Music Direction and Composition for a Drama Series. has no reference. How can somebody go look up the awards he won if they're not specifically listed here? Also, citations such as, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-10-24. Retrieved 2013-05-10. make it impossible to make any judgement about the source without clicking through (and waiting for the archiving service to grovel its way to producing a page). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the article. New matter, new references. The article definitely did harbor conflict of interest and needed proper referencing. Someone needs to look at the album articles too. --Tabletop123 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite. A definite improvement to help editors more fairly judge the article. My "weak delete" vote from August 4 remains unchanged. New references do not substantially change the general feebleness of the sources and the fact that many of them are written by the subject himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the acknowledgement. The gent seems to be a solid professional and the fact that many guitar gurus have entrusted studio time at his furthers his case. Anyway, I've done my bit. Rest to be seen. Only fairness to be excercised @ final verdict, just 'casue he or his own have tried to promote his presence does not qualify a deletion of the article nor his professional crediblity. Editors have to excerciese a 'helicopter' view. Emotions apart.--Tabletop123 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't make the grade as far as notability goes the sources are too weak. The awards section is particularly telling, it contains claims that are only sourced to himself with the exception of the daytime Emmy joint awards, notably the best album and best book award which is a paid for award ($69 to enter one of the 100 or so categories). The claims to having sold 150,000 albums are unsourced, most of the charts info is self sourced and mostly non included in WP:Record charts. An autobiographical article surrounded by a walled garden of articles also created by the same user that will all need looking at. Over 10 years of COI and soapbox editing that has gone under the radar. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2018 (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. A redirect to Grimsby Town F.C. can be created outside of the scope of this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsby Town F.C. Academy[edit]

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

Non notable amateur football club - doesn't merit its own article. The important stuff is already at Grimsby Town F.C.#Academy squad Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination, unremarkable organization which can be covered in article on the Mariners.TheLongTone (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK. Giant Snowman 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grimsby Town F.C. is professional football club in the football league and not an amateur club. We often have the reserves and academy pages for top flight clubs, I don't see this being a content fork. This is purely down to WP:GNG and at the moment I would say the article fails that. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything we can to Grimsby Town F.C. SportingFlyer talk 23:59, 20 August 2018 (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 Ketchapp. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Jump[edit]

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

The PocketGamer article is just a manual, and the GameZebo article is the only significant coverage of Jelly Jump. Nothing to merge. wumbolo ^^^ 12:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I once rewrote the entire article (whereby "entire" means all three sentences) and couldn't find any sources outside Gamezebo. Fails SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no notable Ghits.Kirbanzo (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the publisher. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) finds no RS that cover the topic in depth. Combined with a lack of SIGCOV in article, this fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ketchapp, the publisher. Tera TIX 13:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:46, 24 August 2018 (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 Keep per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Recorded by Steve Albini[edit]

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

Non notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM Should be redirected to the artist's page but redirect removed by creator without improvement. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Most of the sources currently in the article are rather flimsy attempts to show that the album exists. But two (The Skinny and The Scottish Sun) are fairly in-depth reviews by reasonably reliable and independent media outlets. I also found this: [40]. In my opinion that's enough for a stub article but I could be swayed if anyone finds those sources to be insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - There are three further reviews of this album added to the article. These are reviews from the high profile media outlets The Scotsman Uncut (magazine) and Is this music? Alanstalin (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw following the sources added but please in the future if you remove a redirect without adding any more sources (there was only 1) put a Template:In use so that any other editors (myself included) will know you're working on it. And I will also endeavour to do a more thorough WP:BEFORE search. That said you are also a single pupose account which suggests that you have a conflict of interest and should make the necessary disclosure. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2018 (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 delete. G12, G11 and probably some UPE. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceraphin Corporation, Inc[edit]

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

Not notable according to notability guidelines for companies. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and g12. The only non-copyvio portion is the subsidiaries. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that this is clear UPE and all it takes is a quick googlin' of the username. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported the user to UAA as the username matches a company, and subsequently to AIV for repeatedly removing tags from the article. No action has been taken by administrators yet. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:04, 20 August 2018 (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 Conventional wisdom. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Received view[edit]

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

This has remained an unreferenced dicdef for nearly twelve years. Possibly redirect to Received view of theories. bd2412 T 00:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom as a valid search term, this doesn't seem like it can ever be anything more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning keep~~ but suggested redirect is definitely wrong. Most usages of "received view" follow that given in the article, which is not the same thing as the positivist notion. It is rather pointless to say that references to the received view on a topic in a field don't mean anything, which is in essence what the redirect implies. Possibly there is some other redirect/merge which would be better. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Did you find any references supporting this use of the term though? Because that's the main issue, that this article has been a bare-bones nanostub since forever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I said "leaning" because I'm finding a lot of uses of the phrase that match what the article says. Not having the time to search further at the moment it is certainly possible that it ought to be deleted as a DICTDEF, but it's also possible that it should be merged/pointed somewhere else. The suggested redirect, however, is definitely a problem. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Received wisdom points to Conventional wisdom. bd2412 T 01:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to conventional wisdom, which is roughly what the term means in plain language. I can't find any epistemologists specifically looking received views as a WP:BROADCONCEPT. The process by which views gain consensus and start seeming obvious and being passed down as received is of course the primary focus of sociology of the history of science, but that's pretty vague; if we had an article on scientific closure mechanisms in Pinch & Bijker's classic sense [41], I might argue for a redirect there, but we don't. I don't think received view of theories is appropriate; there are (classically) received views for all kinds of fields and philosophical questions, and that just happens to be the one for the question, "what is a scientific theory?" FourViolas (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to conventional wisdom per FourViolas. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to Conventional Wisdom). There certainly are usages of this term, both in general and scientific literature (interestingly usually in modern articles, referring backwards in time), however there doesn't seem anything beyond direct usages or it, rather than discussion of the term. Thus I think the DICDEF justification is valid (and sound). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to conventional wisdom per above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jyoti Kiran Shukla[edit]

