Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 May >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Tarami[edit]

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

Subject is a shortfilm actress with trivial coverage, limited to two/three urls. Deep significant secondary sources are lacking. Doesn't meet the first rule of WP:ENT. No notable roles in notable movies. Notability not established, fails GNG. HM Wilburt (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My apologies, HM Wilburt. I should not have removed the prod. When I did so, I thought I had found some new WP:RS... However, after this edit, I learned it was not the case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and MJL. I also tried to find some proper RS on GNG but could get nothing of substance. Certainly zero WP:SIGCOV, or other major article/book/section of book of which she is the main subject. Don't like situations where a WP BLP is effectively the main GNG on a subject (it should be the other way around). Simply WP:TOOSOON I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (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 procedural close (speedy keep per WP:SK1). A merge discussion has been started here. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HCL color space[edit]

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

Merge to CIE Luv. The more I try to patch this thing up the more clear it becomes that this article should not exist on its own. The fact that someone put a lot of the likely un-notable Sarifuddin thing in is probably due to a confusion with the CIELch(uv) name coined by Zeileis. Artoria 2e5 🌉 21:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Artoria 2e5 🌉 21:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close? This sounds like a merge request rather than a deletion. Merge procedures are discussed at WP:MERGE. Generally, they are discussed in the talk pages of the relevant articles. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and open a merge discussion, if merge rather than straight redirect is indeed suggested here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 28 May 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maik Klingsporn[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 70 games played in DEL and 200 is required for notability. Tay87 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kern, Alaska[edit]

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

I can't find any other references mentioning the existence of Kern, Alaska other than the Ghosttowns.com reference, which I believe is not WP:RS. I was in Alaska recently and drove around these coordinates looking for anything like what was described and saw nothing. There was no sign from the highway posting 'Kern.' At the very least I think we need more WP:RS to verify that this is real. Between Google Scholar and Google Books, I'm not seeing anything. Scarpy (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Scarpy (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the reference currently in the article, I have found several other sources verifying its existence. It is mentioned in a book of hearings of the U.S. Congress, and several other government documents: [1][2][3]. MarkZusab (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GNIS identifies this as a locale: "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)." Looking at the other stops along the railroad, I'm not convinced that people having once panned for gold there is notability as a town though. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to walk back just a bit -- there's a January 1947 article that describes it as a station. [4]. - Scarpy (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{I was asked on my talk page to comment here, but I do not believe it constituted canvassing) I see I'm late to the party on mentioning the GNIS entry, but that is a reliable source, and it says it is a flag stop on the railroad and nothing more. ~~Delete~~alternate suggestion below. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Brox; fails the requirements of GEOLAND. ——SerialNumber54129 04:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could this be a photo of the area from ~~1917~~ 1914, right here on Commons? The lat and long would have to be different than what's in GNIS, but the mile marker for the railroad would be the same (e.g. this source lists it as 70.5, and the photo calls it 71. - Scarpy (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct data from photo is "circa 1914." - Scarpy (talk)

Delete – As I'm not at a library, I'm not in a position to find the source in question, though it could have been the tourist book sold by the Alaska Railroad explaining places along its route. As I recall, it stated that Kern was the northern terminus of the predecessor railways originating in Seward (the Commons file linked above explicitly mentions the Alaska Northern Railway), but it also called into question whether any trains ever ran there before the completion of the ARR. The predecessor railways were never in a favorable financial position, and I seem to recall reading that the northern 20 miles of track were impassible due to mudslides and/or rockslides while under the jurisdiction of those railways. The reason why the nominator never saw a sign or any other indications of life is because Kern Creek empties into Turnagain Arm through a culvert rather than under a bridge and because the creek valley is obscured by the railroad embankment. All the sources brought to the table thus far, as well as Orth (Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, 1967), refer to it strictly as a stopping point of some sort on the railroad route; in the days of section-based maintenance, there could also have been a section house there. Because Wikipedia has slowly become a news site absorbed with today's or yesterday's trending topics in the media and is largely forgetting about reflecting the historical record, there is no article on the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush, just passing mentions in several other articles. There is also no list of place names on the ARR route. Both are notable topics which can be sourced reliably. Both would also be the place to mention this topic instead of a standalone article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS: it's good to see you back, and thanks for the Orth reference. This photo cleared up some of the confusion for me. The GNIS coordinates are southeast of where Kern Creek empties into the Turnagain Arm. Where I was looking was at those coordinates, rather than nearer to the creek. It's likely that I just got out at the wrong part of the highway. Either way, we can confirm that there were some human structures there as far back as 1914, and it would seem as early as 1911. - Scarpy (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I know this seems obnoxious, but the photo I found yesterday (see above comments) changed my mind and I did a bit of a rewrite today based on the WP:RS we have found so far and have access to. I feely guilty that I didn't search Wikimedia Commons first, especially since it looks like it was just uploaded in April of 2019. I'm apologizing now. - Scarpy (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A bit of WP:OR on my part, but Kern is presented as a settlement on historical topological maps of the area, and populated places are generally inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and unincorporated communities/ghost towns are considered notable-I added a citation to the article: Kern Topo Map in Anchorage AK-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to as-yet-unwritten article~~ Slightly surprised that Bird Point, Alaska is a redlink, was going to suggest merging there as that is apparently where this is. There's a few homes and businesses there as I recall, and it is a very popular place for tourists to stop due to the views and the possibility of spotting Dall sheep, there's a Forest Service Campground and good fishing it Bird Creek (Alaska) also a redlink. I feel like we could have one article on Bird Point that covered all three of these topics, with appropriate redirects of course. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I was commenting based on the image mentioned above, but looking at an actual map these two spots ae on opposite sides of Girdwood so not really the same place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per RFD. Wikipedia aspires to extreme completeness when it functions as a gazetteer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've been kind of all over the place in this discussion, so for the record, having re-reviewed above comments and sources, I still don't see any clear indication that this was ever anything more than a flagstop on the railroad. A couple of shacks is not a town, even in Alaska. I agree with RK that a suitable merge target is a better solution as it simply doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Unfortunately a suitable merge target is not obvious at this time. This obviously is from the gold rush era as that is the only time in AK history that "this is this far from Sunrise" was a piece of important data, and I agree that a new article on that era that mentions this and other transitory, marginally notable locations would be best, but I can't make anyone write it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an unincorporated community or ghost town it is notable in the same way that a beauty pageant winner from fifty years ago is considered to be notable, even though now an old crone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have existed and notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable per WP:GEOLAND. Once GNG always GNG, even if it is not longer there. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily arguing to delete but I don't see how one can say "per WP:GEOLAND" and leave it at that, when it makes it clear there is not automatic notability for unrecognized populated places, and such things are decided on a case-by-case basis. It therefore seems like circular reasoning to say that that policy is enough to justify keeping this. It certainly does not say "if you can prove it existed that's enough" which seems to be what is implied by several of the keep comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is worth Wikipedia providing definitive info on this once-populated place vs. Girdwood vs. Bird Point (which don't have articles), although I wouldn't mind move/rename/merger/combination being implemented later by any editor who properly, definitively sorts these out and makes judgment about best presentation. Also, the "old crone" remark is funny tho perhaps not perfectly PC. :) --Doncram (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kern, Alaska on a historical topological maps of the area, and populated places hopefully eligible for notable. --Nahal (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2019 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tati Westbrook[edit]

