Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 9: Difference between revisions
Domdeparis (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari DePhillips}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Potato Family}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Potato Family}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michael Petrou}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michael Petrou}} |
Revision as of 12:46, 9 July 2018
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Kari DePhillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ANYBIO the amazing thing is that this page actually explains how she has used marketing techniques to generate backlinks to her company by replying to Help a Reporter Out requests and the article creator is using these sources to try and show notability. the articles written by Suzanna Weiss can be discounted because she and DePhillips actively interview each other [1]. The others can all be discounted as part of her experiment to generate backlinks. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Most of the article references aren't independent of the subject since they include short excerpts of statements she submitted through Help a Reporter Out, as she admits through the Entrepreneur article. Newslinger (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above Fails WP:BASIC .Subject is a American entrepreneur and has been interviewed .But it fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. Insufficient input to reach consensus, and two relists have failed to attract further discussion. Michig (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Royal Potato Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable by our standards for businesses – this appears to be somebody's personal label. It gets a number of mentions as part of its routine business of releasing records – some of those may be by notable people, and so receive press coverage. I can find no in-depth coverage of the company itself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Justlettersandnumbers. While I appreciate your opinion, I do think that NPR's online article about Royal Potato Family records is a substantial article [1] not to mention the WQEX-FM House Sessions interview with the label head Marco Benevento [2]. Saying this is Benevento's personal label, in my opinion, is a weak position, as the company as I have learned from all the articles I sourced, is an income provider for all its releases not just the owner. Just because its a private company, doesn't mean its not worthy of a page here. In the meantime, for the sake of your argument, I am researching for some of the more recent articles on the company.EllenZoe (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- One more thing, that confuses me about this nomination, is that I read the link you included about business notability and it included this line: "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)."EllenZoe (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a line to the page indicated the staffing of the record label across the United States with a reference from one of the largest music magazines in the United States, Relix.[3]EllenZoe (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fields, Lanny. "New Music from American Babies and Marco Benevento on Royal Potato Family". NPR Idea Stations. Retrieved 2 May 2017.
- ^ "Session #18: Marco Benevento". House Sessions. 2008-02-03. 9.00 minutes in. WEQX-FM 102.7.
- ^ Greenhaus, Mike (January 11, 2011). "Root Down: The Royal Potato Family". Relix Magazine. Retrieved 9 July 2018.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- David Michael Petrou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I cannot see what is remotely significant about this subject. Being part of the production crew on two of the Superman movies is not enough to warrant an article of his own. The only other film he appears to have had any other (minor) involvement in (decades later) is a 20-minute short, which only has seven reviews on imdb. The communications firm he founded is not notable, and appears to have shut down over ten years ago. Nothing else he has done makes him notable in any way. Being on various boards/ singing in choirs sounds more like a hobby than a sign of notability. This content would be more appropriate on LinkedIn. Andromer (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. More than sufficient to establish notability. A business executive, performer, author and co-author of two books, with twenty-three inline cites from major sources listing details of his career. Roman Spinner *(talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Notable writer and businessman. Clearly passes GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- David Sans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Sans Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, fails notablity guidelines. Eagleash (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - trivial first of a first: he is not notable because of some remote connection. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete not even remotely close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- 2018 Super 8s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 23#Structuring of UK season articles the decision was not to have a separate article covering all three Super 8s competitions but to cover the SL Super 8s in the article on Super League XIII, the Championship Shield in the article 2018 Rugby League Championship and to create a separate article for the 2018 Rugby League Qualifiers Nthep (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The views of 4 people on a project discussion isn't a good enough reason for deletion to me, especially when it is written according to policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- All content which will be duplicated as it is included in the other articles mentioned. While the concept of the Super 8s merits an article, artificially divorcing a third of a season's fixtures from the top two divisions into one mashup solely because they share a concept name for a phase of the season does not make sense for the reader. Nthep (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (Speedy withdraw/keep WP:Music #6). (non-admin closure) RF23 (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Cornbugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- TDRS Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject significantly, exist. Fails WP:NCORP. The editor whose username is Z0 14:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per criterion #1: no valid reason for deletion advanced. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Self Seeker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability on English wikipedia is hard to determine as all the references are in Russian Crazy Cat Person (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sources need not be in English. A search in English-speaking sources turns up this blog post (not enough to show notability in itself but it's a start). There seems to be different translations of the title going around, including "The Profiteer". TigraanClick here to contact me 11:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- As per above, which makes it a somewhat defective nomination on this basis. Clearly not done WP:BEFORE. While I agree "hard" notability is marginal given the fringe topic, there is good indication of notability. In addition, the movie is covered by the German Historical Museum and the Ukrainian Film Club of Columbia University.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Admin deleted as A5 "Article that has already been transwikied to another project". (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Haupt (German word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DICDEF, completely unsourced, no content worth transwikifying. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete / Speedy Delete.