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. This one fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and does not appear to meet basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to [42]], she holds a cabinet-level position. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Consider it a question: So the subject is Chairperson at Rajasthan State Finance Commission. Apparently. Rajasthan State Finance Commission is a government body under the State Government of Rajasthan. I assume there would be plenty of government departments under the State Government of Rajasthan so does that means the chairs of those government departments pass WP:N test? I assume Chair of Rajasthan State Finance Commission is an important position, thats why she was given a seat in the state cabinet but importance does not equate with notability and therefore I'm not convinced that she easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "In general... Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.)" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: as Eastmain has already pointed out WP:NPOL criterion for her inclusion, I wouldn't delve into that, however as this is my second-time finding you nominate an article for deletion without going through WP:BEFORE; I advise you to do so from now on; earlier this year you nominated a bunch of Pakistani permanent civil servant articles (Federal Secretary-level officers, if I recall correctly) for deletion created by a user in a display of behaviour which borderlined on hounding frankly and now this, I strongly advise you to follow WP:BEFORE, I say this because I have done the same mistake in a bunch of AfDs, also, please don't take this as an attack on you as a frankly, great content-creating editor.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 02:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote — Unlike in the US, in India cabinet-level positions are generally advisory positions given to not-so-important/retired party-people and don't have much executive powers, consider them to be something in vein of a honorary chairperson or member in an organisation. She doesn't attend state-cabinet meetings and isn't a part of the state's council of ministers, that is a privilege reserved for the cabinet ministers appointed by the state governor on the advise of the state's chief minister in accordance with the nation's constitution.

Comment. If the article survives AfD, I would suggest moving it to Jyoti Kiran. See the discussion at the article's talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has already been moved, which isn't ideal during an AFD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Chairperson of a SFC is an irrelevant position in the grand scheme of things, but, her position does merit her a Wikipedia entry under criterion no. 1 of WP:NPOL.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 02:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to split views over whether WP:NPOL is satisfied. NOTE TO CLOSER: please be aware of the mid-AfD article move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to WP:NPOL as described above. Ross-c (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2018 (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 Cubicle 7. There is consensus for a redirect to the top of the Cubicle 7 article. With regards to merging, it can be discussed on the talk page of the Cubicle 7 article, after the AfD nomination of Cubicle 7 is closed, so that merge-work in vain is avoided. Of course, if the merge happens, attribution will have to be respected during the process. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit Tales[edit]

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

No references other than to fanzines and blogs like thegaminggang.com and initiativetabletop.com. BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR fails to find RS mentions. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Cubicle 7. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cubicle 7 and redirect, assuming that the Nom drops the stick and withdraws the Cubicle 7 AfD nomination, as he already did with Man, Myth and Magic. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cubicle 7 and redirect assuming that the Nom drops the stick and withdraws the Cubicle 7 AfD nomination [43] - I AGF this was extended with the best intentions, however, !vote trading is not in the spirit of the AfD. I am happy to withdraw noms if a convincing argument is made that changes my mind. I don't, however, withdraw noms in exchange for favorable !votes in different noms. I would encourage the closer to evaluate carefully the above !vote when determining consensus. Chetsford (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chet, I am not trying to bribe your !vote. The move to Merge to Cubicle 7 began in the Doctor Who: The Card Game discussion, and in that one you !voted to Merge, even though you are still arguing for a delete in the presumptive Merge target. I think that is an example of GAMING in itself, and have no interest in !voting to merge to an article that is then deleted. You and the closer here can safely assume that, even if you don't drop the stick, as long as Cubicle 7 survives AfD (and it would be a travesty if it didn't, given the available evidence), I would be happy with the merge.

I would advise you to drop the stick, though. The dogs are getting tired. :P Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to calibrate the intent behind your comment. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cubicle 7 and merge appropriate content. Fails notability in its own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there seems uncertainty over both the the retention or not of the article, as well as whether a merge or redirect would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cubical7 per WP:PRODUCT. Sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate independent notability and there is not so much information that it can not be addressed in the company's article. Jbh ^Talk 16:55, 20 August 2018 (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 Late Registration. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Substantially expanded from the stub version that was AfD'd to redirect way back, but to my mind only by drawing together a vast array of trivia, dribs and drabs. I don't see anything in the cited sources to establish notability independent of the album, but music editors please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has so much information within it that considering it for deletion is ridiculous and I even listed alternative versions... Kyle Peake (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect tp Late Registration. The song has gotten a little independent notice for topics in the lyrics, but most supporting sources are about the album overall. Stuff about this song can be added to the "Lyrics and themes" section at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given split opinions. A reminder to editors to provide justifications for their !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (As above)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - 12 years on and there's still no evidence of notability to warrant a seperate article so pretty much as per the last AFD this should be merged and redirected back. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sufficiently covered at the target article. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 27 August 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Cynics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Only coverage is in local press. --wooden superman 10:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPunx[edit]

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

Non-notable duo. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO as there is no significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 07:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (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. More participation here would have been optimal. That said, after two relistings, overall consensus in this short discussion is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asiemut[edit]