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

I thought there were reasonable people on this website who regard policy (or precedence, in a political context). That policy is G4. That policy should not apply to keeping an article that already has a notability tag and is being polluted with putrid, unreliable sources such as The Sun, Metro, and her OWN damn website. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not TMZ, the Daily Mail, or E! News. This page was only recreated to pointlessly give for fuel to an internet feud. Notability is NOT derived from one event. Especially when the onus is on another person! Enough. (And when this "controversy" is old news in a week... notability still won't be there. 10. Year. Test. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are over dozen sources; Vox, CNN, and other outlets have written about ther. LALALLALLALAL7^talk 15:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They haven’t written about her... they wrote about how the feud made Charles lose subscribers. Know the difference. Trillfendi (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies - Every reliable source used on this article includes the name "James Charles". So while Tati does deserve a mention on WP due to the extent at which this ordeal has been covered by reliable sources, it is more than conveniently done at Charles' article. Clearly WP:BLP1E—N Ø 20:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There’s quite an obvious consensus to keep this. Me protesting would just be useless since the outcome is clear.—N Ø 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah there is tons of credible sources for this. This is a notable article. Theprussian (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH Trillfendi (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I dont see what's wrong with the article. It has credible sources such as CNN, VOX etc. It is a wikipedia worthy article Weatherextremes (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said in previous comment that credence is given to more famous James Charles while practically nothing is even verified about Westbrook besides the fact that she has a company he betrayed and her follower number. Just because CNN and that ilk report on it doesn’t give the notability to her. Primest example from NYT. The notability here is that she started a controversy on YouTube? What do we even know about her actual beauty career? No wonder this page was deleted before. Trillfendi (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~per Trillfendi's remarks.~~ The article has been sourced well. Subject meets WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 23:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi is arguing for deletion.. are you for keep or delete, and if so why?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Lubbad85, you were asked a question without being tagged. This is just a courtesy ping. gidonb (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb Thanks for the ping. Honest mistake. I vote Keep. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was just deleted six weeks ago. Is the new version significantly different than the old one? Also, it does appear as if all the coverage occurs between February and May 2019. Is this enough? I would tend to say it is not. the whole "feud" thing is very National Enquirer-esque. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies. Notability is derived from interaction with him; she does not have notability herself. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Fails WP:GNG. References are exclusively promotion or tabloid journalism WP:PROMO WP:SENSATIONAL. No lasting effect WP:LASTING. ogenstein (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is more expanded than that deleted at AfD, also had consensus here for at least a redirect. Is the new version significantly notable, not WP:BIO1E. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am concerned about WP:BLP1E and some of the other concerns mentioned above, but I think that if more was done to flesh out this article beyond covering the basics and the recent controversy, it could be worthy of being here. I'm willing to keep the article around to see if it reaches that state, but if it continues to be in this stub status for a prolonged period, we can look into merging or doing something then. JaykeBird (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be spending a bit more time to research this, though, so my opinion may change in the near future. For now, these are my thoughts. JaykeBird (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good grief, I've heard of her and I'm an elderly British bloke who doesn't go near social media. I read about her yesterday in The Atlantic when I didn't know what a tea account was[5] (and I can't understand why an influencer has any influence). Now, there's a lot of BLP1E stuff (if it really is 1E) but, seeing she had an article created in 2016, I looked back into the past. Is the Gazette Review reliable?[6]. What's there looks independent and significant enough to me. I'm less clear about Bustle[7] but there's loads of stuff like this. I frankly wouldn't bother to put her in my encyclopedia but our guidelines and BLP policy don't suggest to me the article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since passing the WP:GNG. We are already merging or deleting the feud article. This one is a biography with lasting value. The page was deleted in the past before YouTube rating and the media coverage of Tati Westbrook went way up. We shouldn't cling to the old situation but take an unbiased look at current reality. gidonb (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in this very video she says none of this was done to improve her internet career as she has rejected all media inquiries, nor to systematically destroy James Charles’s reputation The fact that only one thing can be verified about her career through coverage of this spur-of-the-moment is why there are applicable policies. If she was using this to her advantage, there would actually possibly be something to talk about. She even wants her 2 million new subscribers to go away. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your phrases are under my opinion but I do not see a clear relationship. We rarely use YouTube as a reference for anything. Reacting as if this were a totally new chain: If this information is included in reliable secondary sources, there should be no problem to include some of it in the article. gidonb (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat and Ritchie333's relist in the previous AfD. Bustle is a fine source for non-controversial stuff, far from the British tabloids. Trillfendi hits the nail on the head, however, about the drama since Tati did not monetize the recent video. But that is just our opinion, and it doesn't change the fact the article meets GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC) wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per remarks by gidonb, although agree with others who say sourcing should be improved and fleshed out. Tati was a prominent YouTuber in the beauty industry before the current drama, and as such is just as notable as the many others already found in the category Female YouTubers. Kharitite (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, the recent controversy probably pushed it over the GNG edge, but it meets notability requirements at this point.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has now 10 million subscribers on YouTube alone and a lot more on other channels. Her dispute with Charles resulted in a lot of MSM coverage. I appreciate she has not done very much that is significant; perhaps revisit in a year. Jontel (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Passes WP:NTEMP: Subject had media coverage prior to the event. Given her career and YouTube following will continue to have it after. Popscreenshot (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many have stated above, the subject meets WP:GNG at the very least, especially considering the recent slew of related media coverage. This discussion looks to be in WP:SNOW territory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and anyone who calls The Sun and Metro "unreliable sources" should not be involved in deletion discussions whatsoever. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And any IP user who thinks the Sun is a reliable source despite evidence to the contrary might just be a troll.... Trillfendi (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misread what WP:PUS said. It said the sources, like other tabloid newspapers "should be used with caution," not that they were unreliable. That doesn't mean the sources give false or unverifiable information. It means that it includes information that only favors a certain point, not that the information they cover isn't true. That's why you're statement is entirely wrong, and if you respond by saying I didn't counter-argue you, you didn't read my argument. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject." It’s notoriously one of the least reputed sources on Wikipedia. If you're defending The Sun's reliability then you don’t really have a foot to stand on in source-related arguments.—N Ø 23:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you watch enough Mark Dice and David Pakman videos, you'll know that other sources like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News, The New York Times and similar sources are considered reliable and have had just as many stories removed for being faked as the examples of The Sun provided in the link you just brought up. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any diffs to back that up? As for The Sun, start here, here, here, here and here. I could go on, but everyone else will get bored. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this is all you need to know that supports my claim.~~108.17.18.29 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadads (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination makes a case that a feud page should be gone, however it has already been deleted. It would be rediculous to also delete the biography of Tati Westbrook that deals with the totallity of her career, as covered in many sources. Coverage is so extensive that there is virtually no support for this nomination. I would like to encourage the nominator to withdraw and to be more selective in AfDs. If not, this may very well be WP:SNOW kept. gidonb (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - The news coverage of the subject has been less than superficial. A biography page requires in-depth coverage. That doesn't exist.

There really isn't much to the page. The subject is popular on youtube, has developed a successful niche and released a product. Credit to her for those accomplishments but I have yet to see anyone explain what makes that notable? She has been doing this for nine years on youtube; why the suddenly notability?