Wiktionary is the proper place for it, i.e. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Haupt -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC) - Comment Article tagged as A5 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. Cunard's sources seem to just raise this beyond the bar. ansh666 22:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- De Sarthe Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This business apparently does not satisfy our new and improved notability requirements for companies, and probably didn't meet the old ones either. It carries on the routine business of art dealing, showing works of art in the hope of selling some of them. Some of these works are by notable artists, and so may receive some press coverage, in which there may be some passing mention of the gallery. But a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. I tried to rewrite this article, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to say anything much about it. Even the South China Morning Post article, which is specifically about the gallery, has very little solid information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting. I looked at the article as it now stands and came to the opposite conclusion: the sources you found have given enough verifiable detail from reliable sources about this art gallery, over a sufficiently long period of time (2014 - 2018!) to push it over the threshold of notability. Weak keep. Deryck C. 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers—stop burdening us with the same nonsense that you are posting at so many of these discussions:
"a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building."
That tedious nonsense is largely irrelevant yet you've posted it or a variation of it not only at this article but here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and all of those articles were deleted, because what Justlettersandnumbers said was accurate. Please do not badger this AfD as you have done at other AfDs. If you keep up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT and walls of text, I would say you are headed for a topic ban. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let's look at the available online sources
- [2] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.
- [3] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.
- [4] does verify that de Sarthe participated in Art Silicon Valley San Francisco (not a notable art fair), with the artists mentioned, some who are indeed very notable but not typically represented by de Sarthe, like Robert Indiana (Paul Kasmin Gallery), Yayoi Kusama (Gagosian Gallery) and Bernar Venet (Paul Kasmin).
- [5] Is used to show that the gallery participated in the Art Basel Hong Kong art fair quotes Pascal de Sarthe as saying "We did very well last year, and it was repeated this year", "We have seen a lot of money coming to the art market" and "Chinese investors and collectors understand that art is a tangible asset." (Note that ABHK had 231 exhibitors in 2105, 239 in 2016, 241 in 2017 and 248 in 2018. Calling that "hundreds" to trivialize inclusion in the selection is not NPOV). But the information provided her is useless, and we already have a list of participants. I'm not convinced that participating in ABHK is even of sufficient encyclopedic interest to merit mention in the article.
- [6] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.
- [7] This article discusses and contextualizes the selection of de Sarthe and is a good example of independent reporting and analysis. This isn't just the gallery talking about itself. Interestingly, it shows that de Sarthe particpated in the 2014 edition of ABHK, the so the statement that it supports is incorrect.
- [8] Not independent, just the gallery talking about itself.