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

Advertorially toned article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- the notability test is reliable source attention in media, but the only source cited here is the film's own self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, but they required some digging to find, and I am grateful that my local public library subscribes to a number of useful databases. L'Actualité is a well-known and reliable French-language newsmagazine, but the reference that Google Books offered me a snippet of isn't available through the magazine's website, probably because it's so old. The awards from Banff were confirmed with two newspapers in British Columbia accessed via ProQuest through my library. The Video Librarian review at https://www.videolibrarian.com/reviews/asiemut/ is behind a paywall. The best reference is the story in La Presse. It's hard to find good references for a low-budget French-language documentary film from 2006, but I think I've done it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I too found and added some references. There seems no reason to doubt the list of awards, which collectively certainly demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given split views. Worth nom viewing the added sources to see if they consider them sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (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. Opinion is split between keeping and redirecting; that does not require any admin intervention and hence can be done elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia P. Pinegar[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peterson and guant's work is a clearly indepdent one that shows notability. Add to that this source [44]. Also she was the general president of the Primary. This is a level of office that clearly without question always passes notability tests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~No opinion on the notability of this person, but~~ the additional source is from The Universe (student newspaper), a BYU student paper whose About Us page says "The Daily Universe is committed to the mission of BYU and its sponsoring institution, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." [45] (signing this later) Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe this source listed in the keep !vote directly under the nomination above as a secondary source; it's clearly primary, and primary sources do not serve to establish notability. Wikipedia notability standards and those who the LDS church considers notable is not necessarily always going to be congruent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts One of the wikiprojects is alerting its members to this AFD. I note that there had been no notification of this on this page. W C M_email 11:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As above, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Article_alerts also alerts its members to AfDs. I don't see why this is relevant. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 00:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should do IMHO. W C M_email 00:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary (LDS Church). Search finds no significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Church sources (Church News, Ensign, lds.org, etc) are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Above !vote to keep only added another non-independent LDS source with a double conflict of interest as a student newspaper covering an alumna. Coverage outside the church seems to be of a different person with the same name in a different US state. Suggest redirecting to Primary (LDS Church), where subject's role in the church is already mentioned. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of the current state of this article, the subject has notability because of her position; we already have an article (Primary (LDS Church)#Chronology of the general presidency of the Primary) and a succession box on the Presidents of the Primary, so if the article were deleted it would simply need to be recreated. Please also note that searches need to be done on variants of her name, not merely the current article title. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no presumed notability for Mormon subjects and leaders on Wikipedia. No guideline or policy provides presumed notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary (LDS Church), as described above. Everything I saw in a search was published by the LDS or BY university. All are therefore primary or close to primary sources. Fails requirement for independent coverage.96.127.244.27 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kika Karadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References appear to just be links to blogs or advertisements for the subject's exhibitions. Nominating for deletion, or redirect to John Maus. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2018 (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/2018 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Exhibition reviews in Artforum are usually a good indication of notability ( for example, [46]), and inclusion in the 2005 Venice Biennale is almost a guarantee that the subject is notable, but is not applicable to off-site projects that take place during the Biennale. Vexations (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are some articles but the in-depth coverage is fairly thin. Some of the activities mentioned above do portend notability though. Also, if I am not mistaken, AFD is not a forum for discussion of redirects, as that can be done on the talk page or at RFD.198.58.175.190 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Artforum review is good, but to stay consistent with other decisions here it may or may not be enough in itself. I had no success verifying the 2005 Venice Biennale. The VB is such a diffuse event, with many many people putting on their own unofficial shows, I'm a little trepidatious of accepting it at face value. I also note the preponderance of COI edits in the article history, which gives me pause. AfD does sometimes end in a redirect, but I diametrically oppose a redirect to John Maus on Gender Gap principles merely because the two happen to be (or have been?[47]) married in 2017 (though have never collaborated on any work).--Theredproject (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I can confirm that Karadi was not the artist in the Hungarian national pavilion. That was Balázs Kicsiny [48] --Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she participated in "Poles Together, Poles Apart", not what we'd typically consider the Venice Biennale itself, that would be either one of the national pavilions or the show in the Arsenale. We cannot credibly claim that she participated in the Venice Biennale. --Vexations (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per [49] "An outdoor installation of 101 artists displayed on the wooden poles along Venice’s waterways." Per [50] "This exhibition was an official off-site project of the Venice Biennale, 51st Venice Biennial, Venice, Italy, June 12-November 12, 2005" --Theredproject (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2018 (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. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This area obviously needs a good editor. There are three distinct concepts here: borrowing from other composers, borrowing from other genres, and borrowing from other cultures. IMHO, the last topic belongs in a non-existent cultural borrowing article, but unfortunately this is a redirect to cultural appropriation which I might characterize as a WP:POVFORK. Borrowing from other composers seems like a plausibly notable topic, but I'm out of my expertise to say for sure. The solution is editing, not deletion until someone demonstrates they're going to write something better. Daask (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Yes, this article needs some serious reshaping, but I think the subject is notable enough and researched enough (never fails to hit 15 views daily, occasionally gets near 60) that it should be kept. I'm not opposed to a deletion then restarting immediately from scratch, but I am opposed to "salting the earth". Redditaddict6 9 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 14:38, 22 August 2018 (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 Delete per WP:G12 -- foundational copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tokenomics[edit]

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

Relatively new crypto-currency related buzzword article sourced to unreliable sources. Not notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:12, 20 August 2018 (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 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Youth League U15[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. The league is a non-notable youth league, which don't have a place to have a season article in an encyclopedia. Matthew_hk t c 09:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, as this is not a " top professional league". Jmertel23 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are non-notable youth leagues and we have already had AfD for these. Besides this page, following should be deleted as well.

2017–18 Youth League U13

Youth league U13

Youth League U15

Nike Premier Cup

Coderzombie (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:NSEASONS as this isn't a professional league. Animation is developing 02:36, 22 August 2018 (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. Uncontested sources. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 11:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit University System[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails GNG because there aren't any independent in-depth sources. Could iut be any simpler than that?96.127.244.27 (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, added to previous Comment: This Uniradio News report is independent, if not in depth.

This is written by "Elio Masferrer Kan, an expert on religion issues", and carried in the San Diego Union Tribune.

This is a media report on the current work of the organization on behalf of refugees.

