Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

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 delete. clear consensus that it meets neither GNG nor WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datis Kharrazian[edit]

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

I propose this article be deleted. It does not fit many of Wikipedia's guidelines for a biography. The creator of the page did NOT address issues and continues to include biographical and achievement statements that are NOT found in the low-quality sources being cited and removed warnings about orphan pages and missing information.

Sources are not high-quality secondary sources or are self-published sources. Creator of the page also did not contest the deletion, but rather chose to remove the tag completely without discussion. Once again, I propose a Delete. Lesslikely (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the citations to articles that seemed unrelated and will strive to add citations that are more appropriate. Would appreciate any advice to improve the biography Budfawcett (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budfawcett The use of references from PubMed and Medline is not a problem when they contain relevant things to be referenced in the article. However, there are several statements on the page that are not referenced by high-quality secondary sources like a high-quality newspaper website or journalistic website. For example, where did the statement about his birthplace come from? Or the statement about him teaching thousands of clinicians with his teaching model? Or the statement about him receiving a reward? There are no high-quality sources for this person. Several of them are faculty pages. It's irrelevant if it's a Harvard faculty page. Until there are high-quality secondary and tertiary sources in the future, this person should not have a Wikipedia page. Every clinician or researcher is not meant to have a Wikipedia page, even if they are from Harvard. Wikipedia pages host biographies if they meet the guidelines for a biography. This page does not. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Lesslikely (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budfawcett Here are several other problematic statements.

"His first book, Why Do I have Thyroid Symptoms When My Lab Tests Are Normal? was published in 2010 and promoted a paradigm shift on how hypothyroidism is managed with diet, nutrition, and lifestyle medicine.[5][6] " Promotion of Amazon book, and using low-quality sources to promote the idea of a "paradigm shift".

"He was the first author to show the clinical management of hypothyroidism needs to involve an autoimmune approach.[7] "

This is not true. Systematic searches of Medline and several other scientific databases will show research papers discussing the connection between autoimmune disorders and hypothyroidism for several decades.

"Patients suffering from hypothyroid disease who were helped by his book went on to develop two thyroid patient-advocacy organizations, Hey Hashi’s[8] and Hashimoto’s 411.[9]"

"His second book, Why Isn’t My Brain Working?, was published in 2013 and serves as a functional neurochemistry reference for both lay readers and practitioners.[10]" Again, where is the high-quality secondary evidence for this?

"Kharrazian has developed a clinical model of functional medicine that has been taught to thousands of health care providers throughout the United States and Europe".

This doesn't sound like a neutral objective statement. Where is the evidence for this statement?

"Kharrazian was born in Tehran, Iran in 1974. His family migrated to Del Mar, California in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution. "

No reference from a high-quality secondary, tertiary source.

"He is a Diplomate of the American Clinical Board of Nutrition, a Diplomate of the Board of Nutrition Specialists, a member of the American Society for Nutrition, and a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition."

No indication on the reference for this information. Furthermore, who else would know this? Lesslikely (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budfawcett Do you have any connection to Datis Kharrazian? If you do, the self-promoting in the article has violated the neutrality of the page. Lesslikely (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lesslikey, I will pass on your comments to Dr. Kharrazian to see what can be updated. Budfawcett (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think this page can be improved because getting rid of the poor sources isn't enough, there simply aren't any high-quality sources in the first place. I believe a Delete may be the best option. Especially considering that the creator of the page has admitted above to being affiliated with the subject, which has led to favorable, promotional bias in the language of the page. I don't think this is at all appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Lesslikely (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. I'll see if I can improve the sources and the writing. There are many links on the internet. But I'm not sure what wikipedia moderators consider 'high quality' since so many websites are low quality in looks, but high quality in content. Budfawcett (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I joined Wikipedia about ten years ago. I object to the deletion of my first published article about Datis Kharrazian accepted by Wikipedia in September 2017. I removed its orphan status a week ago, as suggested by the orphan notice at the top of the page. That notice also included a note that the notice could be removed without explanation if I contested removal of the article. I'm not a professional writer or professional wiki editor, but the 15-sentence article now seems to be neutral and unbiased. If you have suggestions on where to improve this article I would appreciate any feedback. Additional citations will be added as available. Thanks for your continued feedback and improvements to my article. Budfawcett (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striking addition to WikiProject schools. Subject isn't about a school or a founder of a school that would attract a school-related redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. @Lesslikely: please note that each user should only make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment, and as nominator your "delete" is assumed. It would be a good idea for you to remove the boldface or even add <strike> tags around your "delete"s. More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that it's going to surprise anyone given all the above but this bozo's apparently advertising for help with stopping the article from being deleted. Nice of him to say he's willing to pay top dollar too, I must say. 185.220.70.168 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this highly disturbing and disappointing. It is clear that the author and creator of the page tried to maintain his/her neutrality, but then somehow the subject was immediately informed of the possible impending deletion and is now looking for a way to prevent that by hiring someone to clean up the page. I seriously believe the neutrality of this page is compromised and the creator has a serious conflict of interest here that has biased the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesslikely (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me a BOZO on wikipedia... Really? I'm not a professional writer or wiki editor, just looking to improve my content on Wikipedia. Budfawcett (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Budfawcett, you are the creator, you are also the subject of the page and have been found to request services to keep your own Wikipedia page. Not every person is meant to have a Wikipedia page. Please check the guidelines for biographies. You also advertise your books throughout and have written several statements with the intention of self-promotion, though they are now deleted because I brought the discussion up. However, there is still a serious lack of any reputable, third-party sources on the page, and it reads like a self-promotion rather than a biography. Several of the references are obscure websites that anyone can edit. Again, there is a conflict of interest here. Lesslikely (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Update: The subject of the article has now made the request page for help from a Freelancer on Upwork private. Lesslikely (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, checking on Upwork to see if anyone had any magic bullets, or suggestions. I appreciate everyone's feedback and some of the updates that happened yesterday from WIKI users. I have read both of Dr. Kharrazian's books and some of his research articles. So yes, I'm a fan. I think he is a notable doctor/writer when I compare him to some other doctor/author bios on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, some of the contributors to the talk page might think he is not notable enough for a page, and initially asked for a delete. So let the Wiki admins determine whether he is notable enough, and if any of the talk page followers want to improve the verbiage on the page, or update citations on the page, that would be great. Since I received an inflammatory comment on this public WIKI talk page (I think it's public) from an unidentified user with an iP address (well that's not my cup of tea), I'd rather spend my free time with my kids. I think the page is neutral enough, and more citations can be added as they become available. So my comments will end here. Thanks again. ### Budfawcett (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budfawcett I would advise that you halt editing this page. Please look at your talk page and notice the conflict of interest notice. You have previously stated that you are in touch with Datis Kharrazian. You are also the creator of the page. You also have information about his birth, and several other pieces of information not found in the references cited. Who else would know these things besides Datis himself or someone close to him? Furthermore, you attempted to advertise on UpWork to hire a freelancer to edit this page as to not have your Wikipedia page deleted. It seems abnormal for a "fan" to go out of his/her way, even financially, to keep a Wikipedia page about a person they've read a "few research articles about". Wikipedia editors are not that gullible. Lesslikely (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesslikely Of course I asked Dr. Kharrazian his birthdate and requested a copyright free photo. If I look at other bios of living persons, how else is it done if the info and photo are not readily available online. There are so many examples of birthdate's that are not cited. I was fishing for free info from Upwork but came up empty. Like many people I googled Wikipedia editors, and Upwork came up. My only intent is to publish a neutral article, and it started with rewriting his online biography which was not neutral. Thanks for assisting in making it better. My intent was never to self-promote for Dr. Kharrazian, just to note his contributions to science, teaching, etc. Budfawcett (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesslikely I have checked my talk page and I have added the connected contributor tag (hopefully) to the correct places. Thanks. Budfawcett (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to meeting the notability qualifications for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Pack Lambert This was my point. If every academic, who's published a few papers in relatively obscure journals and who's written their own books deserved to have a Wikipedia page, the site would be filled with far too many unnecessary biographies. Also, a page that is far from neutral, reads like an advertisement, and is created by someone with a very clear conflict of interest? I don't think it meets the criteria to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesslikely (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as Nom...does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, Fails. Emily Khine (talk) 07:58, 16 July 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Anthony Ewins[edit]

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

These same concerns also apply to Ewins' creative partner, article found at:

Not notable under WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Two reliable sources cover solely in the context of being "ascended fanboys" who got noticed for their JW fansite and hired by Universal. No other significant coverage. Otherwise the page, before cleanup, was almost entirely a promotional summary of the sites they created.