The subject wasn't newsworthy until this month, and even this world-changing feud is already old news. Most of the stories referenced here had to explain who she was and why it was important enough to read about because most people who aren't immersed in makeup or celebrity drama don't consider it to be significant. Most of the sites that covered the story did so with a single article and then promptly forgot about it. Most (all?) news coverage kept the story in the celebrity/fashion news section rather than leading with it.

Wikipedia requires depth, which we don't have here. Even if the subject could pass the WP:10YEARTEST, which I don't believe, there isn't anything in this article that is substantial, in-depth or enduring. Functionally, this is a stub and should be deleted for that reason as well. I should add that reading any one of the scandal stories will pretty much tell you everything that's on this page. This is a good indicator that there is insufficient material to warrant a biography page.

WP:PSEUDO An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.

WP:SINGLEEVENT Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people.

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events....

ogenstein (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~IMO, your discussion focus is clearly base on the WP:IDONTLIKE. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Newsweek says she's "widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene". I think that pretty much demonstrates notability right there. --valereee (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unrelated to the nomination, but I am suspicious/concerned that the user:Mothman aka ogenstein is a sock of someone! The account is create in 2008, and his user page create on 3 May 2019. That account re-use recently, and did many delete vote on the still open Afd (mean: Adf Delete voter). I just thought that here prior to starting an investigation. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let me know if you have any specific issues with any of the policy or guideline arguments that I have made. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyanmarBBQ:, per WP:AGF, the thing to do is stat a WP:SPI if you suspect socking and have proof, rather than accuse in an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are completely trivial at best. Her feud isn't notable and neither is she. Praxidicae (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I'm surprised, given the Newsweek quote. What am I missing? --valereee (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise here, I was clear in my reasoning that it's still trivial. It's all based on some stupid feud between YouTubers that no one will care about in a month. Praxidicae (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~"no one will care about in a month." Wow, that was sure a combination of both a WP:WHOCARES and WP:CRYSTALBALL argument I'd never thought I'd see, but here we are.~~ 108.17.18.29 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a redirect? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything was wrong with a redirect (in my !vote)? No and if that's how it ends up, so be it but like I've made clear time and time again, I abhor the idea of redirecting a non-notable BLP to another BLP over some trivial garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial that according to Newsweek she is "widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene"? That seems like a credible claim to notability, I would have thought? And I think YouTubers are a pox on society and wish none of them were notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --valereee (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a side note in a caption of a photo and not even part of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if I'm looking at a different version...the one I'm looking at says in the second paragraph Charles entered the YouTube sphere nearly three years ago, with a video titled "SUMMER GLOW + BOLD LIP Makeup Tutorial." Shortly after he debuted, he gained Westbrook’s attention, who then took on the dual role of being Charles’ mentor and parental figure. Westbrook is widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene and Charles cites her as "the reason he got involved with make-up." To put it succinctly, Tati’s a big deal. --valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looks like it's in both places...photo caption says Westbrook, who is widely regarded as the mother of the YouTube beauty community. So they're actually calling her out twice in the same article as being notable. --valereee (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why my single !vote is subject to so many attempts to convince me to change it but I stand by it as I still don't think that brief comment in Newsweek is enough given everything else and think time would be better spent getting better sources and fixing the article rather than attempting to sway my opinion otherwise. It won't change based on the sourcing currently available in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dude, you know we've done more source arguing than just a Newsweek quote. See my argument and Thincat's searches.~~ 108.17.18.29 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae is not a dude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Redirecting" is not a logical. Her career is not dependent upon him (they're not even related) or this ephemeral 15 minutes of fame "controversy" just because he lost a few subscribers. The real problem here is outside of this spur-of-the-moment, practically nothing is known or verifiable about this woman besides "she has a vitamin company" and "she was an original beauty 'influencer'" (debatable...). "Earn the Necklace", "Create + Cultivate", "Dexerto", Twitter? That's all you could manage to come up with when it's not about this High School Musical-ass story? "James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy" was rightfully deleted upon discussion–and should have been left that way. Trillfendi (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We usually agree but I disagree about this. An article used to exist at that title so that’s still gonna be a search term people use to find information about the feud. Redirects do not require notability. Sounds like WP:IDLI. The controversy did happen, information about it can be on Charles' article, the redirect is fine to exist.—N Ø 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the "more famous" person isn't the solution. These are two different people. The "James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy" page should have never been created but it goes to show just how pressed people around here are to make an article out of dung without regard for policy or quality to get a few page views (no wonder they recreated Westbrook's page "all of a sudden"). A reasonable person would have just added that information to Charles's ever growing controversy section and left well enough alone. This "controversy" will "interest" for 2 weeks but after that, what's left? Notability is not temporary. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not the burn book. Trillfendi (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I wasn't trying to get you to change your vote! I was trying to figure out why you and I were interpreting this particular source so very differently. My apologies, I should have communicated better since clearly a question is always interpretable as a challenge! I don't care whether she's ultimately deemed notable or not, so long as we come to whatever decision is most-likely right. I'd never heard of this woman before this, don't watch YouTube, can't remember how I even got here, don't even wear makeup lol --valereee (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was totally unfamiliar with this until I accidentally came here. Reading the sources, it seems a clear case of ONEEVENT.. It does seem from this discussion that she has many fans. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the "keep" !votes do not rise above ILIKEIT of ITSNOTABLE. What is needed are policy-based arguments.

WRRRROOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We've brought up reliable sources about the subject, so saying that the Keep arguments are just ILIKEIT statements are flat-out wrong. And reliable sources meet Wikipedia policy and notability guidelines, so saying we need to make "policy-based arguments" are also wrong too, because we technically already have. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OMG, The administrator said Many of the "keep" !votes do not rise above ILIKEIT of ITSNOTABLE.!! So how does this mean?? Let you know, James Charles's fans arrive here and did WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Congratultions Top fans of Jame🎉! Please note, I'm from Myanmar, i know nothing abouts of Tati and Jame. Now, I don't care anymore this two persons and still opening discuss! How can i change my vote? Best MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, above I suggested two new sources that long predate the event and to me seem to meet the GNG criteria[8][9] – other people here seem to agree. Those suggesting delete seem to be ignoring these or denying that any such references exist. If policy-based argument is required then WP:BLP1E seems to be the relevant policy and none of the three conditions for deletion seem to apply whereas all must apply for deletion to be warranted. Thincat (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This, for lack of a better word, is absolute garbage. It is on par with "celebrity networth" wikis in regard to this specific piece and it's nothing more than gossip sourced trivia. It has absolutely no depth to it. Also the bustle piece is questionable Praxidicae (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the Bustle piece what written by a freelance writer. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Bustle piece what written by a freelance writer." That doesn't prove jack. All sorts of freelance writers work for independent sources, who have to prove what the freelance writer wrote. Invalid argument. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Gazette Review argument of being "on par with "celebrity networth" wikis" and being "gossip sourced trivia" is entirely assumption-and-feelings-based and not factual at all, so that throws that argument right out of the window. Didn't we learn anything from Ben Shapiro?108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still haven't seen any reliable sources that would indicate that this person is notable. The Gazette Review seems beneath most (and is gone anyway) and I notice that they didn't even bother writing about this spat. They post an article about her (not even alleged) net worth but they don't even bring up money/revenue/income/worth in the text. Even the writer didn't take it seriously. We have one trivial event. If it matters, Charles has most of his lost subs back — he's over 15M again. Everyone else has moved on. I can only imagine that the editor who keeps prolonging this mess possesses a cruel streak. ogenstein (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I have blocked MyanmarBBQ as a technically Likely sock of Emily Khine. They appear to have admitted this now, so I've struck their comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I have blocked 108.17.18.29 for block evasion by user:EditorE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could having a top 1000 subscribed you tube channel (according to article) reflect some notability (a bit like a book being on a best seller list, see no 1 of WP:NBOOK)? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of this article is absolutely notable. Even if it is for via drama. A sporting event is essentially meaningless and non-notable if no one watches. Well, 50 million people watched Westbrook's drama video. Also, the list of Diamond Play Button recipients is still limited. If we subjectively pick and choose what is and isn't trash or garbage or unimportant, some people might get rid of articles on chess players or MMA fighters or space exploration or the Harlem Shake meme. I would personally get rid of most if not all Kardashian family members. Since we can't develop such subjective standards, we must concede that notability is inextricably tied to popularity. If the article is not up-to-snuff, then it simply has to be improved with higher quality sources, it does not make the topic non-notable. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the lack of originality that goes into comparing irrelevant people or abstract ideas to athletic feats is laughable. To their credits, the Kardashians’ mindless minutiae have been in the news every day for 12 years. But they’ve gotten Forbes and Vogue covers out of it. And still after all this it’s James Charles getting the headline space. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage on Westbrook goes back to at least 2016, long before anyone had heard of James Charles. It is hard to argue a 10 million sub channel is irrelevant, imho. So many TV shows attract fewer views and have no trouble passing notability. Same with books and other pieces of art. I am sorry if my justification of my vote lacked originality. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriber number does not any way contribute to or equal notability. If that were the case I have a long list of "Instagram models" who have millions of followers and need articles now off the strength of that illogic. Trillfendi (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely a contributing factor. All your statement shows is 1 million is not the correct metric for notability on Instagram. Maybe it is 10 million or 50 million or higher. At some point they would be considered notable. However, as of right now all of the top instagram accounts are celebrities, such as sports figures or actors, or organizations such as NASA. So it doesn't seem to be a problem, though a couple have found their way to Wikipedia such as Anna Faith and Jen Selter. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is. Otherwise direct me to the Wikipedia policy that says followers equal notability. Stretch before you reach. Trillfendi (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the notability guide for people, subsection entertainers WP:ENT The number two criteria is: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2019 (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. This discussion appears to come down to whether WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG are met. There does not seem to be any claim of GNG being met, on NBOOK it's less clear as there seem to be reviews which may or may not meet the WP:NBOOK#1 criteria - the discussion did not come to a definitive conclusion. So no consensus.

PS: I know that in some other AFD discussions, some participants have stated that they feel a topic may still be deleted if it meets a specific guideline but fails GNG. I didn't factor this point in in this discussion as a) nobody has said so here, b) it appears to be at odds with WP:N which says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1# It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and c) this point is typically raised in BLP deletion discussions (where stricter criteria apply) or these involving certain "contentious" notability guidelines, which AFAIK NBOOK is not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to Buy, Sell, and Profit on eBay[edit]

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

The book is not notable--it's had no substantial reviews, Nor is the author notable--We deleted the page on him Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ginsberg (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. The author may not be notable, but that does not mean the book is not. The book has received reviews from publications including Booklist, The Boston Globe and the Miami Herald. This meets WP:BKCRIT criteria #1. MarkZusab (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical. the snippet view I can see via Proquest of the Miami Herald Book Review column by Pachter, Richard. 25 Apr 2005: 1. and is clearly about a group of books including " Developing eBay Business Tools For Dummies. John Kaufeld, Tim Harvey. 380 pages. $24.99." , "The eBay Millionaire: Titanium PowerSeller Secrets for Building a Big Online Business" Amy Joyner. Wiley. 248 pages. $22.95. - and possibly others, I can see only a snippet, not including mention of this book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many generic books still get generic reviews or mentions, and I don't see those this one establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Boston Globe and Booklist reviews (which I accessed through ebsco) feel substantial enough to meet NBOOK. However, if this book were deleted it would not trouble me in the least - it lacks the sort of WP:SUSTAINED coverage notable topics should have and is a pretty clear "no" for me when answering the question posed by the 10 year test. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage and definitely not sustained. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK requires "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.", coverage does not have to be "sustained", whether a review is "substantial" or "non-trivial" is open to interpretation ie. just because a review is short does not necessarily mean it is trivial. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per recommendations and comments of Barkeep49 Lubbad85 (☎) 01:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this book appears to have sold a fair number (and a 2005 internet related book still being held in around 300 libraries (allbeit, including e-versions?) is pretty good), but did it make any bestseller lists? (another part of nbook criteria 1). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple a best seller list placement supplements but is not required for NBOOK criteria 1. My research indicates best seller list is unlikely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, badly worded, should have said another tick for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is thin and ephemeral, doesn't make it to notable for me. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Barkeep49. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2019 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Polyachikhina[edit]

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

As far as I'm concerned, if your notability is being a pageant participant yet you don't actually place in the major pageant for the country you represent then there is no notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:ANYBIO subject was awarded WP:GNG title of Miss Russia (well-known and significant award or honor) and went on to compete representing Russia in a worldwide competition. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO per extensive and indepth coverage. No case was made for deletion and it will would hard to make one as well. What is the community value of these unresearched AfDs? gidonb (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sad that you even consider websites like “medialeaks” or even state-owned Sputnik to be reliable sources. None of them are. Trillfendi (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view this nomination as realistic but you're entitled to your own opinions. gidonb (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: beauty pageant contestant who won a national pageant or competing/competed in a pageant should be kept. Meets WP:ANYBIO. Triila73 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2019 (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. As a note, the page appears to have been moved to Flying monkeys (popular psychology). (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys (psychology)[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICDEF This term is broadly defined slang term. Not a psychology concept. The first citation is to a video that opens with a drawing of Donald Trump's penis.

Flying monkeys references a scene in the Wizard of Oz. It is often used to refer to chaotic movement and to conjure up images of the chaos (e.g., it is the title of a song, many bars, private clubs, etc.). It also appears in the urban dictionary as a common derogatory chat room and forum slang associated with annoying or toxic people.

I think the article is problematic in the sense that (1) Wikipedia is not a dictionary for a broadly used slang term WP:NOT#DICDEF, (2) there is no citation in this article to support that this is terminology used in the psychology profession, and (3) this is certainly not a word specific to clinical narcissism.

A Google Scholar search will turn up hundreds of topics using this term like "Apparatus and method for assisting a disabled person to hand write with a writing instrument".