This is the system's posting on its XXV Sports Meeting, repeated here. Jzsj (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Why would this chart of a sports meeting, without any descriptive text, be considered a reliable source? Do you think that anything with the title of the organisaiton in it is a reliable source? Please read WP:RS. Again. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs refs There are some big and well-known institutions here, and frankly I find it very hard to believe there aren't enough sources, presumably mostly in in Spanish. I suspect over-precise search terms are being used. This does not link to the es:wp Sistema Universitario Jesuita, though that is a reference-free zone. Oh, guess what? There's a whole frigging book, in English: google, Jesuit Student Groups, the Universidad Iberoamericana, and Political Resistance in Mexico, 1913-1979, Author David Espinosa, Publisher UNM Press, 2014, ISBN 0826354610, 9780826354617. Abysmal WP:BEFORE! Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but as far as the preview of this book goes, it never mentions the organisation we are discussing here... The Banner talk 01:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "organization"? The article describes it as a "network", presumably of institutions that are each their own organization, and it would probably be better renamed to Jesuit universities in Mexico, which is a far more productive search term. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most entries have articles; would qualify under WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is certainly an inadequate article, needing improvement, but that is not a ground for deletion. The article should be appropriately tagged. WP:V is verifiable, not verified. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as agree that it passes WP:LISTN, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton Falls bridge incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Minor incident goes viral, right, but notability is more than getting some attention when it happens. Not everything that makes the newspapers (or online equivalent) is encyclopedic material. Fram (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extremely wide and on-going international coverage - from the event on 7 Aug to today on 20 August - as evident in even a cursory BEFORE in google news. No indication this will die down. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME and WP:RAPID is in play due to the event being recent and the copious on-going news coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this event will have lasting effects. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - As per Icewhiz. Also, uncertain lasting effects are not criteria for deletion, as was explained in that rule. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 15:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to know when "snow keep" applies. Two people arguing for deletion, and two (including the article creator) for keeping, in no way resembles a "snow keep" decision. The subject doesn't have the lasting evidence of notability needed for an enwiki article. Deletion until such evidence appears, or draftifying until this becomes clear, are perfectly acceptable actions. Note that WP:EVENT and its subsections are a guideline, while WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Fram (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a lack of knowing whether or not there will be lasting effects is not in and of itself an indication of non-notability. However, until a presence of lasting effects and enduring notability is shown to be the case, it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jmertel23: It's August and it ain't snowing. However, for articles on recent events -- WP:RAPID is the appropriate policy for articles that have very wide news coverage. In this case - we have international coverage (really international - multi-lingual coverage - thousands of separate news items all over the world) over two weeks - since the event and through today. What we don't know is whether there will be a lasting impact and continued coverage - thought it is quite possible that there will be. To assess lasting/continued coverage requires a WP:BALL - and hence per WP:RAPID we retain the article and possibly re-assess in a few months.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but as WP:RAPID suggests, the retention could be done in draftspace until the notability is clearer. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of many alternatives in RAPID. Typically if there are no issues other than the impossibility of assessing lasting, then we keep the article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as per NOTNEWS. Come.on were talking about a prank that ended up with 5 broken ribs and and a punctured lung. If this had not been filmed and posted on the net this would not have ever been reported. Userfy is a viable option as per RAPID as this should have not been created yet as per WP:DELAY. Let's be perfectly honest here this subject will never be an encyclopedic one. Do we really want Wikipedia to be simply a collection of viral stories that have no significance a part from the fact that the video was seen X millions of times? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into an article on the bridge. Plenty of people have been injured at the bridge, so this is a common occurrence that just happened to go viral. Sounder Bruce 01:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy or notable of an article. If anything, it doesn’t deserve to be mentioned on any other article. People get injured all the time. WP:NOTNEWS. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:10, 26 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Premier Cup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, final stage of being Afd again Youth League U15 which is the fourth nomination of "Youth League U15" (or under other WP:Article titles) Matthew_hk t c 08:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 09:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY Coderzombie (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Fails WP:NSPORT and may need salt in the future. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:21, 27 August 2018 (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 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth League U15[edit]

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

youth football league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. And it may be AfD before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-League Youth U15. Matthew_hk t c 07:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And may be also under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIFF U-16 Youth League, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth I-League U15. Matthew_hk t c 08:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 07:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For failing WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2018 (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. No consensus to delete. Slow discussions on whether this person is the same as that person are a matter for the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yangsu Tegin[edit]