On an additional note: the article was moved from draftspace by an account that had been dormant for 10 years, only to come back and begin writing about both Ewins and Glover on Jurassic World articles. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC); edited 21:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if the subjects were just "marketers" there would be little reason for a Wikipedia page. However, Trevorrow has publicly stated in a previous tweet that they are "creative consultants". Given they've significantly shaped the Jurassic canon there are grounds to push them as creative writers/Jurassic consultants, given the uniqueness of their roles. Further coverage now includes: https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/perth-mans-incredible-ride-to-hollywood-on-the-back-of-dinosaurs-ng-b88896456z - howzat_out 13:03, 14 July 2018 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howzat out (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. How would any reasonable editor think these are notable people? 22:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete consultants of any kind are amonst never notable for being such. Nothing suggests that Ewins is an exception for this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 15 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Pacific Performance Award (3PA)[edit]

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

Non-notable award. None of the linked sources seem to discuss the award, and all the other mentions I can find online are Wikipedia and its mirrors or a few small press releases. Has been an orphan since its creation in 2013. A similar article was rejected at AfC around that time. MarginalCost (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources, and very little coverage from any sources at all. Newslinger (talk) 00:38, 13 July 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. There has been no indication given that this topic has been discussed by reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shark episode[edit]

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

A notorious piece of gossip based almost entirely on hearsay and rumour, without any citations to sources that one could honestly call "reliable". Discussions on the talk page reveal people were suggesting to send it to AfD about 9 years ago, so this is not before time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Led Zeppelin. Not sure why you wouldn't consider the Led Zep bios reliable. This is pretty well-known, and something involving a shark probably did happen. However, I'm not sure this deserves its own page though, so we can mention it on the main article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of maybe it happened material can be covered by the Led Zep journalists. ALso, why is this in the "artists" deletion listing?96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Led Zeppelin. It involves them, so it's kinda related. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "artists" deletion list is not really meant for musicians, although some end up here.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the deletion list and I saw quite a few musicians there. There is nothing in the notice that say it's for painters and the such. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, it's not really helpful to put musicians here, nor is overlisting them, as you have done above. If it's a musician, put them in music-related. If it's an artist, put them in artist-related. Specific sections exist. Why do you think there is an artist sectionand a musician section?96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One being a more generic category than the oyhsr? But you make a fair point. I'll avoid sorting mucicians into the artist category. - - Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It allegedly involves them, but aside from the second hand account of a former band associate who, by his own admission, needed a "kiss and tell" type tabloid story to pay off drug debts, there's no proof of this whatsoever. That means WP:BLP comes into play. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the alleged connection, I added it to the list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is only on something that allegedly happened.81.133.110.208 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete as poorly-sourced gossip. However, I'm glad I learned something today. — JFG ^talk 13:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughable that this would be an encyclopedic topic even with greater certainty it happened. Reywas92^Talk 16:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will never look at this video in the same way again now :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per EDDY's arguments and the fact that, as indicated by this articles reference list, this subject has been covered in reliable sources and officially-published independent sources. The Delete arguments are invalid because they're saying the topic isn't notable simply because it's only "alleged" to happen and that "this kind of maybe it happened material can be covered by the Led Zep journalists." That doesn't prove anything about how much the topic is being covered in reliable sources. "Laughable that this would be an encyclopedic topic" (a vague WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument) also doesn't prove anything about the subject's notability either. Whether an article stays or is deleted depends on reliable coverage of the article, and this subject has that, so there. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer of the Gods and Stairway to Heaven are about as reliable as The Sun and the National Enquirer, and pitched at about the same level. The best source I have found is this one which suggests the whole thing is .... well, fishy. Mercifully, we don't have an article on Jimmy Page and Satanism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a hopeless Led Zep geek so of course I am familiar with this story. It will always be a part of the band's folklore but it is an alleged incident that has become legendary after 40 years of people talking about it like it really happened. It does have a seemingly solid source in the book by Stephen Davis, but the only known originator of the legend is Richard Cole whose memory and reliability have been placed in doubt, to put it politely. See the Contributions to published accounts section of Cole's WP article for some sourced interviews on that matter. Back to the shark thing, WP:NOT has multiple guidelines that could be used to strike down this article, including original thought and rumors. Anyone in favor of keeping the article or merging to the band need to show a policy concerning an old rumor becoming legendary enough to keep as a LEGEND rather than as true history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 14 July 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 DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RoFx[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable trading platform. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Given that this is retail forex, a subject highly prone to spamming, I wouldn't be surprised this is covert advertising. MER-C 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's based in US so sorting into that catagory --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)~~ Comment was for a previous del sorting --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources. Three of the reference articles have clickbait "scam or not" titles. Newslinger (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written spam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 17 July 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 Editors (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Urbanowicz[edit]

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

Actually nominating this for a redirect as the subject is not independently notable aside from his work in Editors (band) and most, if not all of the content is covered in the band article and his own article is incredibly poorly sourced, serves as little more than a promotional outlet, trivial nonsense (the entire personal section) and all coverage is almost exclusively about his work in the band. Also per WP:MUSICBIO specifically "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases [...] CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I agree the article could be sourced better, but re: the notable artist thing, aside from his work as Druids, he has also produced an album of the band The Spectors, and he has collaborated with Andy Burrows. It does seem like user Chrissymad got a bit triggered by attempts to change the photo on the page, which is in essence just a bit of banter by the way. Also I've never used this part of Wikipedia before so apologies if I'm doing this wrong. User:Hvn42 —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hvn42 I could care less about the photo, thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion or redirect. Of course I assume good faith on the part of all editors. However, I am uneasy about the ~~nominator's motives~~ timing in this instance. The nomination for deletion or redirect comes almost instantly in the wake of edit warring today in which the nominator was involved~~, creating the appearance of personal pique~~. The BLP at issue has been on Wikipedia since August 2006‎. It did not just suddenly become "incredibly poorly sourced … little more than a promotional outlet, trivial nonsense," and there has been no discussion whatever at Talk:Chris Urbanowicz for the past 11 years—which would have afforded interested parties a chance to remedy deficiencies. I urge editors to look objectively at this and not jump to conclusions. KalHolmann (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better served at a user page. I'd also caution editors on casting aspersions - TNT ^💖 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann Can you please stop questioning my motives? I nominated it because it did not appear to be notable and was in fact doing so before anyone started edit warring but decided at the time a redirect was plausible given what I cited. I have no ill will toward anyone but my attention was not brought to this until an edit filter was triggered and I reversed the very first edit. Please stop casting aspersions. As far as the talk page- why not discuss it here? I see no evidence that he meets inclusion criteria, as per what I've said. How else do you come across an article you're not looking for other than through the course of doing other work on Wikipedia? I'm not an endless fountain of knowledge that knows everything that has ever existed here, give me a break.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, I apologize for offending you. But I believe you are not the right person to be nominating this BLP for deletion or redirect at this time, based on today's s contentious edit history of that article. KalHolmann (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: Excuse me? What history? I removed a copyrighted photo, that is literally it. I've not engaged in any other manner with any user other than explaining copyright issues in my edit summary. How does that exclude me from nominating an article for deletion? Can you please tell me how I am involved aside from removing a photo? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad, since you mention edit summaries, your first today was straightforward: "Copyvio."

Your next summaries were increasingly testy, culminating in what struck me as an exasperated redirect followed 13 minutes later by nomination for deletion.

"It doesn't matter what the subject wants - we do not allow copyrighted content and it's plainly obvious he did not take the photograph."

"No, it is the photographer who holds the copyright. not the subject. and again, subjects do not dictate what an article contains."

"boldly redirect per WP:MUSICBIO, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." - the band is notable, he is not, redirect"

"Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Urbanowicz."