The originator of this article has added it to the "See also" section of 50 articles including Children in the military, Insult, Jealousy, Espionage, Boldness, Apathy ‎and many other unrelated subjects.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The very first sentence says that is popular psychology although it is more than that. The expression is widely used and referenced in quite a few psychology publications such as Psych Central. There are books specifically on this subject on Amazon for example.
Popular psychology often has in important role in covering important everyday concepts overlooked in psychological studies. Other examples are psychological manipulation, guilt trip, personal boundaries, emotional blackmail, attention seeking and emotional baggage. Studies do not have much to say about manipulation for example although obviously it is a fundamentally important subject.
The concept clearly passes WP:NOTE.
The article also covers "abuse by proxy" which has proxy war as an allied well established concept.
It is far more than just "slang". It can clearly be seen to be a psychological concept.
There are parallels with gaslighting which is a well established psychological concept but it takes its name from a well known film. To try to find psychological references, searches would have to be properly focused.
The OP's mistake was to search for it in an unfocussed way thus drawing in its literary origins. Probably the best way of teasing out focussed references is to search for "flying monkeys" and "narcissism" together:
"The originator of this article has added it to the "See also" section of 50 articles including Children in the military, Insult, Jealousy, Espionage, Boldness, Apathy ‎and many other unrelated subjects." That is a very odd thing to say. The OPs statement is clearly wrong. Just a quick glance at the articles given as examples show that there is no "see also" link to flying monkeys (psychology) nor has there ever been. I have made nothing like 50 "see also" references to flying monkeys (psychology) and would certainly not make any links from unrelated articles. (I have just spotted that Espionage has a relevant "see also" link to flying monkeys (psychology) but my general point still applies). --Penbat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I think this type of article is damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Certainly, there are no substantive clinical references in the article to classify this as "psychology". Self published books like "Bill the Sociopathic Flying Monkey" and "The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" do not rise to the level of "psychology". The Otto Fenichel and Sigmund Freud references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Penbat, as it is your article, I can understand/respect your desire to keep it. Let's see how others feel about it. Thanks for your comments. --Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop making clearly incorrect statements. This is the second one now. "The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" has nothing whatever to do with psychology. I would not claim for a second that it did and it is not referenced in flying monkeys (psychology). That is my point, you need to focus on the material which is relevant.--Penbat (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PENBAT PLEASE DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS IN THIS THREAD OR CHANGE MY VOTE AGAIN. --Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure your account has not been hacked ? I may have to take advice on this. This is most uncharacteristic of you. I don't remember you making such robust vociferous comments before. You do not seem to know basic AFD procedures like you can not vote twice and you made at least two blatantly incorrect or irrelevant statements above. (Just to clarify I changed "Strong Delete" above to "Comment" as obviously the OP does not vote twice. Perhaps someone else will kindly fix it.)--Penbat (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like I will need to mount a sock puppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc. This is such a full on attack.--Penbat (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw your article on Google. I read it and I think, professionally, that it should be considered for deletion. Nothing more. As you know, I haven't participated in its development nor have I edited it. I just question its appropriateness for Wikipedia and am raising the issue. As for the accuracy of my comments, I was referring to the references used in your article. Hopefully this will clear that up:

"Bill the Sociopathic Flying Monkey" is citation #3 in your references
"The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" is citation #7 in your references

There is no insult intended and no attack. As I said earlier, I respect your feelings on this topic. I seek to have only one vote in this matter. Why don't we step back and let others review this matter and comment. We made our cases. -- Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh right I overlooked that. But that reference is clearly only used to support these two sentences: "The phrase, originally winged monkeys, is derived from L. Frank Baum's classic children's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The wicked witch sent them to carry out her attacks." Obviously explaining the cultural origin of the expression "flying monkey" is justified and has has no psychology content as it just proves some context. So why bring it up at all ?--Penbat (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the pages this article is linked at are due to its inclusion in the "Abuse" template, where it is titled "proxy abuse". RobDuch (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to mention that as well as incorporating proxy abuse, the concept of flying monkeys is consistent with narcissistic triangulation and mobbing.--Penbat (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources don't seem to be reliable psychology sources (the title of the article claims it is a psychology term) - therefore does not meet WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - the term is not mentioned in the articles Narcissistic abuse, Narcissistic supply, Narcissism or Narcissistic personality disorder, so it is not a term in general use in psychology - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first sentence in the article clearly clarifies that it is "popular psychology". Popular psychology has an important role in covering every day colloquial terms which traditionally have not had much research or do not lend themselves to research such as psychological manipulation, guilt trip, personal boundaries, emotional blackmail, attention seeking and emotional baggage. Do you want to delete them as well ? If it makes you feel better I do not mind renaming the article "flying monkeys (popular psychology)". I have renamed it as flying monkeys (popular psychology) for now.--Penbat (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real thing. I added a reference to Business Insider. A lot of places seem to use this expression and mention what it is. If there is an officially recognized term in psychological college textbooks, then you can just redirect to that article. Dream Focus 22:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does that article establish WP:NOTE? It is not a popular psychology source, it doesn't site any references, nor does the author have any credentials... it's just a rehash of social media psychology and lingo where people you don't share your beliefs, people who don't like you, people who are self-centered (narcissists), people who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and sociopaths are all grouped in the same bucket. Examine her definition, "Sociopaths (apparently the same as narcissists) don't necessarily work alone either. If they're really intent on destroying you, they may rely on a gang of "flying monkeys" to make your life miserable. It's a reference to The Wizard of Oz, where the flying monkeys do all the Wicked Witch of the West's dirty work". What does this mean? If someone convinces people that someone else is doing something wrong or acting badly, and they agree, they "flying monkeys"? Redskins vs Cowboys fans? Democrats vs republicans? Social media psychology and it's lingo is not well thought out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-psyc (talk • contribs)

Comment Also quite a lot of coverage in Psych Central and Psychology Today. --Penbat (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Penbat. The new title of Flying monkeys (popular psychology) is a good compromise. This article has been on my watchlist for quite some time as I came across the term when I didn't know what it meant, and looked it up on Wikipedia. So I think it's useful. The article is more than a dictionary definition and the sources, while not being rigorous, are above the line in terms of allowing an article to be written that meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any other articles on Wikipedia that have "(popular psychology}" as part of the title? Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not although "popular psychology" is a category if you look at the desktop version. The qualification "popular psychology" is only needed as flying monkeys on its own just goes to the Wizard of Oz fictional story. That is why other popular psychology orientated articles (such as psychological manipulation, attention seeking, love bombing, emotional blackmail, guilt trip, personal boundaries and emotional baggage) did not need that qualification.--Penbat (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes passes WP:NOTE. Good working title suggestion per penbat flying monkeys (popular psychology) and New information (reference to Business Insider) from Dream Focus. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The following was added to the article talk page by an unregistered user.[10] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC):[reply]

"Please do NOT delete this article. This page is an extremely useful collection of information that improves the lives of countless victims of domestic abuse and is a very real concept that is often referred to during recovery. While not the original research, it's public availability on wikipedia is often the first people land on. Given its utility I can only think of one reason why anyone would mark it for deletion 2605:A000:1133:8151:0:0:0:3D9 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Keep. I have sympathy with deletes as this is not an accepted psychological term in the lexicon. However, it used by "popular psychologists" and "self-help" books, and it helps the article has been renamed to reflect this. I spent time tidying it up, and the article does have several references to the term both online (e.g Business Insider, Medium, and HuffPo), but more substantially in books (of which several are quoted in the article; but I could see several more in google book searches [11]). I do think the article now meets a technical pass of GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hughes[edit]

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

The provided citations include insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I searched online and was not able to find anything relevant, although this may have been due in part to "Nigel Hughes" being a rather common name, as many unrelated results did turn up. Attempts to search for Hughes together with some of his achievements as listed in the article did not return anything better than mere-mentions. I had previously patrolled this article and converted it to a redirect pointing to Green Light Trust, which was disputed by the initial editor, although they did not provide any rationale other than the already-cited sources. LJEditor_signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two actors named Nigel Hughes on imdb, none of them meet WP:ENT. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Skinner[edit]