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

I am uncertain if this is the same person as Bagha Qaghan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect rather than delete. This person appears to have ruled the same state at precisely the same time as Bagha Qaghan, according to Göktürk family tree. I wonder if this name is what the Chinese called him, or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name given in Chinese is 鞅素特勤 (Yangsu Tegin), possibly the father of Niri Qaghan according of Chinese Wiki, also supposedly son of Muqan Qaghan (which is not as given in Göktürk family tree). The claim that he founded cities is dubious (villages founded by Shiri-Kishvar according to source, are they the same person?). It is rather messy, and the sources given doesn't help, so it may need the attention of an expert. The creator of the article has been busy changing articles on Turkic history, he might have to explain. Hzh (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that there is a passage in Suishu 大邏便爲處羅侯所執，其國立鞅素特勤之子，是爲泥利可汗 [51], mentioning Apa Qaghan , Chuluohou 處羅侯 (who may have been Bagha Qaghan), Yangsu Tegin, and Niri Qaghan. I'm not sure if I'm parsing it correctly, but it seems to suggest that Chuluohou (Bagha Qaghan) and Yangsu Tegin are different people. Hzh (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His listed predecessor was ruler of the khaganate at the time of a civil war. There may be issues under him of disputed rule in even specific locations such as Bukara. However, if this is the fact, we need to find sources to clearly indicate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed the content that was not properly sourced. I have also removed details that suggest similarity to Bagha Qaghan, given that the name Yangsu Tegin comes from Chinese history, and Suishu which is an important source of Turkic history of this period does not indicate Yangsu Tegin and Bagha Qaghan to be the same person. The Russian Wiki suggests that Yangsu Tegin may be the same as Sawa of Persian sources, although that is not the traditional identification. Bagha Qaghan is normally identified with Sawa, and Bagha Qaghan's details were added to this article, which may be OR or UNDUE whereby a minor viewpoint is taken to be fact. Other edits by the creator of the article may need to be examined. Hzh (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yangsu Tegin may or may not be the same as Sawa of Persian sources, however I don't see the reason why Bagha should be identified with Sawa? Bagha was a son of Issig, while Yangsu was a grandson of Muqan - a rival line - as we know from Niri Qaghan statue inscriptions. Apa - son of Muqan was a claimant to the throne of Turkic khaganate. So why Bagha (莫何可汗) would be fighting a war in Sassanid front, far away from his base in Mongolia? Apa's line would be much more closer to Sassanid border. Moreover, please see Suishu 51 - Bagha Qaghan captures Apa and Zhangsun Sheng (father of Empress Zhangsun) advises emperor to spare Apa. You may look at Zhangsun Sheng biographies too. Therefore Bagha and Yangsu can't be same person. Just because we have relatively lesser information on Yangsu, does not make him less irrelevant. Cavidaga (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2018 (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 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Shaji[edit]

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

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that this person entirely fails to meet notability requirements. He has won a minor national journalism award (along with 30 others in that year alone). But that by itself is not adequate to establish notability otherwise every other winner would have Wikipedia pages. Yes he is a journalist, and his journalism can be found on the internet, but so can that of virtually every journalist in the world. It would seem that the page was edited by someone connected to the subject. It contained unreferenced anecdontes and puffery. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find enough substantive coverage of this individual for him to meet WP:GNG, and as a regional bureau chief I don't think he is prominent enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Vanamonde (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vanamonde Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any coverage on him and he fails WP:ANYBIO AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:20, 27 August 2018 (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. This is not going to happen. (non-admin closure) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Fake news[edit]

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

WP:NAD (Not a Dictionary) appears to be in possible violation. This page is focused on defining a neologism. In addition, this page also uses sources that are the typical suspects of "fake news" in order to define "fake news". This article topic seems both against policy and logic (probably the reason for WP:NAD). -GDP ⇧ 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a frivolous nomination which reveals the nominator hasn't even read the article. It's a real article, not a dictionary. This should be closed immediately and the nominator's status here reconsidered, as they either are making a point violation or seriously lack the competence to know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source ("uses sources that are the typical suspects of "fake news" in order to define "fake news""). Their contribution history, statements, and political POV, all combined, indicate the latter is the case. Therefore they should be topic banned from political articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This user"??? We have exchanged many messages. At this point you are past WP:PA! On my TP, you have said I "can't be taken seriously" because I get news from Washington Times. You also said in that thread that conservative Wikipedians are incompetent. I took it lightly because I thought that was a friendly discussion. Now you're trying to get a new user posting his first nomination BLOCKED??? -GDP ⇧ 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent what I said elsewhere (you used far worse sources as well), and don't continually use "new user" as an excuse. You keep going around pushing all the right buttons that cause problems, for some odd reason. I guess you're just very unlucky for a newbie. You've been warned about this by many, and yet you still insist on editing controversial political articles, where you'll only get into more trouble. Try editing uncontroversial topics for a few months to get the hang of things here. Especially learn about RS. The sources used in the article are RS for the purpose. If you really doubt it, you should have used ONLY the article's talk page to work that out, not start this AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "edit" this article. I simply saw the XFD button and clicked it. It's a two second process. The TP seems a little dead too. I tried posting something days ago with no response. Again, you can let me know what rule I broke. You also seem to be ignoring what I have posted on your TP about this. It's like everything I do, even outside WP, is with evil intentions in your eyes. -GDP ⇧ 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT#2. Bakazaka (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search shows that this is a highly notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. However, questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination. (WP:SKCRIT#2) For this reason, keep per WP:GNG: 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. This is the case, examples like the The New York Times and The Guardian are listed below the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Is the nominator arguing that "fake news" isn't a thing? A discussion can certainly take place over whether some "fake news" is "fake" or is "a true, fact-based story that isn't in line with my political ideology". But "fake news" is definitely a thing. The article needs some work, but should be kept.Billmckern (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: frivolous nomination. The user who initiated this discussion appears to be lacking the competence expected of nominators. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is not carved in stone, it can change over time. Also, neither the motivation behind a nomination nor the competence of the nominator are directly relevant to the notability of a subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, "Keep" on substantive grounds. Meets GNG (obviously) as a significant cultural phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A significant cultural phenomenon". That might have just changed my mind. Thanks for the input! I don't know if it makes sense for me to rescind this right away, but I'm very open to it, with a re-wording of this article's lead to appear as strictly focused on a cultural phenomenon. I am in awe of the power of substance and civility, when many users reflexively scream "vandal!" -GDP ⇧ 06:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this issue with an admin. Apparently, there is no reason to assume this is vandalism, especially since I listed a very valid reason. I will be waiting to hear back more, but these reactions seem to be a little unwarranted. For now, I think I will wait to rescind my nomination, as it has been here for a very short time. -GDP ⇧ 06:33, 20 August 2018 (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 19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkanmi Vaughan[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The only claim of notability appears to be references describing how his book is the #1 app for a specific search term in the Google Play store. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The author is Nigerian, a third world nation that was faced with recession in 2016. The author's book is popular in the country because it played a very key role in sustaining business and market ideas among the Nigerian populace during the recession. Millions of copies of the book have been sold. With over 100,000 copies sold globally. The book is currently being used as a teaching tool for Entrepreneurial Skills in a few Nigerian higher institutions of learning. The author deserves a place in the encyclopedia as in years to come, people will want to find out what stood out for him as he helped millions of negerians survive, despite the recession. I do wish you see to it please and not delete the article. Thank you.Stevedure (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Controversy can make notability. Can we find better sources? Bearian (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Bearian: The Nation Nigeria [52] is a national newspaper in Nigeria. And Nairaland [53]is the biggest online forum in Africa with Editors (Moderators) who review every post before allowing such a post, if found worthy, taken to its front page. In my knowledge, I think those are worthy sources. Stevedure (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nairaland is an internet forum, it is not a reliable source. Please don't mention Nairaland again else AFD patrollers will not take you seriously.