- In summary, I see one source that I think is any good, but it fails to provide enough information to create a comprehensive article. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia. Until we get better sources:
delete, without prejudice to recreation by an unconnected editor once those sources emerge. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)- Those sources have now been presented by Cunard below. Keep. Vexations (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete inadequate reliable sources to establish notability, per Vexation's excellent analysis.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Change to Keep per Cunard's sources below.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- 96.127.242.226, did you also check out my remarks on those sources? -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Change to Keep per Cunard's sources below.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The previous discussions have been tainted by personal attacks. If you want to topic ban somebody, go to WP:ANI and make your case. Otherwise, just focus on the merits of the article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vexations—you are evaluating an article that has already been gutted by Justlettersandnumbers. They started dismantling the article on June 10 and nominated it for deletion on July 2. Also, you write that "I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia." While I agree with the sentiment that "It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia", I wish to point out that that alone is not a reason for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's true that we ought to consider the entire history of the article in a deletion discussion. I don't think we need to discuss https://www.desarthe.com/about.html, that should be obvious. I suppose could review https://www.artsy.net/show/de-sarthe-gallery-de-sarthe-gallery-at-art-basel-in-hong-kong-2017, a source that Justlettersandnumbers removed, but I think it's unnecessary. Artsy is there to "Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience" per https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships. As for Ocula, https://ocula.com/art-galleries/de-sarthe-gallery, same thing: For a monthly fee of only US$125 Ocula offers members a fully managed and comprehensive profile with features designed to raise international visibility, increase visitor engagement and deliver qualified sales leads on artworks. Did I miss anything else? Vexations (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Bus stop (talk · contribs), do you have any thoughts about the sources I provided since the relisting admin would like editors to focus on the sources? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete : The subject lacks sufficiently convincing evidence of independent notability. The fact that the gallery is employing a paid contributor (notice I did not say "professional editor") lends more weight to the deletion argument. I mean, the article is keeling over as it is, yet aren't paid editors supposedly niftier than us plebeians?-The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The creator of the article may not have been remunerated. They requested deletion per {t|db-author}}. We wouldn't be here had Atlantic306 not declined the deletion as "may be notable". See [9] Vexations (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Lau, Joyce (2011-03-31). "Chinese Master, Modern Brush". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
Pascal de Sarthe, who has been dealing in Zao works for about 15 years, had to ask longtime clients for loans to cobble together 10 Zao paintings for the debut of his new gallery, de Sarthe Fine Art, in Hong Kong last month. The night before the opening, only three were left unsold.
Mr. de Sarthe, a French-born dealer who was based in the United States before his recent move to Asia. ... The show, “Zao Wou-ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s,” will be on view at the gallery through April 29.
...
The de Sarthe show tracks Mr. Zao’s evolution through the 1950s and ’60s. Two of the earlier pieces, “Bateaux au Port” (1952) and “Corrida” (1953), are still clearly figurative, showing the sketched outlines of sailing ships and bullfighting. These are also from Mr. Zao’s “Klee period.”
...
The de Sarthe gallery joins a parade of new foreign-run galleries in Hong Kong’s Central district that specialize in blue-chip modern and contemporary artists. In the last year and a half, Ben Brown of London, Larry Gagosian of New York and Edouard Malingue of Paris have opened galleries. But de Sarthe is the first to open with a significant show by an Asian artist.
- Wang, Nadya (2017-05-29). "International art dealers in Asia: De Sarthe Gallery, Hong Kong on Asian art". Art Republik. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
This includes detailed analysis of De Sarthe's history. The article notes that the June 2017 edition of the quarterly publishes an interview with de Sarthe.In 2012, after a long and successful run in first Paris then America as gallerists, Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe opened a gallery in Hong Kong in Central, motivated by the time they were already spending in Asia for their business. Earlier this year, they moved to a bigger space at Wong Chuk Hang, attracted, as with other galleries which have opened in the area, by the lower rents and the easier access with the opening of the MTR South Island Line at the end of 2016.
De Sarthe Gallery has, in the past 6 years, solidified their place in the Hong Kong art scene with headlining exhibitions, beginning with ‘Zao Wou-Ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s’, following up with the sophomore show of American artist David LaChapelle, and continuing with other well-received solo as well as group shows, such as ‘Gutai’ and ‘Pioneers of Chinese Modern Paintings in Paris’.