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

Is not notable - had a single race in a third tier racing series. No indication of passing GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even his Wikia entry is thin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is isn't content worth keeping. He did race in one NASCAR Truck series race which makes him easily notable enough per WP:NMOTORSPORT (the top 3 NASCAR series have always been considered fully professional). His father Mike won the series' first championship and his sibling Jamie also has an article. I found enough to write about the Dustin to warrant an decent small article. No prejudice against someone starting this article again and I'd be willing to restore it to anyone's sandbox (provided they would be willing to verify with several reliable sources. Royal broil 13:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royalbroil. Anybody who makes it to Trucks probably has enough to pass GNG, and I would be willing to take the subject on as a project in my sandbox after deletion, where I could eventually recreate the article after adding content, results tables and enough reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Barkeep49's rationale Lubbad85 (☎) 01:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is the son of notable driver Mike Skinner. 99721829Max (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. bd2412 T 19:57, 29 May 2019 (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. This is the second nomination, the last was nearly two months ago. As Nanophosis stated it needs some work, perhaps someone could do so? In any sense, for the second time now, the consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Dixit[edit]

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

The subject of the page lacks notability and does not add value to Wikipedia Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who are you to decide about whether it adds value to the encyclopedia or not? There's dozens of trivial to semi-trivial news-reports covering him in light of his pseudo-scientific diet-plan and we do a service to our readers in awaring them about such quacks. ∯WBG^converse 15:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Needs work from someone who can speak Marathi as many articles are likely not in English. Nanophosis (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WBG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly documented as a quack, but he is a notably well-sourced quack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of works with the subtitle "Constancy Rewarded"[edit]

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

Hardly notable; this list barely contains five entries, only a couple of which are even linked. Probably a dash of WP:OR as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least merge with List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" to which it is connected. If this were just a random subtitle that several works happened to have chosen then I would be with delete. But it is not random; a search of gbooks quickly shows that "constancy rewarded" is a widespread moral theme in 17–19th century works of all kinds. See for instance the brief discussion in the modern introduction to Vertue Rewarded, Or, The Irish Princess: The fable of virtue and constancy rewarded is promised and delivered.... SpinningSpark 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the "Virtue Rewarded" page. While this isn't as WP:LISTCRUFT-y as it initially appears per Spinningspark, it still seems to be a subsidiary topic to the Virtue Rewarded page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the "Virtue Rewarded" page, and rename the whole thing something along the lines of List of works with common subtitle themes. The idea presented in the lede is that the works sharing a subtitle also share a theme signaled by that subtitle. bd2412 T 18:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is plainly not an encyclopedic topic, and there aren't enough bluelinks to make a disambiguation page, even if these are not partial title matches. The List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" should be deleted on similar grounds. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the "Virtue Rewarded" list too per OR. I'm not seeing any academic interest in "subtitle themes". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Clarityfiend here. Without any indication of academic interest in the theme, this list is just a high-brow version of List of books with the word "potato" in the title. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend and Reyk's arguments. While a discussion of specific widespread moral themes in stories can certainly be notable and be worthy of an article, this list is just a rather arbitrary list of stories that happen to have a specific set of words as a subtitle. Non-notable, and potentially some WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that the topic - “Works with the subtitle "Constancy Rewarded"” - has been discussed as a whole academically or otherwise. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (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~~ keep. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Amended to keep. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Rahman[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO CptViraj (Talk) 11:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was speedily kept a week ago. Did that discussion fail to take something into account? --Worldbruce (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Passes WP:NPOL. This has also been established in the nomination a week ago. --MrClog (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an elected state official, who are inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Also, this was nominated a week ago and kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draft per John Wolfson, however failing a keep the article should be made a draft. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but state legislators pass WP:NPOL #1. Notability is judged by the existence of suitable sources, not just their presence in the current version of the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I was not sure to vote here as I am the one who nominated the article for deletion previously. It is WP:TOOSOON. Masum Reza^📞 12:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I cant see what the problem is. The version of the article when it was nominated is completely fine. Subject is/was elected member of legislative assembly, which is verified. Thus fulfilling WP:NPOL. There are no copyrights, or BLP violations. None of the content is unsourced. I am still not sure, are we having this discussion because the article is a stub? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:25, 28 May 2019 (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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tejasvi Surya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet not officially announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC) 11:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Keep: now passes WP:NPOL Ceethekreator (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which blocked/banned user are you referring to in your G5 rationale? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold~~ for next 2-3 hours to confirm his win. Then article can be kept. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: sorry typo, actually meant G4. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, changing to Speedy Keep now. He won. Passes WP:NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending confirmation of subject's election to the Indian parliament. It would have been better if both the re-creator of the article and the AfD nominator had waited until the ink was dry on the results papers before taking their respective actions, and the original article had problems beyond the notability questions, but assuming the reported results are correct, subject now clearly passes the notability standard. --Finngall ^talk 14:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without his (almost certain) confirmation, he's notable enough. Coderzombie (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already won the election of Indian Parliament. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN now elected to Indian Parliament from Bangalore South.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. This AfD is now redundant since the subject has won the election and is now notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN. Also User:Capankajsmilyo (who started this page) should be trouted for jumping the gun by several hours, which led to this AfD and wastage of community time. I would request any patrolling admin or volunteer to close this and rid this AfD of its misery. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that was technically created slightly prematurely — we should indeed wait until the subject has actually been declared elected, rather than jumping the gun just because he's in the lead during the ballot count — but we've already crossed that bridge now. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Adu-Mante[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability, and the company he works has no article. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I don't know what the nom means when they wrote "struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources..." Considering the fact that most of the sources cited are reliable African sources with in-depth coverage of the subject, I would say their WP:BEFORE and understanding of RS is pretty bad. Many of those sources cited in the article are RS news agencies that covers Africa - especially his country. Also, just because there is no article on his organisation does not mean he is not notable. Maybe the guy is notable but the organisation is not. Maybe both are notable bur one has not bothered to created an article for the organisation yet. Notability or lack of is not inherited. That is a silly argument.Tamsier (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not sure what number one might consider "most of the sources" cited are reliable African sources with in-depth coverage of the subject". Two sources are primary and don't advance notability, two sources are dead links, so likely not so reliable, Graphic Online includes wording "“Our brands have a strong reputation" (and others) which sounds like a press release and advertising. What I see in this source is business related over biographical information. GhanaWeb contains wording "it’s current holdings in Spice and Beach FM remain intact and shall be strengthened to enable it to maintain its leadership as the leading radio broadcast hub in the region.", with tones of advertising that might likely come from the company. I can't see (in the two actual sources that could count towards notability) anything approaching encyclopedic biographical content. There is an amount listed on the article that includes weasel wording whooping (lacking sourcing I may have missed) "100,000 Ghanaian cedi". In one of the primary sources I saw "sixty thousand Ghana cedis" and said philanthropist is "prepared to spend more". If this is true there is likely original research. The article has "six" general references and no in line citations for text–source integrity. This source is more business than biographical (please see WP:PSEUDO) and probably why this is mentioned. I found a source Business World, with one paragraph "Meet Kwame Adu – Mante", but I don't see this as enough and maybe why it may be more plausible as an article on an organization over a BLP. I also don't see significant coverage either and my editing count and time on Wikipedia is far less than the noms. Otr500 (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject lacks the necessary amount of significant, independent coverage about them to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; every source cited by the article is either not in-depth enough or WP:PRIMARY, and the subject does not inherit undue amounts of notability from companies he is affiliated with. A search for more quality sources online does not assuage these concerns.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Kwhali[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, does not meet WP:PROF. Sources are either trivial references, or her own publications. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny GS cites do not pass WP:Prof#C1. Try again in ten years, WP:Too soon now. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smrti academy[edit]