Friendly tip: Any website that allows you to create content without verifying who you are can never be used as a source on Wikipedia.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's true that online forums aren't generally given much weight in discussions. More problematic is that those are both articles by Vaughan, with no evidence that anyone else is discussing them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HandsomeBoy Stevedure (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Power~enwiki: I hope you agree with @Bearian: that controversy can make notability! I think what needs to be done now is find Better Sources Stevedure (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there secondary sources available?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources Kindly refer the following sources: [54], [55], [56] [57], [58]

Stevedure (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Keep.~~ The guardian.ng and pulse.ng sources provided by Stevedure ~~satisfy GNG.~~ are good, but don't provide any information on Vaughan herself. wumbolo ^^^ 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~ - the sources given by Stevedure don't seem to satisfy Source requirements. Three seem unreliable, of the two noted as suitable by Wumbolo NJ only has 3.5 lines about him (the rest is a summary of bits of his book, so can't actually reliably cover him in detail) and the Guardian source is both stitched together from other bits, but more importantly, doesn't actually tell us anything about the individual other than he has this high positioned book. It certainly doesn't cover him in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's true; I have changed my vote. wumbolo ^^^ 11:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added my own - I realised that while it was a comment, it also supported my own !vote

Keep. The subject in question has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources that are independent of the subject. Most importantly, the article has verifiable facts. The Guardian is foremost newspaper in Nigeria, so as The Nation and Pulse.ng. The article is about an author of a very popular book, thus, the author is notable because of the book. I strongly support the keeping of the article. Thank you all. Stevedure (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevedure: "significant coverage" does not mean that the subject has to be mention in many newspapers, but that every newspaper mention must be significant, i.e. "in-depth". wumbolo ^^^ 18:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) A book being notable does not guarantee the author being so. NAUTHOR being satisfied (which is not guaranteed) does not ensure the author being notable - WP:BASIC is also present and WP:GNG takes precedence. 2) The fact that certain sources are usually reliable does not mean they can't be disqualified if they draw from a heavily primary source (interviews as a common example) 3) Even ignoring the above, you'd need the sources to cover the book in detail as a review - Pulse, NeJ for example do not provide a significant review. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[59], [60] are independent sources about Vaughan. 1) The sources are verifiable and are independent 2) Guardian, The Nation, Pulse and other sources above meet WP:GNG. Also, controversy can make notability and the first three sources above provide maximum information about the Vaughan's controversies. Again, Vaughan has now become notable as a result of his work . The book, depends on the author's intellect to be excellent, hence its wide acceptability and notability. It is a property of Vaughan and could not have been that notable without references to its author. Stevedure (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smashwords actually starts with "About me?" and continues in the first person. This is a spectacular slam-dunk at failing WP:INDEPENDENT. Additionally there's no editorial control and it's not hard to sign up and write on it, so it also fails independent and reliable that way. Earnbase is more interesting - it certainly satisfies Sig Cov on the author, and possibly does on the book (it discusses it in detail, but doesn't actually do much reviewing). As to whether the source is both reliable and independent I've swung both ways on each facet. I've set out my reasons for why I do not believe Guardian, pulse etc do not meet GNG. A book being made (partly) notable via references to its author does not mean the author is notable. In fact, if the author is notable because of the book, and the book is notable through references to its notable author you've created an endless cycle. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: thank you for being honest and objective so far. I'm glad you now accept that earnbase passes WP:GNG. I will remove the Smashwords from the references now. And for Comprehensive review, this [61] answers the question. Now I am satisfied the article is a strong keep material. Stevedure

@Stevedure: - That is clearly not what I said - I stated I accepted Sig Cov was satisfied, which is 1 OF 3 requirements for a source to be a GNG-satisfying source. I specifically said I've swung both ways on the other facets. I did not say I had decided. Please do not give unclear statements of what I said. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I'm sorry. I clearly misunderstood your comment. Stevedure (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevedure: - that's okay, I just wanted it to be made very clear. Reading my comment, I realise that I should have AGF more than I did, apologies. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Fedele Cultural Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG as most sources found are about exhibitions in the gallery The Banner talk 21:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely weak sourcing. How this ever became an article is some kind of miracle. Completely fails GNG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for advertising. Perfect case of WP:NOTPROMOTION and fails WP:NORG Accesscrawl (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2018 (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 Some Girls (TV series). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Felgate[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The BBC ref is a promotional interview for her appearance on Some Girls (TV series), and that appearance isn't enough on its own to meet WP:ENT; none of the other roles appear significant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Some Girls (TV series)...maybe later she will be notable enough to have her own article...Antonio Crazy Cool Loco Padre man Martin (Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttt??????) 06:56, 20 August, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a redirect would not work, because a lot of the article is about her work in other productions than Some Girls. Vorbee (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: - that there is content in the article that would be lost if it was merged or deleted is not reason to keep the page if the subject is not notable. To justify the existence of the page, you should really provide better references showing that the subject of the article is notable, or justify the existence of the page with other notability guidelines. Ross-c (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Some Girls (TV series) - Ultimately she'll always and forever be known for Some Girls, TOOSOON at present and chances are that won't ever change. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources include a GoFundme like site, two agents' pages and a press release from the Royal Court, and I'm not finding better coverage.Tacyarg (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this article, i was unaware of any notability considerations, presuming that being a main character in a television series for many episodes, was notability enough. So in this instance, i can understand, that in this early stage in her career, she probably wouldn't fit the criteria required by the notability expectations.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Wyler[edit]