...
De Sarthe Gallery has, through the years, been active in both the secondary and primary market, dealing in works by international modern masters as well as supporting emerging contemporary artists. Pascal’s son, Vincent, has taken up the mantle for the latter in Beijing, running a separate De Sarthe Gallery at Caochangdi, set up in 2014 as a platform for emerging Chinese artists.
- Wee, Darryl (2015-04-06). "de Sarthe Gallery Unveils New Space in Beijing". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
Hong Kong-based stalwart de Sarthe Gallery, which represents a diverse roster of international artists with a particular focus on French Impressionism and modern and postwar Chinese painting, opened a new space in Beijing’s Caochangdi gallery district on April 4.
The inaugural exhibition at de Sarthe Beijing is devoted to the work of the Beijing-born multimedia and installation artist Zhou Wendou, who completed advanced studies in fine art at the University of Complutense in Madrid after graduating from the Central Academy of Art and Design in Beijing.
- Bouchara, Claire (2016-10-07). "De Sarthe Gallery to Open New Space in South Island Cultural District in HK". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
Top-tier gallery de Sarthe has announced its expansion to Hong Kong’s new up-and-coming art district, Wong Chuk Hang. It will join the area’s 26 other art galleries, including Rossi & Rossi and Pékin Fine Arts.
With two established branches in Beijing and Hong Kong, gallery owner Pascal de Sarthe has decided to invest in the city’s South Island Cultural District (SICD) “to embrace the energy of the area and open a gallery space that is unrivaled in Hong Kong.” The gallery will move into a much more spacious location inside the Global Trade Square building towards the end of the year, joining Japanese gallery Whitestone.
- Forrest, Nicholas (2013-08-21). "What Chinese Galleries Will Show at Sydney Contemporary Art Fair". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe launched de Sarthe Gallery in Paris in 1977 and moved to America in 1981. In 2011 they opened a space in Hong Kong and were recently joined in the business by their son Vincent who is based in Beijing. For Sydney Contemporary de Sarthe will present a group exhibition featuring Gilbert & George, Richard Long, Lin Jingjing, Mariko Mori, Zhao Jinhe, Zhou Wendou, Bernar Venet, and Wang Guofeng.
- Wee, Darryl (2017-12-08). "Asian Expansion". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
Vincent de Sarthe, son of veteran dealer Pascal de Sarthe, will serve as director of the new Beijing outpost of Hong Kong– based de Sarthe Gallery, which opened in the Caochangdi arts district in April. The show “Borderless,” which runs through the end of this month, is devoted to the work of Beijingborn Zhou Wendou, who attended graduate school in Madrid and continues to live there part-time.
- Lai, Olivia (2017-07-21). "Wong Chuk Hang: Ultimate Guide". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
The 1997 date is a typo. It should be 1977.Originally founded in Paris in 1997, Hong Kong’s de Sarthe Gallery is an impressive 9,820 sq ft art space that represents and exhibits a diverse spectrum of international artists from important French impressionists to Asian and western contemporary artists, as well as emerging talent. The team at de Sarthe really knows how to utilise the space and present some incredibly innovative exhibitions.
- Kareem, Nazvi (2014-05-15). "De Sarthe gallery revives French connection with Chinese artists". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
The article notes:
When de Sarthe Gallery sought a place at Art Basel Hong Kong, they wanted to continue a dialogue that started in the early 20th century between Paris-influenced Chinese artists and their Western abstract counterparts.
The Ice House Street gallery in Central was keen to show how Western art shaped these Chinese artists who worked in the French capital and inspired a yearning to break away from the old Chinese traditions in their artworks.
De Sarthe's powerful narrative and historical journey was a perfect fit for judges of the Galleries sector of Art Basel Hong Kong, who looked for thematic presentations on the most important developments from Asia's art scene over the past 100 years. De Sarthe was thus accepted as one of more than 170 galleries featured in the main Galleries section of the fair.
