Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

California[edit]

Danielle Coney[edit]

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

Subject is a case of WP:BIO1E as a beauty pageant contestant, with a lack of WP:GNG level coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and California. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, most sources are just links to his music on streaming sites. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it still shows that everything is based on facts? So what is the problem Elektrinhooo (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He hadn't accomplished anything we'd consider for musical notability here; he got barely any press mentions when he was alive. A tragic death, yes, but that isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I do think his appearances on the Trippie Redd songs are notable. Really good performances and I have never seen anyone say they weren't good. The Trippie Redd tapes he was on did chart on the billboard 200, so I'd say that this is partially because of him. Elektrinhooo (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability when alive it seems, I don't see charted singles, album reviews or much of anything. Even the many articles on his death are about him being a friend of Justin Bieber. Friend of a famous person doesn't quite get us notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability before his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this a lot, as a previously non-notable musician (typically a murdered rapper) suddenly gets media coverage for his death, and media outlets use the occasion to talk about his music for the first time ever while quoting more famous people that he knew. This rapper achieved nothing musically that qualifies for notability at WP:NMUSICIAN. All media coverage is about his recent death, but that does not qualify for notability under WP:NVICTIM either. May he R.I.P. but he doesn't qualify for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodahl[edit]

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

Essentially an unsourced biography of a living person for nearly twenty years. WorldCat is not useful for establishing notability, yet it is the only source for the entire article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Idaho, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary, independent coverage in either news outlets or the literature. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF through a dearth of third-party coverage and lack of overall recognition within their field (no honours, chair, or nat. biog entry, significant contribution, etc). ——Serial Number 54129 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see that his book Shekhinah/Spirit attracted some attention though I couldn't say how influential it eventually proved. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being held in a library isn't notable, but could point towards notability. Unfortunately, I've tried and been unable to find "Shekhinah/spirit : divine presence in Jewish and Christian religion" book reviews. A zillion hits on where to buy the book, no proof of scholarly notice. I don't see AUTHOR being met. Gscholar and Jstor came up blank. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Amarasinghe[edit]

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

Questionable for sustained notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is primary from his school (MIT) and some Army folks that set a world record for something unrelated. I don't see coverage that we'd use for PROF. Just a working educator, nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably Speedy Keep. Strong publication record with an h-factor of 74 and four pubs with over 1000 cites. Two professional fellowships, so he qualifies under #C1 with the addition of #C3 to prove that peer recognition is not fake. The page does need better citing, but not delete.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:PROF category 3 -- fellowship in a highly prestigeous honorary society. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur that he appears to pass WP:NPROF on multiple criteria. Article needs work, but deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably going to be kept on the basis of what I consider technicalities. Association for Computing Machinery may be prestigious, and a fellowship in it may be relevant per NPROF #3, but we wouldn't be able to tell it from the article; there's a link, but it announces that there's 58 new fellows--so how special is it? H-factor is of course always problematic, as are publications and cites. Let's not forget that we're writing an encyclopedia here, and if there's nothing to write because everything is based on organizational websites announcing "fellowship" or databases showing a ranking, what are we doing? That's right, resume writing, where all the content is derives from faculty pages or from the subject's own publications. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ACM Fellow is an unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C3 (potential COI: I am one too) and he has very strong citations, passing WP:PROF#C1. These are not technicalities. One doesn't become a full professor in a tech field at MIT without significant accomplishments, and these indicators show that he has them. The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3, as argued above. Deletion is not cleanup, and the first pass at cleaning up was very easy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1298[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this locomotive in secondary sources. The source used for basically the entire article is a self-published website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is not independently notable (I haven't looked for sources) it should be redirected to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives. If verifiable, the information in the article could be used to expand the entry there to a full sentence as that seems DUE based on other entries. I don't see any benefit in deletion over this course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Per nom. 124.148.210.252 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf. News search found nothing and book search found self-published sources (and a few books with "Southern Pacific" on page 1298). – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Dhaliwal[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG /WP:BIO.