This may be your idea of an objectively detached Wikipedian going about one's work. My impression differs. KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KalHolmann: I'll also ask publicly what ulterior motive you are accusing me of having, thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann And you've failed to explain how on earth that makes me involved. Being straightforward is not testy. I could care less about the subject matter. You've also failed to back up your claim that I am somehow involved and have an ulterior motive. If you can't provide it, I'd ask that you kindly redact your false statement as it's irrelevant to this discussion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @KalHolmann: For what it's worth, I see no issue with this article being AfD'd by Chrissymad at this time, involved or not. The intention of AfD is to come to a consensus about the fate of this article going forward - whether it be kept, deleted, or another result as appropriate. Consensus about the article is now the important thing, not a discussion about whether it was nominated by the 'right' person. I'm also aware that I was removing the photo in question from the article, as a purely policy-based point of there being no indicated permission from the photographer - noting that the image has now been deleted from Commons for that reasoning too. Let's try and now focus on the article itself, photograph aside. stwalkerster (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination - non-notable musician. Hiàn (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:40, 10 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jaikaran[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing any WP:AUTHOR criterion. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she and her work exist -- she needs to attain a distinction that passes AUTHOR, and she needs to have the reliable source coverage in media to carry an article. But this is referenced exclusively to her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself rather than being analyzed in the third person by other people, and two blog entries -- which means that exactly zero of these are sources that assist in building notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails to meet any criteria set forth by WP:AUTHOR, and a majority of references are directly related to the subject. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no evidence of notability can be added. It's a bit hard on her as the criteria for inclusion of books seem to be lower than that for authors. Deb (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, Jaikaran's book has not been noticed by libraries (held by 2), a gsearch brings up no useable reviews, also nothing indepth about Jaikaran herself, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon for her to be established as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 15 July 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. Sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. ansh 666 08:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Sardesai[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, I see some passing mentions but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources" like Mid Day [1], Times of India [2], Hindustan Times [3], The Asian Age [4] these are independent sources of the subject of the article. Act345 (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC) — Act345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources you provided above are nothing more than passing mentions which is not what Wikipedia seeks for a biographical article also do you mind if I ask whether you're a returning user? Or are you really a new user? GSS (talk|c|em) 04:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GSS Yes i am a returning user here to know more kindly see my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Act345 and let's back to the point i am wondering if above references are "passing mentions" than please let me know what is "significant coverage" according to you, please let me know may be i missed something while reading WP:GNG that you can make me understand, i would be happy to know & i will also discuss about WP:GNG & Which are reliable references these days at Teahouse. Thanks for your valuable comment about my edits. That will help me to learn more. you are doing well god bless you :)Act345 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure but you still need to disclose your previous account, and "significant" means it can't be a bunch of trivial mentions the sources should provide in-depth coverage of the subject, not just an in-passing mention or name drop. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable, i could find only few references reliable so can keep for now Heshiv (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heshiv: Seems notable? can you provide some sources that you think support notability as per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: see these http://www.saamana.com/yuva-sena-unit-in-patangrao-kadam-collage-in-pen, http://www.saamana.com/yuvasena-college-unit-at-joshi-bedekar-college, http://www.saamana.com/yuva-sena-asks-the-education-minister-about-the-mess-in-mumbai-university all published in Saamana Heshiv (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided above are insufficient to support notability, please read what Bearcat has explained below. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, has not been elected to any office. All trivial mentions about him in the sources provided and there is no inherent notability in being a General Secretary of the Yuva Sena which is actually the youth wing of the Shiv Sena. In my opinion it is WP:TOSOON to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 14:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL, and the sources represent glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things rather than coverage that is substantively about him for the purposes of getting over WP:GNG. People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles the moment their name has appeared in newspaper articles — for a source to count as a data point toward getting a person over GNG, he needs to be its core subject and not just namechecked or soundbited in coverage whose core subject is something else. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GSS this is my first work (page) & new here too so please don't bite me WP:BITE, WP:NEWBIES & you are also discouraging me to contribute on Wikipedia, is this your way of contributing to discourage (bite) new users, i know you may have years experience as a Wikipedian but that does't not mean you will do whatever you want to do i mean i followed Wikipedia guidelines check this one Wikipedia:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance before creating this page. please take your work (action) seriously because other new users also spending their valuable time to improve the Wikipedia for good causes. If you really want to be a helpful hand than you can help to expand This article.

Hindi translation of above text जीएसएस यह मेरा पहला काम (पृष्ठ) है और यहां भी नया है इसलिए कृपया मुझे काट न दें WP: BITE, WP: NEWBIES और आप मुझे विकिपीडिया पर योगदान देने के लिए भी निराश कर रहे हैं, क्या यह आपका तरीका है नए उपयोगकर्ताओं को हतोत्साहित करने में योगदान देने के लिए, मुझे पता है कि आपके पास विकिपीडिया के रूप में वर्षों का अनुभव हो सकता है लेकिन इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि आप जो कुछ भी करना चाहते हैं वह करेंगे, मेरा मतलब है कि मैंने विकिपीडिया दिशानिर्देशों का पालन किया है [[विकिपीडिया: Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance] ] इस पृष्ठ को बनाने से पहले। कृपया अपना काम (एक्शन) गंभीरता से लें क्योंकि अन्य नए उपयोगकर्ता अच्छे कारणों से विकिपीडिया को बेहतर बनाने के लिए अपना मूल्यवान समय भी खर्च करते हैं। यदि आप वास्तव में एक सहायक हाथ बनना चाहते हैं तो आप इस आलेख को विस्तारित करने में सहायता कर सकते हैं। [[उपयोगकर्ता: Riblitoje (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Riblitoje (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

The "Don't bite the newbies" principle is not a free immunization against your work getting deleted if it doesn't follow our rules and standards. It just means we have to address you politely, not that we have to exempt you from the rules of the place. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Despite the ref-bombing there is no evidence of significant independent coverage. Most of the cited refernces say absolutely nothing about the subject and his name appears only in the form of "Spokesperson for the Yuva Sena Varun Sardesai" said "..."; or noting that he was present somewhere; or that he may run for something. Best of all: This cited opinion column is not even about Varun Sardesai but about Varun Gandhi!

The sole exception is this gossipy piece in the Mumbai Metro supplement of Asian Age, which would hardly suffice (also, as has been noted during previous discussions at WP:RSN, we should be very careful/averse to using the local supplements of even mainstream Indian newspapers as sources, since they are given to celebrity gossip, low/non-existent fact-checking, and lightly-editing reprinting of press releases). Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 13 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Monappa[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Currently an unsourced BLP, but some sources (such as [5]) do exist. I haven't found enough coverage of "India My Way" to suggest that her involvement in that will meet WP:ENT, and other coverage is fairly spammy (often of the nature "look at these bikini pics"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 15 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceTreaty[edit]

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

No sources; so fails WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICIAN. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I've managed to find so far are primary sources or profiles (SoundCloud, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). No significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, although I could be proven wrong. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also could not find any reliable sources or anything that would suggest notability. This means that this likely fails WP:GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete meets WP:A7, WP:G11, and WP:G12 (from their FB page [6]). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 15 July 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. There may or may not be one or two good sources in the massive list, but either way, the subject doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. ansh 666 08:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shomprakash Sinha Roy[edit]

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

Promotional article of an apparently self-published author who may not meet wikipedia's standards of notability for authors. Many of details in the article are misleading/false (eg, claim that Penguin Publishers included subject's story in an anthology), non-noteworthy (eg, the listed awards), or unsupported by secondary sources (eg, most of the biographical details).