- Chu, Chloe (2018). "Hong Kong". ArtAsiaPacific.
More information about the source:
Here is the article's abstract:ArtAsiaPacific. 2018 supplement, p103-107. 5p. 6 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph, 1 Map.
The article notes:The article offers information on Carrie Lam who became Hong Kong's first female chief executive, supported by votes from the performing arts and culture subsectors. Topics discussed include role of Home Affairs Bureau in providing funds to art and culture programs for 2017 to 2018, renovation and reopening of the Hong Kong Museum of Art, and distribution of grants for artists and nonprofit organizations by the Arts Development Council.
New to the area is de Sarthe Gallery, which moved from Central in 2016 and began programming in its new space in 2017. The gallery transformed 929 square meters to resemble an airport terminal in the imagined People's Republic of Dreamland, for "Takeoff" (9/16–10/14), a solo show by Chinese artist Lin Jingjing. Earlier in the year, a rock-climbing wall was installed as part of Andrew Luk's one-week presentation titled "Practice" (9/2–9), concluding the gallery's inaugural artist residency program.
- Lau, Joyce (2011-03-31). "Chinese Master, Modern Brush". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
- How do we justify a gallery's notability? We only have WP:ORG as a guide. And the guideline states that the
trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability
. The guideline goes on to explicitly demanddeep or significant coverage
which meansoverview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization
. We do not have this in the links painstakingly (and admirably) gathered by Cunard above. All we have are incidental mentions of the gallery, with almost all the texts being about something else, an artist, the owner, etc. - The NYT archived text "Chinese Master, Modern Brush", for example, refers to artist Zao Wou-Ki.
- We have "International art dealers in Asia" published in the "luxury lifestyle" magazine Luxuo, which is a cut-down version of an interview with the owner reading like an infomercial ("the gallery’s pioneering trajectory in presenting trendsetting curatorial ideas and content," etc) more than anything.
- Then, there's an interview with Vincent de Sarthe, family member and Beijing gallery director, from a source upon whose Wikireliability I will leave others to decide: "After laying off staff, owner Louise Blouin outsourced editorial content to India but to make it seem as if there were still a 'cosmopolitan' staff, articles were given bylines with generic international names." (Source, but also see Louise Blouin Media#Controversies.) And so on and so forth.
- We do not have verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- How do we justify a gallery's notability? We only have WP:ORG as a guide. And the guideline states that the
- Delete; those are an awful lot of tangential and churnalistic mentions of the gallery, but the collective impact doesn't get me to WP:ORG. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vexations and 96.127.242.226, for changing from "delete" to "keep" after I posted the sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
The sources I linked above provide "deep coverage" about the subject. They provide analysis of the company. They make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Art+Auction published multiple articles about de Sarthe Gallery that make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Here is information closely paraphrased or copied from the articles:
- Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe launched de Sarthe Gallery in Paris in 1977.
- In 2011, the de Sarthes moved de Sarthe Gallery to Hong Kong.
- de Sarthe Gallery represents international artists with a particular focus on French Impressionism and modern and postwar Chinese painting.
- de Sarthe Gallery opened a second outpost at Beijing's Caochangdi gallery district on April 4, 2015.
- The Beijing outpost is led by Vincent de Sarthe, Pascal de Sarthe's son.
- The Beijing outpost's inaugural show was "Borderless," which featured the work of Beijing-born Zhou Wendou.
- From http://artloftasia.com/blog/author/darryl-wee/:
Darryl Wee is head of visual arts for Asia at BLOUIN ARTINFO. He has previously written about contemporary art for Artforum, Art Asia Pacific, LEAP, Bijutsu Techo, the Japan Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and translated catalogues and essays on Gutai, Makoto Aida, Tadasu Takamine, Koki Tanaka and many other Japanese artists.
- According to https://muckrack.com/claire-bouchara/articles, https://www.instagram.com/clairebouchara/, and https://twitter.com/clairebouchara, Claire Bouchara is a digital content manager at Bonhams.