The Forbes article is authored by a brand builder.
Nothing about the subject in the TOI article.
Source 3 is a blog.
nytimes article is an opinion piece.
[1] No significant coverage and a primary source.
Looks like the dealstreetasia article is about the app Dil Mil.
qz.com is about the app again.
techcrunch.com is about the app. WP:TECHCRUNCH
[2] has no mention of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Internet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are press releases, passing mentions, etc. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Jeraxmoira. To satisfy GNG articles need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources which the subject of the article does not have. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are just about his company, that too mostly about fundings. No independent sources about the subject. Lacks GNG 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the sources provided aren't independent reliable secondary sources. Blogs, opinions, and primary sources can't establish notability. Grabup (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of close, but not close enough. I think the Dil Mil app could be notable, so this can be redirected there if an article for Dil Mil is made. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cahan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. The two external links are broken/outdated. No inline citations to any claims. Article is written like a resume. Edit history indicates COI. News search/scholar is minimal. Recommend delete. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. No sourcing whatsoever. Does indeed read like a resume, but in an unfocused way. Just a rambling stream of what this individual did with their various interests. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No hits in Google for this person; this reads like a personal web page. Not suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Cahan & Associates. The design firm he founded is definitely notable. Quotes below are the abstracts from ProQuest.

Baggerman, Lisa (1999). "Annuals with style". How. 14 (2): 142. ProQuest 233342555.
Pruzan, Todd (1999). "Hungry minds". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231014590. San Francisco's Cahan & Associates, a graphics design firm, is profiled. Cahan & Associates has won numerous design awards and consistently produces standout pieces.
Hall, Peter (1999). "Printed matter". ID: The International Design Magazine. 46 (6): 46. ProQuest 214751639. Bill Cahan has once again proven himself to be "the Steven Spielberg of annual reports" with the creation of Cahan & Associates extraordinary paperback-sized annual report for voice technology company General Magic.
McCarthy, Robert (1999). "Against the grain". Photo District News. 19 (4): 121–123. ProQuest 202872273. Bill Cahan, creative director and principal at Cahan and Associates in San Francisco, incorporates photojournalistic essays into commissioned brochures, catalogues and annual reports. His design firm has won numerous awards.
Heller, Steven (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231024970. Heller reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates
Kidd, Chip (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". ID: The International Design Magazine. 47 (2): 112. ProQuest 214755886. Kidd reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates

Jfire (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Epple[edit]

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

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA[edit]

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

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haini Wolfgramm[edit]

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

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). He has done nothing independently notable outside the band, and the article is simply an attempt to fill space with some tidbits from his personal life. The fact that he owns a small record company could possibly be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Roberge[edit]

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

Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [3] and a review [4] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources you can provide to support the above? -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.

As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton[edit]

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

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, Aviation, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (no considered view on notability one way or the other): redirection to Zipline (drone delivery company) is surely a viable alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment[edit]

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Cowell[edit]

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

I see this article as WP:TOOSOON, as I can only find substantive coverage from the Carese Courier (three articles) and a few Spanish-language sites about him choosing Mexico over the United States. He is 15 years old, has never played a professional match, and only represents Mexico at the under-15 level. I think this article should be draftified, but I understand if the vote is to keep it. I'm curious what consensus will be on this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [6], [7], and [8] among many more Spanish and English sources. Young player with ongoing pro and international career (already signed pro contractw ith senior Major League Soccer SJ Earthquakes with many sources already. Should be a clear keep if not a draftify at the very worst. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom, I'm a bit torn here, as Cowell has never played a pro game and his international career is at the under-15 level. As such, he is not remotely notable as a footballer. I wonder if his current fame, and thus the focus on him, is entirely the result of his brother's success at Chivas and with the United States senior team. I ask myself: Would Chance Cowell be acknowledged at all if his brother wasn't Cade Cowell? And I think the answer is "No, he wouldn't." I think a drafitify is the most appropriate move here, but I nominated the article because I think there's is a fruitful discussion to have. Anwegmann (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has evidently performed well enough for his youth teams to receive a senior professional San Jose Earthquakes contract at the age of fifteen... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that means nothing until he appears for the team. What I'm saying is that this is an example of WP:TOOSOON—the player clearly shows potential of being notable in his own right, and may become independently notable in the future, but as of right now, he's not notable enough to deserve his own article based on three caps for an under-15 national team two years ago and a professional contract, but no appearances, for an MLS club. Almost every source of any substance is predicated on him being Cade Cowell's brother. It's not a wasted article, and your work in creating it is justified, generally. But it needs to be draftified until he can "stand on his own," as it were. Anwegmann (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not new. They were already present when the AFD was created. As such, nothing changes my mind. Giant Snowman 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he ought to get coverage or not isn't really relevant, he's just getting it. So therefore passes GNG. We shouldn't waste time imagining coverage in a world where his brother isn't Cade. Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOUNGATH appears to disagree with your reasoning—coverage as individuals that is not local or routine. Almost all English-language coverage is local from his hometown and a large portion of the cited Spanish-language sources are game play summaries, and thus are WP:ROUTINE. By your logic, if they had a random sister who got coverage because she's their sister, she deserves an article. Anwegmann (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources mentioned above fail YOUNGATH, and additionally do not establish him as notable independent of his brother. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP, even if assuming that he passes WP:BARE, we always err on the side of deleting the articles of kids who are actors or athletes, until they are at least 17 or 18. I do not oppose a userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked up to see if he actually did have a professional contract as I could have sworn 16 was the age limit for professionalism under FIFA rules (or that California had child labour rules). The Ceres Courier source does say that. But what exactly is so remarkable about this? He's 15 and playing for an academy and an under-15 national team. How many other kids are doing that? I think we should only have articles about youth players who are doing something extraordinary, like Da'vian Kimbrough actually playing a pro game at 13 - for a team that Chance Cowell didn't do so at. I think some on football Wikipedia are currently stretching WP:GNG with younger relatives of footballers, who get a lot of cheap filler coverage but haven't done anything in their own right. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge with Cade_Cowell#Personal_life. He likely will be notable, but he isn't now as it's too soon. Either outcome preserves the history for a spinout when he does meet the criteria. Star Mississippi 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON Claire 26 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would most likely say to draftify this article so it can be improved by the person who created it. Also as per WP:TOOSOON. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase[edit]