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

Does not Passes WP:GNG + new school and does not even have any Reliable Sources also I checked with WP:NSCHOOL does not satisfy WikiLover97 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WikiLover97 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole source is their own website. A search turned up no independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON WP:GNG - I hope they make waves and get coverage for it in the future. Orville1974 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2019 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WeirdX[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Djm-leighpark with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). In any case, WP:BEFORE shows a few passing mentions but no significant coverage extending beyond a few sentences in few academic papers which used this software. There are no reviews of it, and only a few guides (WP:PRIMARY...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not enough substantial, independent sourcing. Reyk _YO! 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article should have an independent reference, but this article doesn't.Catfurball (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2019 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Garjana[edit]

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

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 23 May 2019 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lozito[edit]

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

Doubtful notability, and I have AfDed his company too. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the references are just enough to pass. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - ~~meets GNG~~, but it does need to be rewritten into a neutral tone.

I went about trying to rewrite the article, only to discover that the majority of references don't even discuss the subject of the article, they just talk about the effects of branding changes, in which it's not made clear whether the subject had any part in the decision or process.Orville1974 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Pal[edit]

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

A bit of a procedural nomination, I came across this page as a redirect pointing to Hindustan Times, the subject's employer, but the target doesn't mention Sandip Pal at all. The redirect had been created as an alternative to A7 deletion. Rather than deleting the redirect and its history through an RfD discussion, I figured it would be better to assess the merits of the original article at AfD. That having been said, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, as all coverage appears to be puff-pieces, whose tone has been replicated in the article. While the subject has won a scriptwriting award, I would hazard to say that WP:ANYBIO is not satisfied as the script was never used. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. The claims-to-fame, which are, (a) has interviewed notable entertainers, (b) is in the process of directing a movie, and (c) won a script awards at the 2008 Kolkata International Film Festival (for a script that yet remains unproduced) are not sufficient to establish notability. Fwiw, I could not find any details of the award on the festival website or anywhere outside the sources related to Pal. And that sourcing is suspect: poorly written, fluffy, cookie-cutter articles indicative of PR-placements (as is the wikipedia article itself). Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per above. Not sure about the rationale behind the relist. ∯WBG^converse 14:33, 27 May 2019 (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. Based on the discussion here, it seems like the consensus leans in favour of deletion on the grounds that while references have been provided, they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krupabhishekam Convention[edit]

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

This page was created as a supporting article for the now deleted Fr Dominic Valanmanal page, The organization doesn't pass WP:ORGCRITE, and there are claims in the article(lakhs of participants in conventions) that aren't backed by the cited sources Daiyusha (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization is notable. Proof: link 1, link 2, link 3, and link 4.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These four refs are not suitable as GNG for this subject; at least 3 of the 4 are not even RS, and where they mention the Church, it is in passing:

link 1, is a small local blog page and definately not WP:RS.

link 2, is a local blog page and definately not WP:RS; it does not mention the Church, and if you translate this link and read the short material about the "miracle" it is completely bogus.

link 3, is on "Charismatic Catholics" worldwide; it happens to mention the deleted Fr Dominic Valanmanal, but in passing as an example.

link 4, is just a WP:PRIMARY reference of message-board from the Catholic organisation to which this Church is part of; not a suitable RS for GNG.

The rest of the references in this article are PRIMARY (e.g. from the organisation that this Church belongs); there is no secondary independent RS on it. Britishfinance (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am not clear whether this is a local church or a one-man ministry. In either case, it is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have coverage in newspaper sources as shown above and it is an international organisation holding conferences/services in Mexico, Australia, Norway etc, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Looking through the citations and the links provided above, I don't see significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Much of it takes the form of, 'Conducting a bible convention in this location' which, as I understand it, is stock-in-trade, so to speak (and is the stated purpose of the organisation) and non-notable. Google searches provided numerous video links but no independent coverage really at all. Google news provides zero results. The page here is promotional in nature WP:PROMO as are the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having read the four references above, they are either non-RS or don't mention this church (which is the topic of the article). I can't see a case that this church meets WP:GNG (there is nothing approaching any kind of WP:SIGCOV). I am always wary of situations where a subject's WP article is really the main source of their GNG and notability; clearly, the table in the article shows that it is already being used as a bulletin-board/promotional events guide for this church. Not happy with WP being used for PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article includes the sentance Miracles are reported by many believers who attend these conventions. This is not suitable material for WP and is clearly somone trying to use WP to give credibility and promote a non-notable religious entity, whose sole leader Fr Dominic Valanmanal, had his BLP AfD'ed. Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is merit in suggested redirects, but that can and should be hashed out at Talk:Mitch Canham. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Canham[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL Joeykai (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:ANYBIO (the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor ).--PATH SLOPU 13:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What significant honor did he win? Joeykai (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unsurprisingly for someone who never made the majors (thus failing Fails NBASE) is not notable. All-American of any sort, let alone second or third team, is not enough of an amateur accomplishment to merit keeping. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Even with all the compensation picks I wasn't expecting a 57th pick to be a first rounder but Rlendog is correct that reidecting to that list is a proper AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All American does meet NSPORT for college athletes, but not sure that should apply to 2nd or 3rd team, at least for baseball. I haven't checked coverage against GNG, but even if he fails this should not be deleted but rather redirected to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. Rlendog (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:SPORTSPERSON, (the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...) Significant coverage of a significant player who has also participated and won significant contests which were widely covered. Subject was on both the 2006 and 2007 OSU teams which won back to back NCAA Baseball National Championships at the College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska, as well as the 2005 team which made it there and lost in two games. He was drafted by the San Diego Padres of Major League Baseball with the 57th overall pick in the 2007 Major League Baseball Draft. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arkansas Travelers - The article may meet WP:SPORTSPERSON, but the failure of meeting WP:NBASEBALL trumps that. The person has some significant coverage, but it's not enough for a stand-alone article. INeedSupport ^:3 15:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirecting it to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks would work as well. INeedSupport ^:3 13:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as he arguably could be considered to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1. Though, as Rlendog said, for a sport like college baseball, it's debatable whether or not being a second or third team All-American qualifies as a national-level award for the purposes of NCOLLATH. Possibly worth noting that he was the starting catcher on two College World Series winning teams. I wouldn't be heartbroken if this were redirected to the Padres draft pick article, though. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks. Had Canham been a consensus first team all-American or the Most Outstanding Player for the College World Series this would be a different story, but I think the redirect is the most appropriate move. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON ( Lubbad85 ). If redirected, I prefer Arkansas Travelers (I) over List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks (GPL93). ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (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. All "keep" arguments (one by a now blocked editor) are "meets WP:NEVENTS"; which doesn't count for much when the other side discusses the actual sources used. Sandstein 07:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Les Femmes Underground International Film Festival[edit]