Article was created by an editor (and their sock accounts) with apparent conflict of interest, and after their submitted draft was reviewed and rejected by five independent reviewers, the draft's creator simply reviewed, accepted and moved their own submission to mainspace. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily per nom. I'm inclined to argue that this individual, at this time, fails to pass WP:AUTHOR primarily due to their lack of reference and mention in WP:RS. From the page's 23 listed references, I was able to find only two thid-party mentions, one regarding weight loss and largely unrelated to the author career (here) and another discussing a brief 2013 interview by The Hindu, (here). Per the listings at WP:AUTHOR, this subject fails to meet the criterion, The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, as well as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the Draft namespace.I think it would be a good decision. ARKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Sroy (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Decision based on the fact that said author has noted as a public literary figure. He been a guest speaker at MICA Ahmedabad and IIT BHU, both institutions of national repute in India. He has also served as co-editor for the book 21 Things About Romance, in which he interviewed 100+ authors, selected 21 authors and recommended their work for inclusion in the anthological opinion book. He has been included to the Forbes Top 100 Celebrities long-list in 2014: http://www.forbesindia.com/printcontent/39097, and has written and directed a national TVC for Amagi Corporation - Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irebwxOtioY Making of video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSjetN8Ry20. The references included here should not be ignored. This is a notable person and author according to WP:AUTHOR criteria, has never added promotional material to the Wikipedia page, and frankly, the move to delete this page is being seen as deep rooted in racism. I urge you to reconsider and look up the author's accomplishments before making a decision. Requesting you to draw an example from Durjoy Datta's page, who has also been listed on Wikipedia for the same exact reasons. Shomprakash Sinha Roy has worked his way hard after dropping out of college, has never had any form of wealth to support his public relations, never worked with a PR agency, and has been a struggling author who received his due credits starting with the publication of his books. We beg you to consider what this means for an individual who places his faith in the democratic web. Please Keep. — 27.59.105.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Pushing for a thorough review and edit of content included in this piece, since it is a biography of a living person, and then Keep this article. — 27.59.105.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep the article. We have performed a thorough search of all references and reviews, found the following valid links defining notability as per WP:AUTHOR criteria. Most links included below.

List of some of the most notable public articles and interviews with Shomprakash Sinha Roy:

Bangalore Mirror:

https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/techie-the-pink-smoke/articleshow/23056732.cms

Forbes India:

http://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/forbes-india-celebrity-100-nominees-list-for-2014/39097/1

http://www.forbesindia.com/printcontent/39097

The Hindu:

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/shades-of-the-writer/article5211286.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/rock-till-you-drop/article19990373.ece

The Times Blog Feature on Smash One, featuring Shomprakash: https://www.thetimesblog.com/features-rock-band-smash-one/

The Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/We-wanted-our-music-to-uphold-the-struggle-we-went-through-The-Pedestrians/articleshow/20241816.cms

Other Interviews & Review:

https://learningandcreativity.com/every-book-spell-magic-says-shomprakash/

https://newsable.asianetnews.com/life/90-to-60-kgs-in-3-months-this-bangalore-based-author-weight-loss-journey-is-inspiring

https://gulnaazrizvi.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/author-interview-shomprakash-sinha-roy/

http://writingtipsoasis.com/51-top-indian-authors-to-follow-on-facebook/

http://thirstydesires.blogspot.com/2014/02/

https://theauthorsblog.com/2014/07/20/interview-with-shomprakash-sinha-roy/

Guest columns and peptalks:

http://onwriting.in/shomprakash-sinha-roy/

https://wrimoindiawrites.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/broken-promises-a-peptalk-by-shomprakash-sinha-roy/

Some notable public reviews of Shomprakash Sinha Roy’s work:

https://heartglazier.blogspot.com/2014/05/21-things-about-romance.html

https://ilagarg.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/21-things-about-romance-book-review/

Book listing on Amazon Global:

https://www.amazon.com/Life-Served-Hot-Shomprakash-Sinha/dp/9381841101

Goodreads Author Page:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6896203.Shomprakash_Sinha_Roy

The reference links are accurate and may be cross-checked.

Decision requested based on reference links: Keep the article. Edits can be requested to align content for further neutrality.106.51.71.7 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Neutral[reply]

Comment: Since HunterM267 has already assessed the "quality" of these references, which the article has already been bombarded with, I'll only add that even the two mentions of the subject in The Hindu are in the "Metro Plus" supplement, and as has been discussed previously at WP:RSN (eg, here) such city/lifestyle supplements of even mainstream Indian newspapers are often just lightly reported/copyedited reprints of press releases. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources presented by the above IP are laughably bad. Amazon? Really? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petition toKeep the article. The comment above (Comment: Since HunterM267 has already assessed the "quality" of these references, which the article has already been bombarded with, I'll only add that even the two mentions of the subject in The Hindu are in the "Metro Plus" supplement, and as has been discussed previously at WP:RSN (eg, here) such city/lifestyle supplements of even mainstream Indian newspapers are often just lightly reported/copyedited reprints of press releases. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)) should be challenged - These were all newspaper mentions by the publications directly. These were not pushed as press releases, and none of the press releases issued under Shomprakash Sinha Roy (also listed as page references) match the content published in the newspapers. This is an open attempt to remove the article forcefully. Requesting intervention from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.90.250 (talk)

Review, adding reference links:

1. Durjoy Datta on Wikipedia - this is the man who launched the publishing house that published Shomprakash's work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durjoy_Datta 2. Wikipedia article on one of Grapevine India's books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_It%27s_Not_Forever

Citing similarities, and if a cleanse must be performed, it should be thorough. Else all articles pertaining to the subject and/or associated identities must remain and be subjected to edits for a neutral approach. Keep. Edit.

Reference links attached in previous comment thread are valid, from reliable Indian publications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldascottfitzgerald (talk • contribs) — Zeldascottfitzgerald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vova Lert[edit]

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

References are non-notable. The person seems to be unremarkable. There is also a draft Draft:Vova Lert Dial911 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Significant coverage not found. Also, Vova Left is clearly not a significant film actor. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:48, 16 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbz[edit]

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

South Sudanese singer who does not meet the notability requirements for musicians or the general notability criterion. The only claim of importance is that he won "Best music video in 2017". It's not clear what organisation awarded that prize but in any case, the claim seems dubious: the title of the song is not specified, the website of the Juba Monitor (which is the reference cited) does not have any available article using the word "Barbz" and I cannot find any trace on YouTube (or other online video services) of that song. Surely, someone with the means of shooting an award-winning video is capable of posting it online (and would probably do so immediately). Pichpich (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, nom notable artist. Emily Khine (talk) 18:57, 10 July 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. Both !votes for deletion were weak, with little other discussion, with the nominator suggesting a redirect as a second choice. Merging or redirecting can happen outside of the scope of this AfD, and may be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Soap Award for Best Actor[edit]

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

I do not see the point in there being a separate article for this. It does not cover anything that is not already mentioned at The British Soap Awards. I suggest deleting it. Failing that then redirect it to The British Soap Awards article - that covers the same subject in more detail. 5 albert square (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (very weak!) on the basis that the information is a repeat of content already existing on the parent article, although this article is laid out well and makes finding the specific content easier. However, if an article were to exist for this award, you'd surely have to create an article for every other award in a similar manner, thus have everything replicated? It's fair to say the parent article is getting more and more bloated as the years progress, so it may be worth considering if the awards table should be split into separate articles to make it manageable. I could easily be swayed to keep if there is any compelling arguments given, but for now, purely on the basis of repetition, i'll remain in the delete camp. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with British Soap Awards.Vorbee (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: The point is that the information is already in the British Soap Awards article, as per the nomination. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although the article is in a different layout to that of The British Soap Awards, it still wouldn't be difficult to find all the best actor nominations if that's what you wanted. I don't feel that the individual award for best actor is notable in its own right as it is usually discussed as part of the ceremony. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 13:46, 11 July 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. I'm judging consensus to be keep here, but it isn't an easy call. There seems to be enough disparate sources to indicate readers will be seeking encyclopedic information about this topic, but currently the sources are on the weak side. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lawrence (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable as a model featured in Teen Vogue and Harpers Bazaar Atlantic306 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not know that being featured in trivial, non-in-depth puff pieces as part of Teen Vogue and Harpers Bazaar was a criteria for inclusion into Wikiepdia. reddogsix (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Reliable sources for models, she's not an academic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm unclear what "featured" means in this context. Is it being used to say she appeared in the magazine or was there an article or spread about her? If it's the former it is likely not enough to confer notability but I think it's unclear. Knope7 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if she's more famous as a model then it seems the disambiguator "singer" is not the correct one for the title of this person's article. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't seem this AfD would survive the scrutiny for singer. WPGNG seems to be a more fair assessment of notability. But I'll refrain from ivoting; I generally don't get involved unless all the researchable sources are in English. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be moved to Charlotte Lawrence (which is currently just a redirect to this article). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are additional sources for the article to help with expansion: 1 2 3 4 5 Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a photo in this or that magazine is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She just released an EP, has millions of monthly listeners on Spotify, WWD just profiled her [7], seems to be a real up-and-comer. If Clairo is notable enough for an article I don't see why Charlotte isn't.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search shows she's notable, and not just through relation but now also by her work in the music industry. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From a simple google search I found her referenced on iTunes, Fendi, Galor Magazine, W Magazine, Spotify, Teen Vogue, IMG Models, Atwood Magazine, WWD, and Billboard. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a bit on the weak side, but her EP, singles and collaborations have been reviewed substantively, such as : Charlotte Lawrence Wants To Be Known For Her Moody Pop Music & Charlotte Lawrence Is Young and Reckless. A touch too soon, but I'd rather see this article kept, than deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly given the sources that I have found above. I agree with the above user that it is a weak keep, but I believe there is enough coverage to justify an article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically an admin would have been within their rights to speedy delete this article as WP:G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lawrence); however now consensus has changed, that would not be appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:58, 16 July 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 Nemra (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Karakeyan[edit]