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business person. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his company, Romulus Capital, the article on which was recently deleted. The other entity the subject is affiliated with was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos Society. Created by Special:Contributions/Jvandenberge with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPIP and WP:GNG. Clearly intended as promotion, and there's not enough in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, just passing mentions, quotes, and other routine business coverage expected for a company spokesperson. Forbes 30 under 30 is not a significant award or honor. "30 under 30" is actually 600 in the USA, as there are "30 under 30" in twenty different categories every year, plus the 300 additional "30 under 30" in Europe and Asia each year [62]. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2018 (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) wumbolo ^^^ 12:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Mead[edit]

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

Former child actor who appeared in a few roles and doesn't appear to have drawn any significant media coverage. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has enough prominent roles to pass WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's taken a substantial number of roles. scope_creep (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had notable roles as both a child actor (he was nominated several times for multiple roles in the Youth in Film Awards) and as a voiceover actor (the second ref link I provided by Entertainment Weekly calls him "a popular voice actor"). A few more reverences that are more than passing mentions. 1,2,3 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC by the sources given (the first and third of GoldenAgeFan's are helpful for this) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2018 (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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Cummz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Mainstream appearances are very minor. First AfD closed as "keep" in 2006. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adam Film World Female Performer of the Year Award meets #1 WP:PORNBIO.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets #1 WP:PORNBIO in Adam Film World award for Female Performer of the Year. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adam Film World award does not meet WP:PORNBIO. There's not even a page for Adam Film World Guide Award; what's listed in the article is piped to the guide itself. In any case, WP:SIGCOV is lacking for the subject and has not been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional non-porn media sources can be found at The Daily Beast:[63][64][65] and Cosmo: [66].

There is also this from the The Tampa Tribune, a newpaper with 12 Pulitzer Prizes for journalism.[67]. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's award definitely fails the well=known/significant standard of PORNBIO, by practice and consensus. It is not even notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the sources offered above are insufficient for notability. Daily Beast is a soundbite, as in:

Performer Courtney Cummz echoes Starr. “AIM should let us know who is impacted, because we could have shot content with them and they forgot to add to the list,” she says. “Or they could be one of my friends’ booty calls. You just don’t know.”

Cosmopolitan is an interview; while Tampa Bay is a WP:SPIP promo piece. This type of coverage does not fly for academics, businesspeople, doctors, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coffeeandcrumbs. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable Ghits, and I'm not even sure the award mentioned in this discussion even exists. It isn't WP:HOAX worthy, but it's definitely not gonna pass WP:PORNBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject clearly fails PORNBIO; the claimed award is neither well-known nor significant; as correctly noted above, the award itself is non-notable, given by a non-notable spinoff of a marginally notable porn magazine (and, as I recall, there isn't even a real award or award show, just a listing in the spinoff magazine. Virtually all the coverage amounts to no more than namedrops or soundbites; while the Tampa Tribune article is superficially plausible as an RS, actually includes virtually no verifiable information about her beyond stage name and a few credits; her self-sourced claim of a "six-figure" is about as credible as an after-midnight cable infomercial, and she's huckstering to get people to drop $4000 to learn how to make porn films. Virtually all the article references are nonindependent or promotional. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell M. Merin[edit]

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

It is verifiable that Mr Merin was President and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. This is a press release from Business Wire on the Business Insider website. It is implausible that this assertion is false, given that it concerns a very senior executive at a major multinational company.
In my opinion there is a credible claim of significance enough to preclude speedy deletion of this article under the various WP:A7 criteria, and the better forum for a discussion about the notability of the subject of the article would be at WP:AFD. The question here would appear to me is "has this very senior executive at a major multinational company received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject?"
My answer to that question is no.
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the person who tagged this for A7 I obviously don't think he's notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am finding a fair bit of coverage online I would consider significant (and since his career ran through a large period of the pre-internet days, I would suspect a deeper search would reveal more, but that seems unnecessary at the moment). In particular, see this 2002 piece from Institutional Investor which evaluates his skills and comments on the effects of his business strategies, and this 2005 piece from NYT which analyzes his alliances and struggles. Weaker are this 2005 Pensions and Investments magazine article, and this 2001 interview with Euromoney that could be argued to contain some independent analysis, and this 2005 WSJ article that (after the paywall) has a short paragraph summarizing his work at Morgan Stanley. Once notable, always notable. Keep. MarginalCost (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarginalCost, and assuming the sources are actually added, then per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article to include these, and a few more, sources. MarginalCost (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarginalCost. He may not be the most notable guy ever, but I think he passes the threshold for sure. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is still a mixed opinion (there has also been a major rewrite that is worth all eds viewing).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't feel the sources are WP:SIGCOV and are advertorial in nature. The position as a COO of a division is not a level of corporate advancement that would allow us to presume notability, while the sources presented are rather weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 20 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foxes: The Musical[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage in independent sources to be notable. Just local colour coverage of the amateur production in the Canberra Times because it was written by two local teenagers. Boneymau (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Play (Jonnycraig888 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In what way is it notable for WP purposes? Boneymau (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considerable press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. given that neither the lyricist/composer nor the playwright is notable, and that it appeared only inan amateur production, the coverage is the usual non-discriminating human-interest coverage for beginner's work by young people . Human interest coverage is not news coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 20 August 2018 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sewer Murders[edit]