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

Promotion for Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the organisation. The only reasonable sources appears to be the local university source KPBS Public Media which falls short of WP:AUD. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to lack good sources in line with WP:GNG Laosilika (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NEVENTS - Epinoia (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KPBS (TV), KPBS-FM and Phoenix New Times are reliable sources. The KPBS stations serve southern California, nut just the university community. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see one source listed as KPBS Public Media, not two seperate KPBS sources. And the Phoenix one is just an event listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NEVENTS TMagen (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEVENTS. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. To those making a vague wave at NEVENTS, how does it meet it? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional events listing. There is no substantial content, for they seem have never done anything noteworthy. One local TV listing and copies of it is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Hessen[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. —Chowbok ☠ 04:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. She was listed as up-and-coming back in 2011 before ... (~~unsourced and a BLP issue that I'm removing now~~). Never mind, I found reference to it in the Vogue article and re-added the information. Orville1974 (talk)
Comment "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So "all of a sudden" the sources such as Vogue didn’t do that? 🤔 Just interesting how you "serendipitously" came across this recently created page and decided to propose deletion based on another page I created ... Trillfendi (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't serendipitous. I was looking at your contributions.—Chowbok ☠ 09:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, that’s why serendipitously was in quotations, you brute. Preening through my pages I created just because you don’t like it. Trillfendi (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Travel Holdings[edit]

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

non notable and promotional . The "awards" are mostly just from the firms whose cruises they sell. I don't think the others are enough to show notability

The charity is routine corporate charity, part of their PR. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with PR, but not on WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2019 (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 The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs. Sandstein 07:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jitterbug[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this song that was cut from The Wizard of Oz deserves an entire article. —Chowbok ☠ 04:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it didn't even make it into the final cut. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs where this song is covered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable song in its own right Newcastlepanic (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs. A minor element of the film's production, that is already sufficiently covered in the movies' main article. As this article contains no valid sourced material, there is nothing worth merging, so a simple redirect should suffice.Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs: There are sources out there for this song, but I do not believe there are enough to support a separate article. The information could be contained (and cited) in the film article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the kind of dance, Jitterbug (which is sometimes referred to with "The"); refactor the entry at Jitterbug (disambiguation) to point to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs. bd2412 T 19:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)#Deleted songs but merge content relevant to the dance move to Jitterbug per User:BD2412 above. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faretta[edit]

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

The content here is name-dropping, not encyclopedic content. The coverage is PR,and the placement on a list is not a notable award. Or is it serious being contended that one of the “Top 50” models by models.com[" is equivalent to encyclopedic notability? I notice we have no article on it, so I don't see how we could say its even notable,much the less authoritative. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I rod the article and I think the article subject which belong to a person is notable, but I also think the subject can merge with a comprehensive article, such as the mentioned article on career section.Forest90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article’s creator I obviously have no reason to vote. But I won’t go back and forth with people who don’t know jack shit about modeling. Sadly, it’s that demographic of editors who always seem to have the most opinions on the subject. A group who couldn’t even name a new model (from any recent season no less) if held at gun-point but think they know what quantifies their notability. Manifestly, not. The point of saying which shows a model does IS THAT IT’S WHAT AMERICAN VOGUE PROFILED. Duh! It’s what VOGUE spotlighted as notability. Spring 2017 was Faretta’s first full ready-to-wear season, and she came on like gangbusters, opening three shows (Victoria Beckham, Roberto Cavalli, and Mugler) and closing one (Chloé). She wore key looks like Saint Laurent’s bustier top and Céline’s Yves Klein–inspired dress. What made Faretta right for each of the distinct brands that cast her? There’s nothing saccharine about her; rather, she communicates an innate strength combined with an air of fresh-scrubbed healthiness. It’s a winning combo. If they take notice the model is doing something right. The cover of British Vogue under the latent editorialship of Edward Enninful? My God, do your research. But since you don’t know fashion I wouldn’t expect you to understand. And then yet another Vogue? The point of all these sources is that people who want to read more about the model can go there to do so. If you don’t like the coverage: WP:NNC. If you don’t like the way the article is written then re-write it. It’s that simple. If I was writing this article for so-called PR then I’d include the mindless minutiae of Victoria Beckham’s Instagram photo. Questioning the legitimacy of models.com’s well-respected-for-20 years-and-regularly-updated "Top 50" list? Blithe ignorance. That’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from commenting on other editors when making your arguments.—Chowbok ☠ 04:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources--only one brief write-up in the New York Times and an article in Vogue. Seeing how we don't even have an article on models.com itself, much less its "Top 50" list, it's presumably not a reliable source. Her article can always be re-added if she gets more coverage.—Chowbok ☠ 04:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Notability isn't inherited from the designers/firms she does shows for. Much of the first few pages of google news results were for other people with a similar name. Majority of google results were model profile pages. The Vogue article spends more words profiling her clothing than it does her. I don't think the subject has general notability (however successful she may be within the confines of the modelling world), and that's whether you go by WP:NMODEL, WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. ogenstein (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s no wonder NMODEL is being “re-litigated” on the WP:NPEOPLE talk page. Idiocy like this comment. Absolute lack of understanding of what notability is for a model. (however successful she may be within the confines of the modelling world) IS NOTABILITY FOR A MODEL. That’s all it has to be. Trillfendi (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relitigation? Or moaning? The issue isn't what is notable 'for a model'. Models that stand above the crowd have pages (e.g. Klum, Bundchen and many more) as do the other elements of the fashion trade, such as the fashion houses, the magazines/editors, or the big shows, so notability can be achieved. I don't have a lack of understanding of your position, I just disagree with how it should be handled here. I think that there are many issues with what you're suggesting but even if there weren't, it is clear that this subject lacks notability. ogenstein (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of models’ articles on this website. Evidently you don’t know what actually makes a model notable, and it certainly doesn’t have be mainstream supermodels who retired in the last decade. Or in Klum’s case didn’t even have the body type to be a runway model therefore rarely set foot in the runway besides the VS Fashion Show.

If you learn how to read, you’ll see that weeks ago another editor on the NPEOPLE talk page brought up redefining the standards of notability for a model because of a previous AfD where people dug through the Internet’s garbage bins to find 20-year old, unavailable magazine covers (on Amazon.com for God’s sake), forums where people gossip about models, or any mere mention that ever happened whether or not the source was reliable, and tried to call that notability and significant coverage). Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Chase[edit]

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

Porn performer BLP with no independent reliable sourcing nd no legitimate assertion of notability. PROD removed by article creator, who then added claims that were not at all supported by the cited sources (in one case contradicted by), and which made no more than negligible contributions to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the article because violated WP:RS.Forest90 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete for complete lack of independent reliable source coverage. Fails both WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Porn award wins would not even satisfy the now-superceeded WP:PORNBIO SNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A review of the findsources finds that she fails the GNG and I could find no evidence that would support the criteria under WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, to see whether this can be improved. The subject, beyond her primary career, apparently was also reported on for an attempt at stand-up comedy. If it is not improved, it will ultimately be deleted as abandoned. I wouldn't keep this in mainspace, though. Most news hits I get for "Brooklyn Chase" refer either to police chases in Brooklyn or Chase Bank locations in Brooklyn. bd2412 T 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NJ Stage source is an announcement for a show, in which Brooklyn Chase is briefly mentioned as one of the performers. It lacks depth, and its independence as a secondary source is questionable. My assessment for failing WP:ENT takes this into account due to lack of substantial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2019 (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.