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

Not notable. I tagged for PROD, but was reverted with some sources provided. I am still not convinced that the subject is notable. wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wumbolo ^^^ please help me to understand what type of source this article must to have for natability. Marianna Karakeyan is the piano player of Notable group Nemra with large audience in Armenia and there are sources for that. Dreamer14513181 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamer14513181: citing WP:MUSICBIO,

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.

wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to band's article, as her notability is inherently tied to the band. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to band's article, per nom, Jmertel23, and primarily due to WP:MUSICBIO quoted above. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:33, 9 July 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. This individual may become notable, but consensus is that notability has not been achieved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Kaur (Canadian actress)[edit]

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

Does not pass notability. Verifiable acting history is three non-starring roles, one of which is in Beyond (2017 TV series), but she is not mentioned in the article about it, and another was only an episode in a series. With such limited roles, there is limited citations in google and in the article. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Her IMDB^[1] says 19 roles. Not sure where "entire acting history is three non-starring roles" is coming from. Also not sure which "article about the film" you are referring to. Her new role is on NBC's new TV show called Manifest which is airing this fall^[2]. Also she had a recurring role on CTV's Saving Hope^[3]. Some more articles from Google:

References

^ "Parveen Kaur IMDB". IMDB.
^ "NBC Picks Up Drama 'Manifest' To Series, Renews 'Blindspot' For Season 4". Deadline.com.
^ "Meet the doctors joining the Hope Zion team in Season 4 of 'Saving Hope'". CTV.ca.

http://www.fearforever.com/film/interview-parveen-kaur/

http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/strain-recap-season-2-episode-4.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrixtonTown (talk • contribs) 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I clarified my initial statement above. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frayae. Still not quite sure what else is needed to "pass notability". Can you clarify further please? She's also mentioned in the Manifest (TV Series) Wikipedia page. It's just linking to the wrong Parveen Kaur (in the infobox). She's also on the poster for the show. https://411mania.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NUP_182993_0007-645x370.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrixtonTown (talk • contribs) 1 July 2018 (UTC)

To pass notability requires some reliable sources that have a reasonably long piece of writing about Parveen Kaur herself. Sources that mention she had such and such role in such and such film are not substantial enough to be used to support the article. I also will point out that Imdb itself or materials published by the film companies or their promoters, should not be used as a reliable source because they are not independent. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frayae. Still sounds a bit vague to me but here are a few more found doing a quick Google search. Along with the references and links above I can't see how she doesn't pass notability requirements. As well she was a guest on CP24 Breakfast in Toronto: https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1178422. It's pretty obvious to me that she's a Canadian actor based in Toronto.

http://www.northernstars.ca/parveen-kaur/

https://www.ebosscanada.com/10-questions-parveen-kaur/

http://www.misaff.com/misaff17star/

http://www.thetealmango.com/entertainment/parveen-kaur-star-nbcs-latest-mystery-manifest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrixtonTown (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for an actor or actress is not the number of roles they've had — an actress can be notable for just one role if she got a Canadian Screen Award or Academy Award nomination for it, and an actor can be non-notable for 100 roles if they were all walk-on and bit parts. The notability test for an actress is the amount of reliable source coverage she's received for having acting roles — but BrixtonTown is not providing reliable sources that are substantively about her. Mere casting announcements don't cut it, because any actor who gets any role can always show those; video clips of her being interviewed on CP24 Breakfast don't cut it, because she's speaking about herself rather than being discussed in the third person by people other than her; profiles in directories like IMDb or Northern Stars don't cut it, because every actor who fits the directory's criteria indiscriminately gets a profile; mere mentions of her existence in coverage of the film or TV show she was in don't cut it, because that's not substantively about her; blogs like The Teal Mango don't cut it because they're blogs; marketing profiles on the websites of film festivals her films have appeared at don't cut it, because those are provided by the actress's own PR agent and not written independently. Reliable sourcing is not necessarily the same thing as just any source that verifies that she exists: all possible sources of information do not count equally as builders of notability. Only certain specific kinds of sources, namely media coverage about her, do that, but the ones being shown here aren't the correct kinds. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat fails WP:NACTOR none of the roles are significant or major roles .In the The Strain (TV series) ,she has appeared in only 4 episodes here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 16 July 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 Already deleted.. Part of mass deletion per DENY. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ennui (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND Cabayi (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems to be a notable band in the doom metal genre as has coverage such as this,this,this and

this. Hopefully there will be some input from Georgian editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranea Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable production company and same goes for the parent. Involvement with notable names (like making a short for a horror series) doesn't really contribute to notability either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs limited to parent company and a blog. Fails NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 15 July 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. If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Dias (game developer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The one source mentioned is from Tehran Game Convention participants bio for Thais Weiller, his business associate. Kleuske (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage from reliable sources about the person himself. A redirect would have been appropriate if the title of the article weren't so specific. Newslinger (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to show notability. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per above, can't find significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. If JoyMasher had an article, a redirect there would work, but it doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I added more sources. I also tried to add a JoyMasher page, but it was deleted before I could add sources. I'm trying to add more information on all brazilian game devs, but reliable and anglophilic sources are not particularlly easy to find. Brunhildr (talk) 01:23, 16 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast drinks[edit]

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

The concept of "Breakfast Drinks" is itself dubious at best, and the content is so crappy that it's beyond salvation (barring complete deletion and rewriting from scratch). DexterPointy (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN as the concept appears in sources such as The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew: By not commenting on the article's content, then: Are you implicitly agreeing on the initial content evaluation (i.e. "so crappy that it's beyond salvation"), hence suggesting to keep the list, but blank it, so to achieve immediate improvement? -- DexterPointy (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep an encyclopedic and policy compliant topic, as demonstratd by the Colonel. As a member of wiki project Breakfast, I couldn't agree less with the view that the article content is low quality. It's a very nice article, I see it's benefited from considerable editing from our founding member, NorthAmerica1000 themselves. I agree with DexterPointy that there is room for improvment, but sadly there are a great many other articles requiring attention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Questions :

Does "the Colonel" happen to be the nickname of the goldfish hovering over Wikipedia? (I'm obviously referring to the omnipresent goldfish being responsible for demonstrating topics' compliance with Wikipedia policy.)