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

Youtube videos are not RS, and remove that and there is nothing here other then a lot of synthasis (1976 was not in the 80's) tying up these into the acts of a serial killer. Far too ORy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis follows that of the "Kriminalreport Hessen" video. While the link goes to YouTube, it is a serious Hessischer Rundfunk TV production. Two older cases are presented in Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst, also a fairly reliable source for German unsolved crime. So the video sources are not just random YouTube videos. Anyway, I am not convinced this is encyclopaedia material unless there are more RS covering this as a murder series. —Kusma (t·c) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But have they been edited in any way, this is why you tube is iffy. I cannot tell?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are on Youtube instead of on a proper public archive because of idiotic German legislation (compare de:Depublizieren). But you are right, they could have been tampered with (although there is no reason to assume they were). —Kusma (t·c) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to a similar conclusion as Kusma. Two cases where covered in an episode on 24.04.1984 and in an episode on 03.11.1989 it is revealed that they where part of a larger series after finding the sixth victim who had been missing for 6 years. I found a reference to a book of Stephan Harbort that is covering the case, but a booksearch on google is not successful in identifying the book. If the book could be identified we should have ~~two~~ three major sources apart from various press articles (which may or may not be relevant) that should satisfy WP:GNG. ~~If not, it stands on Aktenzeichen XY alone and would not be notable.~~ Agathoclea (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about whether or not there is OR going on regarding which cases to include. Also I am not sure the press articles are anything more then useful for establishing each individual case happened. I am not sure they say anything about serial killer. So can we have some quotes establishing this is a serial killer, and not just a series of individual episodes?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The available "Kriminalreport Hessen" clearly speaks of a series. I do not have access to the book, but inclusion in that book only makes sense if it was considered a serial murder. The book is even mentioned in the article . The writeup on Aktenzeichen XY indicates that it was only later that it was realized to be a series. The discrepancy of 1976 not being in the 80s indicates that that case was only later linked. The bulk of the cases happened in the 80s. "Kriminalreport Hessen" sounds like 76, also being out of the area, was linked later to the other cases. I would like to know the publication date of that report, as the investigating police officer was already retired at the time of being interviewed. Agathoclea (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found it Agathoclea (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking it over for almost a week per above I go for keep Agathoclea (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG. The sources looks ok as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of Scientific Psychology[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "any new journal produced by the APA is very likely to be notable". However, notability is not inherited. After 5 years of existence, which is plenty time, it still is not in any Clarivate Analytics database (not even the much maligned ESCI) or in Scopus. On my user page, I have some examples of journals published by major publishers and still tanked after only a few years. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to APA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have consistently disagreed with my friend ~~David E~~ Randykitty for journals published by a premier scientific society. Even the embryonic ones are notable. It's not a question of too soon, as it might be from a commercial publisher, because it is not really conceivable that any research journal from the APA will not be in ISI as soon as it has the necessary length of publication to calculate the impact factor. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you mean me, not David E. ;-) And I indeed disagree. This journal has been around for 5 years, more than enough time to get listed in Scopus and ISI. Compare that with Draft:JAMA Cardiology, also a society journal, which was established in April 2016 and already has an IF (and a large one at that), so it is conceivable that an APA journal does not get into ISI at the first possible occasion, not even several occasions later. Archives of Scientific Psychology is several years older, so there's been more than enough time to calculate an IF. A different example is Contemporary Organic Synthesis, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, which existed from 1994-1997 and then folded without ever making it into any major database. Being published by a reputed society is not a guarantee that a journal will become notable and that goes for Archives of Scientific Psychology. I find it very strange that after 5 years this is not included in at least Scopus, so at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the name. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Psychological Association. It got a bit of discussion (also here, and some briefer mentions [68][69][70]); I found some interesting reading, but not quite enough reliable sourcing to sustain an article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm a bit out of my comfort zone when it comes to gauging notability of academic journals, but I looked this over a little bit. There is minor coverage highlighted above, which wouldn't be enough normally for a keep. I went to American Psychological Association to see if a merge made sense, and it doesn't. The American Psychological Association#Publications section just lists the organization's numerous journals, but not this one, so I added it. Since the target is just a list of similar publications, a redirect to an unlinked entry is inconsistent with the look and feel of the existing page, and doesn't really add value. I'm on the fence, but since the article isn't intended to be promotional, I don't see it hurting, and so I'm going to throw a weak keep vote out there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tim, what's the use of having notability criteria if we're going to keep everything that's not promotional? I could write a neutral article about my cleaning lady, too... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Randykitty - what makes this different is there’s a benefit however marginal in spreading academic discourse and research - in the pursuit of knowledge. And you can’t just throw up a collection of papers and call it a journal - there’s some work and thought behind this. Your cleaning lady might have some great techniques with the broom and mop, but they would not be hard for others to replicate. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the thousands of journals around, setting one up is not that hard either... Your !vote is not based on policy/guidelines but on WP:ILIKEIT... --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but perhaps more WP:IDONTHATEIT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. I don't hate it either, why would I? But we have notability criteria and this doesn't meet them. So either you put in a proposal to do away with WP:N, or you'll have to provide reasons why this meets NJournals or GNG... --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2018 (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] "Treen Says Louisiana Needs Two-Party System to Develop Leaders, Minden Press-Herald, September 3, 1971, p. 1.

[2] Bullock, Charles S.; Rozell, Mark J. (2010). The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 115. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

[3] "Statewide Report of Registered Voters" (PDF). Louisiana Secretary of State. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

[4] Edwards Barham became the first Republican elected to the State Senate in the 20th Century.

[5] "Search for "Robert+Max+Ross" in Louisiana Newspapers". Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

[6] "Search for "Robert+Ross" and "Republican" in Louisiana Newspapers from 1952-1990". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]