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

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Sadads,

I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.

As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".

Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)

There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.

Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.

Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.

Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.

Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.

In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.

I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them. Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight. -

Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews -

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase

Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced -

Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html

Plus the books -

BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books?id=NNyjAQAACAAJ

https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3

https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you? Instead I summarised their nature.

Look, I'll level with you. Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them. – Teratix ₵ 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:

CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)

Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.

There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.

This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -

I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A-Plus (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Just because we have several articles about music produced by him does not make him notable, I find that he is not notable as a musician or a producer. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't looked closely yet as to whether his article deserves to stay, but it seems to me a redirect to Souls of Mischief might be a better option than outright deletion... yes, I know he is part of Hieroglyphics (group) as well and therefore WP:XY may be considered here, but Hieroglyphics is all of Souls of Michief plus four other people, so he's still a part of Hieroglyphics as a member of Souls of Mischief. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC#C6 if he's part of two notable production groups. That doesn't mean we have to have a standalone article on him, just noting a discrepancy in the nom statement. Mach61 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Souls of Mischief as he does have some individual reliable sources coverage such as an AllMusic staff bio here and a review of one of his 3 solo albums here, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Other than the 2 sources provided by above editor, there are not enough reliable coverage and 2 of the sources are interviews.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. None of the sources appear to be reliable, but a search of his name would go to the band's article, a compromise that we do sometimes. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: AllMusic is a reliable source as per [[9]] and the bio and album review are not interviews as someone else claimed, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: the only problem is that AllMusic isn’t being used as a reference and all 3 of the references are interviews. Of those only 1 is about A-Plus. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the AllMusic sources as references, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a ton of sourcing (yes, from reliable sources) available on this guy in Google News and Books searches, over a period of decades. It's true that most of them are brief mentions, but with all of the info available, surely the article could be built out and sourced better than it is now. I had to get a little creative in looking for sources since "A plus" is such a generic term, but combining his name with "Hieroglyphics" or "Souls of Mischief" yields many good results. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin may you link said results? Mach61 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble[edit]

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

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.

The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the book above, he's profiled in Banjoko, Adisa (2004). "Political Activist, Shamako Noble". Lyrical Swords: Hip Hop and Politics in the Mix. YinSumi Press. ISBN 9780970177117. The book series Lyrical Swords and its author has been the subject of RS (see for example) He's also got coverage for his work as an activist in Berg, Laurie; Berg, Anna; Robinson, Pamela K.; Wills, Jane. "Economic Migrants: The Banana Supply Chain, and the London Living Wage: Three Cases Civil Society Activism on Poverty". In Kumar, Ashwani (ed.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2009: Poverty and Activism. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

for occasional archiving