And then looking into content:

First sentence: "This is a list of notable breakfast drinks."
Notability of list-items, is always determined on a per-list basis. This list makes no attempt on defining what any relevant criterion for notability of items might be.
So it's not overly surprising to see Champagne being on the list (and Champagne is far from the weirdest item on the list), but it is rather amusing in that the item description include linkage to Champagne breakfast, wherein the lead says "It is a new concept in some countries and is not typical of the role of a breakfast.". - So, Champagne is notable thanks to being atypical.
Second sentence: "A drink is a type of liquid which is consumed."
One glaring missed item on the list is olive oil. It's much less typical than champagne at breakfast, and, by logic extension, therefore much more notable. - If you really believe it to be a nice article of high quality, then it's kind of embarrassing that olive oil isn't there at all, when it clearly should be listed at, or near, the very top.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonel is Andrew D, one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors. As to your other points, while your various leaps of logic are enjoyable to read, and not without virtuoso qualities, I don't find them entirely convincing I'm afraid. I don't think it would be fair to the closing admin to get into an extended debate on these matters. If however the article survives AfD and you were to raise your concerns on the article's talk page, I'd say there's a reasonable chance myself or another WikiProject Breakfast member would be happy to discuss. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: I don't see how a viable definition of "notable breakfast drink" can be created, and thus no realistic path to ever making this list into something which satisfy WP's quest for quality. I can think of no reasonable definition of "notable breakfast drink", except definitions requiring data, which either does not exist or involves a substantial element of processing (which unfortunately violates WP's prohibition against original research).
Somewhat unrelated, based on the attitude of your verbiage this far, I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:OWN, and in particular: "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians generally consider something as 'noteable' if it receives coverage in reliable sources. (Often an even tighter definition is used as given in WP:GNG, though as per WP:LISTN, list items don't have to be individually noteable, so we don't have to apply the strict sense of the word.) Essentially, "notable breakfast drink" would seem to mean a drink that gets coverage in WP:RS as a beverage consumed at breakfast. I'd say this is already the working definition that's been used by the editors who built up the article. One could argue the definition is imperfect, and I'd agree, but I don't see it as a good use of time to refine it further right now. Maybe this would be something to re-visit if ever the list is expanded so much it becomes difficult to navigate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN, and the content is sourced in the article, although more sources for verification are needed in the Description section of the table. I don't view the content as "crappy" at all, which is simply a weasel word. Some sources demonstrating WP:LISTN as being met include, but are not limited to: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:LISTN actually says:

>>There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, ...<<

Furthermore, from WP:NOTDIR, there's

>>...Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. ... Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).<<

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:36, 16 July 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. The article was blatantly promotional ("able to effortlessly produce an excellent piece", "unique talent", etc) and more importantly it consisted largely, perhaps even entirely, of content copied from other web sites, in violation of copyright. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IZZAT (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources given on page are the same press release in two different venues. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 13:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No notability. The editor whose username is Z0 14:05, 9 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD Brows[edit]

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

Covert advertising of a non-notable company. The best I could do in terms of sourcing is [13] (not a reliable source) and [14][15] (both stink of native advertising). MER-C 13:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Coast123 (talk · contribs) has been banned for being a promotional account. He has added a couple of HD Brow links into various articles. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article tagged as WP:G5 and WP:G11 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)request denied by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) who said "not a sock, and an admin thought AfD was better than CSD so I'm deferring to his judgement" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inlined to say delete as it was created by a blocked sock who had spammed Wikipedia with links to the HD Brows website. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or well-sourced. Did a good job on my eyebrows though......The joy of all things (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it won an award, it doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 15 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kari DePhillips[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO the amazing thing is that this page actually explains how she has used marketing techniques to generate backlinks to her company by replying to Help a Reporter Out requests and the article creator is using these sources to try and show notability. the articles written by Suzanna Weiss can be discounted because she and DePhillips actively interview each other [16]. The others can all be discounted as part of her experiment to generate backlinks. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Most of the article references aren't independent of the subject since they include short excerpts of statements she submitted through Help a Reporter Out, as she admits through the Entrepreneur article. Newslinger (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:BASIC .Subject is a American entrepreneur and has been interviewed .But it fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:50, 16 July 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Petrou[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I cannot see what is remotely significant about this subject. Being part of the production crew on two of the Superman movies is not enough to warrant an article of his own. The only other film he appears to have had any other (minor) involvement in (decades later) is a 20-minute short, which only has seven reviews on imdb. The communications firm he founded is not notable, and appears to have shut down over ten years ago. Nothing else he has done makes him notable in any way. Being on various boards/ singing in choirs sounds more like a hobby than a sign of notability. This content would be more appropriate on LinkedIn. Andromer (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than sufficient to establish notability. A business executive, performer, author and co-author of two books, with twenty-three inline cites from major sources listing details of his career. Roman Spinner *(talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable writer and businessman. Clearly passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 16 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sans[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notablity guidelines. Eagleash (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial first of a first: he is not notable because of some remote connection. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 15 July 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. Nomination withdrawn (Speedy withdraw/keep WP:Music #6). (non-admin closure) RF23 (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornbugs[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 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) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TDRS Music[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject significantly, exist. Fails WP:NCORP. The editor whose username is Z0 14:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 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 criterion #1: no valid reason for deletion advanced. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Self Seeker[edit]

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

Notability on English wikipedia is hard to determine as all the references are in Russian Crazy Cat Person (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not be in English. A search in English-speaking sources turns up this blog post (not enough to show notability in itself but it's a start). There seems to be different translations of the title going around, including "The Profiteer". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, which makes it a somewhat defective nomination on this basis. Clearly not done WP:BEFORE. While I agree "hard" notability is marginal given the fringe topic, there is good indication of notability. In addition, the movie is covered by the German Historical Museum and the Ukrainian Film Club of Columbia University._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:43, 10 July 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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Admin deleted as A5 "Article that has already been transwikied to another project". (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haupt (German word)[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF, completely unsourced, no content worth transwikifying. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Speedy Delete.
Wiktionary is the proper place for it, i.e. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Haupt -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article tagged as A5 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:43, 9 July 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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. ansh 666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar[edit]

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

Recreated only a few days after the last AfD closed as redirect. Still fails WP:NPOL, I'd add that we are probably looking at WP:NOT issues now also. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G4. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've declined the speedy deletion. Strictly speaking, this article isn't a WP:G4 candidate, because the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Ammar Campa-Najjar was was WP:REDIRECT to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. Feel free to edit the article, but please do not reinstate the redirect while this discussion is still ongoing. Thank you. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 per the outcome of the previous AfD and because it is an appropriate outcome for a candidate for the US House. --Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As I've had to point out far more often than usual this year given how unusually passionate people are for a midterm year, the fact that some coverage of the candidate exists in a campaign-specific context is not in and of itself a WP:GNG pass for a person notable only as an election candidate — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-specific coverage, so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to get a candidate over GNG then every candidate would always get over GNG, and our established consensus that candidates are not automatically notable just for being candidates would be inherently unenforceable because every candidate could always claim that same exemption from having to pass NPOL. So making a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of the candidacy itself does not just require "show that campaign coverage exists" — it requires "show that so much campaign coverage exists that he's got a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates." But that's not what's being shown here, and neither does the article make any credible case that he would already have been deemed notable for other reasons prior to the candidacy. So it can be recreated if he wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough to make him already eligible for inclusion today. I will grant that this isn't immediately redirectable on the grounds of the first discussion alone, as the notability claim has changed from "candidate in the primary" to "candidate who won the primary and is going into the general election accordingly" — but the inclusion test for politicians is winning the general election, not just the primary, so that change still isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT per Bearcat. Just being a candidate does not grant inherent notability and his only claim to notability is his candidacy. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possible speedy redirect - are we going to keep having this be an issue for the rest of the election? SportingFlyer talk 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no objection to the redirect, just wanted a consensus behind it for the sake of posterity (and dealing with those that may revert it again). John from Idegon (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a page about a straightforwardly notable individual and US political figure. See the national and international media coverage cited on the page, as well as a host of additional material available online and elsewhere to anyone who bothers to look. There is ongoing coverage with growing relevance now that he is a general election candidate, e.g. a recent article discusses him directly alongside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also has her own Wikipedia page as an unelected candidate ^[1]. Similarly, Campa-Najjar's opponent Duncan Hunter had a Wikipedia page even as an unelected candidate ^[2], even with a dearth of citations to support any notion of exceptional notability. It would be applying a ridiculous double standard to claim that coverage related primarily to a congressional candidacy is irrelevant for one person but sufficient for others. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous redirecting session before the primary election, some of the media coverage is unrelated to the campaign. Bearcat can italicize every single word of the entire comment, if he likes, but the claims will still not hold any water. Sadly enough, the attempts by some users to rashly delete the page without discussion and then to ignore the evident notability of the subject appear obviously to be motivated by political biases. Wikipedia can and should aim for a higher degree of logic and impartiality. B P G PhD (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-our-revolution-movement-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ammar-campa-najjar-a8433961.html
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duncan_D._Hunter&oldid=239948303

- Hunter has been a member of congress. THAT makes him notable. As the youngest person ever to run for congress, a notion of notability outside the particular campaign exists for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is seldom considered a valid argument at AfD. B P G PhD, the time has come to ask, what is your connection to the subject of the article nominated for deletion here? Are you related to him, are you him or are you employed by him? Are you employed by or otherwise an active member of his campaign committee? Are you contracted to either him, his campaign committee or to his party? If these questions are offensive, I apologize in advance, but they are being asked because your position here seems to be more advocating for him, rather than for his article. Also, the majority of your edits have related in some way or another to this campaign. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the "youngest person ever to run for congress", and even if she is elected she will not be nearly the youngest person ever to serve in congress ^[1]. B P G PhD (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Duncan Hunter did not get to keep an article in advance of being elected to Congress. Somebody tried, as they always do for candidates, but it got deleted and was then restored after he won and his notability claim had thus changed. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noting that Bearcat's claim regarding Duncan Hunter's Wikipedia entry, though rich in italicization, is contradicted by the historical record, which shows an entry for Hunter from 18:26, 12 June 2008‎ onward. B P G PhD (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, ffs. B P G PhD, if you had followed the instructions before posting here, you'd know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is virtually never a persuasive argument here. But even if it was, compare this, the notability guidelines for politicians in June 2008, to WP:NPOL, the guidelines in effect today for politicians. Under the guidelines in effect THEN, Hunter likely was notable in June 2008. If the events then unfolded now with the same history his article would likely be deleted. It was correctly kept in 2008, and none of that has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Because OTHERSTUFF. Care to actually speak to the article at hand? Care to rebutt the below? John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The relevant sentence is completely identical in the two versions you cite: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." B P G PhD (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        If only that coverage existed....there are 0 sources beyond the campaign. Without sources that discuss his life prior to the election, the only thing that can be produced is a campaign ad. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It appears that there is some confusion regarding the notability policy and particularly the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." John from Idegon writes "there are 0 sources beyond the campaign", but has discussed (below) several of the reliable cited sources that are independent of the subject. "Independent" here clearly refers to sources of news and information that are not controlled or written by the subject. It does not refer to news articles that are not "about" the subject, which would obviously be impossible. B P G PhD (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is based on this revision of the article, the revision immediately preceding B P G PhD's !vote.
- ref 1 is his website, which could never support notability.
- refs 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 are about his very first campaign for national or state office, an election that he has not won; hence failing WP:NPOL.
- ref 4 is a tweet by the candidate, lacking both independence and reliability; hence do not support notability in any way.
- ref 7 is his LinkedIn resume. cannot possibly speak to notability.
- refs 5, 6, 14 are self written by the candidate - lacks independence and cannot possibly support notability.
- ref 10 is a YouTube video of the candidate doing a talking head thing - lacks both independence and reliability. No help with notability.
- ref 16 is clearly stated as an opinion piece, and is only reliable for the fact that it is their opinion and not for any factual content. Very weak support for notability (at best).
- That leaves us with ref 15, an interview with The Atlantic. As an interview, there is obviously some independence problems. The only thing that can be used to vet notability in an interview is the analysis of the journalist conducting the interview. I am not seeing enough between the two marginally usable sources to support notability, and all the rest of the references say absolutely nothing whatsoever to notability. In short, my nomination stands. John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ammar Campa-Najjar meets WP:GNG due to multiple sources of independent media coverage. This independent media coverage includes international coverage from the Independent, a British publication,^[2] as well as several pieces of coverage from national publications that date two years before he announced his candidacy. ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

Comment Getting articles published in The Hill, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Washington Post is something that most people cannot claim, and so it is wrong to say it is "no help with notability." Moreover, Campa has at least four pieces of independent media coverage dating two years before he announced his candidacy. See my recent additions and references below. All of this independent media coverage combined - both from before his campaign started and after it - mean that Campa meets WP:GNG. Narayansg (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narayansg (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
^ "Is Bernie Sanders' revolution finally taking hold in America?". The Independent. Retrieved 2018-07-11.
^ Schreckinger, Ben (1 October 2015). "Donald Trump is about to walk into a buzz saw". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
^ Campbell, Colin (2 October 2015). "Hispanic business group thrashes Donald Trump for suddenly backing out of its event". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
^ Collins, Eliza; Gass, Nick (18 September 2015). "Clinton slams Kasich's comment about Hispanic community". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
^ Smith, Allan (18 September 2015). "Hillary Clinton slams GOP rival in Spanish for awkward comment about Latinos". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

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 ^^^ 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie LeBlanc (entertainer)[edit]

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

I do not believe this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment. I see the sources in reliable publications, however:

- I am unsure how reliable the publication used for the first and third source is. - The second source is about the family vlog channel she is a part of (should there be an article on the whole family instead?) - The fourth source mentions the subject briefly in passing, but also mentions the family vlog channel. - Sources 6, 7, and 8 are more about the shows themselves, which could be used if the shows were notable, but I question whether they should be used here (since they are a legitimate source, but do not really cover the subject much) - Some of the other sources are either not really sources (Billboard,iTunes Chart) while others, such as the Shorty Award sources, are from questionable publications.

In the article, some sentences seem unnecessary, a fan's words, or promotional:

"After it was speculated that LeBlanc was dating fellow social media star Hayden Summerall in 2017, the alleged couple was dubbed "Hannie" by fans, who created elaborate fan-fiction with complex storylines about their high school relationship, and photoshopped thousands of pictures that appear to show the two together."

Also, the mentions of views on the web series and songs seem promotional to me.

I think there is a case for articles on the web series she is in, or the production company behind the web series, but I am not sure if the subject is entirely notable at the moment (although I may be wrong, we will see). Andise1 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable Youtube person. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears as to read more like a fan page. I am working at creating an article for the "Brat" web series company - I think this should cover the many social media stars who appear in the programs. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist charted on Billboard [17] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Also won a Shorty Awards as shown in [18]. Clearly has a significant following. Article needs clean-up and expansion. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment- Also plays a lead role in a production [19] and guest starred in an episode of Bizaardvark per [20]. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to let it be known, the song that this subject recorded which charted on the Billboard chart is a cover. The song was originally recorded by Maddie & Tae. Andise1 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Not sure what the relevance is of the response above. That is already mentioned in the article. The fact that her song was a cover does not change the fact that her version charted. LeBlanc was nominated at the Streamy Awards in 2017 in addition to the 2018 Shorty Awards. Both of these awards are Wikinotable. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and, in my opinion, WP:TOOSOON. This individual has not been mentioned non-trivially by a sufficient number of WP:RS, and existing on a single chart does not itself establish sufficient notability per WP:MUSICBIO. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|[reply]
Keep Artist charted on Billboard [21] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Charting is an auto pass, it does not matter if it's a cover, other votes say "NN youtuber" but she's a musician with a charted single. She'll be in the history books of American charts. GuzzyG (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charting does not mean much if there is not much coverage on the subject aside from brief mentions, which is why some musicians who have charted are not inherently notable on Wikipedia, there is not enough reliable, independent sources about them out there. Andise1 (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true from what i've seen, care to share some examples of people who charted with no wikipedia's? It's what got RiceGum and George Miller (entertainer) articles. GuzzyG (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I tried starting a better formatted singles table with chart positions. LeBlanc has also had appeared on US and CA Billboard Digital Songs charts for her cover of "Little Do You Know." She charted on the Emerging Artists Billboard chart. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Time magazine says "Brat, which works on small budgets relative to Hollywood, has one certified hit in Chicken Girls, starring Annie LeBlanc and Hayden Summerall. The franchise’s debut episode has more than 10 million views, and it secured a movie deal with Lionsgate." [22] So she is staring on a hit show. And if any of her song's charted, be they original or a cover, then that counts towards her notability. She is also on the cover of Girls' Life (magazine) and they of course interviewed her as well. Dream Focus 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per GuzzyG and meet WP:MUSICBIO#2. Emily Khine (talk) 08:06, 16 July 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh[edit]

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

Non-notable local church. Nothing but local coverage, which you would expect on any church. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as church is the first church to be built in downtown Raleigh in over half a century. The opening ceremony, also covered by news sources, included over 500 attendants. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in article, including regional newspaper this News & Observer article are substantial. --Doncram (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be improved by covering how it is part of split of conservatives, perhaps within split covered by this 2008 New York Times article (which does not mention Raleigh). To build a new big church in a downtown is pretty unusual. Why this happened deserves more explanation in the article. The News & Observer article gives brief treatment that could be used, about it starting from 200 members of other church that did not like how liberal it was. --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be moved to Holy Trinity Anglican Church (Raleigh, North Carolina), consistent with naming of Wikipedia articles for U.S. buildings and other places, e.g. National Register-listed buildings. "Raleigh" is not part of the church's name. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by multiple sources. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:13, 9 July 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahvaz derby[edit]

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

I couldn't find acceptable sources to support a claim of general notability. Fa-wiki doesn't have any description of the subject, either. This article was deleted in 2014 and apparently, the subject still isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, as no citations have been provided to article. Govvy (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence provided in the article that the rivalry exists, and difficult to research because of the language barrier. Curiously, besides having no references, the article does not mention the year for any of the matches. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 11 July 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. Any discussions on merging or redirecting can happen outside of AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout on Juneau Wharf[edit]

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

Multiple. COI, with the usual effects, and essentially a reduplication of the Soapy Smith article. Qwirkle (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it has its flaws, it seems to me a lot more detailed than the Soapy Smith article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, this should be redirected to Soapy Smith rather than deleted. ~~Undecided on notability for now,~~ but would be opposed to outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See !vote below. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Further proving that it's a waste of time to come here to build an encyclopedia when others are only interested in tearing it down. Per Piledhigheranddeeper, this is a perfectly legitimate example of content forking. There's quite a few contemporary sources present in the article, plus a decent number of respectable retrospective sources. As referred to in the talk page, Stan Patty's book Fearless Men and Fabulous Women, published in 2004, devotes a chapter to this episode in history. Patty spent 34 years at the Seattle Times as their resident Alaska expert. What little has been published about Tanner's life suggests that he was highly respected as a figure in law enforcement and as a community leader in Skagway, including serving as a United States Marshal, based largely on his reputation from this incident. The nominator does not elaborate on the COI they refer to, despite how obvious it is to me. Perhaps WP:COIN would be a better forum-shopping venue? Wikipedia has sadly become a dumping ground for whatever people find lying around the web today. A lack of interest in real research and real sources is the cause of the state of the references found in the article at present. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RadioKAOS. This was a fairly significant gunfight, involving a fairly well-known scoundrel. Too much to merge back into Soapy's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the evidence, the shootout is clearly notable and it's too much to be merged back. I'm also not seeing a COI - the article creator seems to be pretty interested in Soapy Smith, but that alone does not constitute a COI seeing as we all edit articles about subjects we're interested in. That's not the sense of the word that "interest" is being used in the phrase "Conflict of Interest." And in any case, the article has plenty of other editors too. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen this as so obvious as not to need reiteration, but the articles creator, primary writer, and primary source is a blood relation who sells essentially self-published books on the subject, and has inserted his own judgement over that of disinterested authors. With that sort of thing removed, this might make an extra few sentences in “Soapy Smith” or ”Skagway”. This isn’t an encyclopedia article, it is advertisement for an author, not otherwise published, who has a book about his family...from a publisher with three, count ‘em, three books, two of which are out-of-copyright reprints. If you think this really worth a stand-alone article , then let’s blow up the existing mess that’s in its place. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I count 17 sources in the article from people other than this so-called relative. And Jeff Smith is one of the most common names in America, so I'm not even seeing proof they're all related unless there's something they've explicitly said. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, less than half the sources don’t lead back to COI spam, and you think that is a positive sign?

Given that you have not read the article creator’s talk page, I don’T see how you can have such a strong opinion here about whether there is a COI. Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 sources is more than enough to establish GNG. There are plenty of editors who edited the page besides this so-called relative. And most importantly, AFD is not cleanup. So whether someone's related to the subject somehow is really irrelevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 good sources central to the subject might establish notability , but we don’t have that here now. GNG does not, in itself, establish the need for a stand alone article. Finally, “AFD is not cleanup” explicitly notes tht a substantial portion or writers believe that a realllllly bad article, like this one, should simply be deleted. Qwirkle (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it appears that you're attempting to play the same tired old bullshit game often played at AFD of judging the content and sources solely by what's present in the article at this moment and ignoring the advice given at WP:BEFORE. If Wikipedia truly was the collaborative environment it claimed to be, we could have avoided the COI and sourcing issues, not to mention this discussion, a long time ago. Stan Patty was a highly credentialed journalist, with a book published by a reputable publisher (Epicenter Press), which in part discussed this episode well over a century after it happened. The fact that he grew up in Alaska and went on to write extensively about Alaska for many decades may mean that he wasn't a "disinterested author" in the eyes of some, but that's quite a stretch when one considers his credentials. Many of the clearly reliable sources present in the article probably aren't geographically far enough removed for the crowd that are fond of making that argument. You know, the "It's not the New York Times" types. Well, a search of the NYT website shows a piece from 1928 which discusses this episode as part of the greater context of Smith's time in Skagway. Which brings me back to the first part of this particular argument: if reliable sources are still discussing this incident well over a century later, then just how many reliable sources have been published in between which are being ignored here? There are some people who don't wish to acknowledge those sort of sources because they wish to push Wikipedia in the direction of being a compendium of trending topics on the web from one particular day or another within the 21st century. So much for "the sum total of all human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 10 July 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 Stardust the Super Wizard. So Why 10:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Adventures of Stardust the Super Wizard[edit]

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

List and fan cruft. Page is an extension of an article that was absurdly long before I shortened it. Don't see why this needs its own article. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stardust the Super Wizard. This doesn't meet GNG on its own, but the content isn't currently summarized in the main article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stardust the Super Wizard per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was split from Stardust the Super Wizard because it made the original article too long. The stories are indivudual interpretations and explorations of the original character created in the 1930s. The stories fill in plot holes, propose backstory, and otherwise enhance a primitive, yet seminal character in comics history. They all strayed enough from the original stories and one another to deserve their own entry. Admittedly, the summary could use some polishing. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above user is the creator of both Stardust pages. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Summarize then merge: Obviously time was put into this article, but it appears to be based on WP:SYN from primary sources. Unless it can be demonstrated from third-party sources that this topic has any notability, I'm skeptical that we should dedicating space to mention arbitrary projects, let alone their publication history. The crux of the notability argument is that this character is extensively used because it is in the public domain, but that claim is unsourced. Additionally, the title of the article makes it sound like it is the title of a series, but that does not appear to be the case; Unofficial Stardust the Super Wizard comics may be more appropriate, if the article is to remain. —Ost (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is fancruft, a "List of unofficial Stardust the Super Wizard stories" (many of which appear to be Blogger or Tumblr posts) is better suited to FanFiction.Net than Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per power~enwiki. This simply isn't encyclopedic content. ansh 666 08:45, 18 July 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] "Parveen Kaur IMDB". IMDB.

[2] "NBC Picks Up Drama 'Manifest' To Series, Renews 'Blindspot' For Season 4". Deadline.com.

[3] "Meet the doctors joining the Hope Zion team in Season 4 of 'Saving Hope'". CTV.ca.

[4] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-our-revolution-movement-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ammar-campa-najjar-a8433961.html

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duncan_D._Hunter&oldid=239948303

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

[7] "Is Bernie Sanders' revolution finally taking hold in America?". The Independent. Retrieved 2018-07-11.

[Politico2015-8] Schreckinger, Ben (1 October 2015). "Donald Trump is about to walk into a buzz saw". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[BI2015-9] Campbell, Colin (2 October 2015). "Hispanic business group thrashes Donald Trump for suddenly backing out of its event". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[PoliticoKasich-10] Collins, Eliza; Gass, Nick (18 September 2015). "Clinton slams Kasich's comment about Hispanic community". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[BIKasich-11] Smith, Allan (18 September 2015). "Hillary Clinton slams GOP rival in Spanish for awkward comment about Latinos". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]