- According to https://www.instagram.com/theartmarketeye/, Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic, Head of Visual Arts at BLOUIN ARTINFO, and founder of http://www.thealist.art.
The quarterly art magazine Art Republik provides detailed analysis of the gallery. From http://www.heart-media.com/magazines:
Here is a quote: "De Sarthe Gallery has, in the past 6 years, solidified their place in the Hong Kong art scene with headlining exhibitions, beginning with ‘Zao Wou-Ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s’, following up with the sophomore show of American artist David LaChapelle, and continuing with other well-received solo as well as group shows, such as ‘Gutai’ and ‘Pioneers of Chinese Modern Paintings in Paris’. The article's author wrote a positive review about the gallery following an interview with de Sarthe. I do not consider this positive review to be an infomercial.ART REPUBLIK is Singapore’s premier quarterly magazine for the art lover, celebrating the language of art. It aspires to be a platform for artists, curators and critics to express their insights on the world of art. Engaging the art lover in intellectually stimulating dialogues on art, history and popular culture, ART REPUBLIK aims to create meaningful exchanges between established and emerging artists, collectors and the art community. Our sections on the newest art exhibitions and fairs will also showcase the fresh and diverse views of art practitioners in various forms such as architecture, literature, fashion, film, and so forth.
The New York Times article primarily is about Zao Wou-Ki but it also provides analysis of the gallery that could be used to improve the Wikipedia article. The article notes that Pascal de Sarthe asked clients to give him loans to procure 10 Zao paintings for de Sarthe Gallery's debut in 2011. It notes that the debut show showed Zao's "evolution through the 1950s and ’60s". It provides analysis of the company by saying that de Sarthe Gallery "joins a parade of new foreign-run galleries in Hong Kong’s Central district that specialize in blue-chip modern and contemporary artists" but is different because it is "the first to open with a significant show by an Asian artist".
- Weak keep per Cunard's sources. There's just enough beyond routine exhibition announcements - we now need to get the info into the article instead of just on the talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- SentinelOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable and promotional. The various listings as "visionary" all derive from the same source:PR. The other references are just routine financing and similar., and do not satisfy WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. There are a surprisingly large number of references in this Google Scholar search Perhaps an article could be built using the Google Scholar references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Response Did you find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to not have any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep found what appears to be an independent review. Seems to be [some citing] of its analysis of attacks on its website, other cites do that also. This article may look interesting but I dont have access. May be WP:TOOSOON. Dont care for the promotional aspects.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Response This review in scmagazine is a review of a product and not the company. The topic is the company and the article contains no information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The ieee.org citation is actually citing a blog post by Sentinal One and this fails WP:RS as well providing no information on the company thereby also failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, the "interesting paper" only mentions SentinalOne in the context of Application programming interface (API) calls, often used to characterize the behavior of a program, are a common input choice for a classifier and used by products such as SentinelOne. and Some real-world next generation antimalware products (such as SentinelOne) are hybrid classifiers and are therefore mentions-in-passing and also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A highly promotional piece on an un-and-coming company that has not achieved anything significant just yet (apart from raising venture funding). That's an insufficient claim of significance. Sources is mostly routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. ansh666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ammar Campa-Najjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreated only a few days after the last AfD closed as redirect. Still fails WP:NPOL, I'd add that we are probably looking at WP:NOT issues now also. John from Idegon (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged as G4. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I've declined the speedy deletion. Strictly speaking, this article isn't a WP:G4 candidate, because the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Ammar Campa-Najjar was was WP:REDIRECT to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. Feel free to edit the article, but please do not reinstate the redirect while this discussion is still ongoing. Thank you. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 per the outcome of the previous AfD and because it is an appropriate outcome for a candidate for the US House. --Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect. As I've had to point out far more often than usual this year given how unusually passionate people are for a midterm year, the fact that some coverage of the candidate exists in a campaign-specific context is not in and of itself a WP:GNG pass for a person notable only as an election candidate — every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-specific coverage, so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to get a candidate over GNG then every candidate would always get over GNG, and our established consensus that candidates are not automatically notable just for being candidates would be inherently unenforceable because every candidate could always claim that same exemption from having to pass NPOL. So making a candidate notable enough for an article on the grounds of the candidacy itself does not just require "show that campaign coverage exists" — it requires "show that so much campaign coverage exists that he's got a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates." But that's not what's being shown here, and neither does the article make any credible case that he would already have been deemed notable for other reasons prior to the candidacy. So it can be recreated if he wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough to make him already eligible for inclusion today. I will grant that this isn't immediately redirectable on the grounds of the first discussion alone, as the notability claim has changed from "candidate in the primary" to "candidate who won the primary and is going into the general election accordingly" — but the inclusion test for politicians is winning the general election, not just the primary, so that change still isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- REDIRECT per Bearcat. Just being a candidate does not grant inherent notability and his only claim to notability is his candidacy. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect and possible speedy redirect - are we going to keep having this be an issue for the rest of the election? SportingFlyer talk 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I have no objection to the redirect, just wanted a consensus behind it for the sake of posterity (and dealing with those that may revert it again). John from Idegon (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a page about a straightforwardly notable individual and US political figure. See the national and international media coverage cited on the page, as well as a host of additional material available online and elsewhere to anyone who bothers to look. There is ongoing coverage with growing relevance now that he is a general election candidate, e.g. a recent article discusses him directly alongside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also has her own Wikipedia page as an unelected candidate [1]. Similarly, Campa-Najjar's opponent Duncan Hunter had a Wikipedia page even as an unelected candidate [2], even with a dearth of citations to support any notion of exceptional notability. It would be applying a ridiculous double standard to claim that coverage related primarily to a congressional candidacy is irrelevant for one person but sufficient for others. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous redirecting session before the primary election, some of the media coverage is unrelated to the campaign. Bearcat can italicize every single word of the entire comment, if he likes, but the claims will still not hold any water. Sadly enough, the attempts by some users to rashly delete the page without discussion and then to ignore the evident notability of the subject appear obviously to be motivated by political biases. Wikipedia can and should aim for a higher degree of logic and impartiality. B P G PhD (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- Hunter has been a member of congress. THAT makes him notable. As the youngest person ever to run for congress, a notion of notability outside the particular campaign exists for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is seldom considered a valid argument at AfD. B P G PhD, the time has come to ask, what is your connection to the subject of the article nominated for deletion here? Are you related to him, are you him or are you employed by him? Are you employed by or otherwise an active member of his campaign committee? Are you contracted to either him, his campaign committee or to his party? If these questions are offensive, I apologize in advance, but they are being asked because your position here seems to be more advocating for him, rather than for his article. Also, the majority of your edits have related in some way or another to this campaign. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the "youngest person ever to run for congress", and even if she is elected she will not be nearly the youngest person ever to serve in congress [1]. B P G PhD (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, Duncan Hunter did not get to keep an article in advance of being elected to Congress. Somebody tried, as they always do for candidates, but it got deleted and was then restored after he won and his notability claim had thus changed. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Noting that Bearcat's claim regarding Duncan Hunter's Wikipedia entry, though rich in italicization, is contradicted by the historical record, which shows an entry for Hunter from 18:26, 12 June 2008 onward. B P G PhD (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, ffs. B P G PhD, if you had followed the instructions before posting here, you'd know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is virtually never a persuasive argument here. But even if it was, compare this, the notability guidelines for politicians in June 2008, to WP:NPOL, the guidelines in effect today for politicians. Under the guidelines in effect THEN, Hunter likely was notable in June 2008. If the events then unfolded now with the same history his article would likely be deleted. It was correctly kept in 2008, and none of that has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Because OTHERSTUFF. Care to actually speak to the article at hand? Care to rebutt the below? John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The relevant sentence is completely identical in the two versions you cite: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." B P G PhD (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- If only that coverage existed....there are 0 sources beyond the campaign. Without sources that discuss his life prior to the election, the only thing that can be produced is a campaign ad. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that there is some confusion regarding the notability policy and particularly the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." John from Idegon writes "there are 0 sources beyond the campaign", but has discussed (below) several of the reliable cited sources that are independent of the subject. "Independent" here clearly refers to sources of news and information that are not controlled or written by the subject. It does not refer to news articles that are not "about" the subject, which would obviously be impossible. B P G PhD (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The relevant sentence is completely identical in the two versions you cite: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." B P G PhD (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, ffs. B P G PhD, if you had followed the instructions before posting here, you'd know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is virtually never a persuasive argument here. But even if it was, compare this, the notability guidelines for politicians in June 2008, to WP:NPOL, the guidelines in effect today for politicians. Under the guidelines in effect THEN, Hunter likely was notable in June 2008. If the events then unfolded now with the same history his article would likely be deleted. It was correctly kept in 2008, and none of that has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Because OTHERSTUFF. Care to actually speak to the article at hand? Care to rebutt the below? John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Noting that Bearcat's claim regarding Duncan Hunter's Wikipedia entry, though rich in italicization, is contradicted by the historical record, which shows an entry for Hunter from 18:26, 12 June 2008 onward. B P G PhD (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hunter has been a member of congress. THAT makes him notable. As the youngest person ever to run for congress, a notion of notability outside the particular campaign exists for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is seldom considered a valid argument at AfD. B P G PhD, the time has come to ask, what is your connection to the subject of the article nominated for deletion here? Are you related to him, are you him or are you employed by him? Are you employed by or otherwise an active member of his campaign committee? Are you contracted to either him, his campaign committee or to his party? If these questions are offensive, I apologize in advance, but they are being asked because your position here seems to be more advocating for him, rather than for his article. Also, the majority of your edits have related in some way or another to this campaign. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This is based on this revision of the article, the revision immediately preceding B P G PhD's !vote.
- ref 1 is his website, which could never support notability.
- refs 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 are about his very first campaign for national or state office, an election that he has not won; hence failing WP:NPOL.
- ref 4 is a tweet by the candidate, lacking both independence and reliability; hence do not support notability in any way.
- ref 7 is his LinkedIn resume. cannot possibly speak to notability.
- refs 5, 6, 14 are self written by the candidate - lacks independence and cannot possibly support notability.
- ref 10 is a YouTube video of the candidate doing a talking head thing - lacks both independence and reliability. No help with notability.
- ref 16 is clearly stated as an opinion piece, and is only reliable for the fact that it is their opinion and not for any factual content. Very weak support for notability (at best).
- That leaves us with ref 15, an interview with The Atlantic. As an interview, there is obviously some independence problems. The only thing that can be used to vet notability in an interview is the analysis of the journalist conducting the interview. I am not seeing enough between the two marginally usable sources to support notability, and all the rest of the references say absolutely nothing whatsoever to notability. In short, my nomination stands. John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Ammar Campa-Najjar meets WP:GNG due to multiple sources of independent media coverage. This independent media coverage includes international coverage from the Independent, a British publication,[2] as well as several pieces of coverage from national publications that date two years before he announced his candidacy. [3][4][5][6]
- Comment Getting articles published in The Hill, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Washington Post is something that most people cannot claim, and so it is wrong to say it is "no help with notability." Moreover, Campa has at least four pieces of independent media coverage dating two years before he announced his candidacy. See my recent additions and references below. All of this independent media coverage combined - both from before his campaign started and after it - mean that Campa meets WP:GNG. Narayansg (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Narayansg (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
- ^ "Is Bernie Sanders' revolution finally taking hold in America?". The Independent. Retrieved 2018-07-11.
- ^ Schreckinger, Ben (1 October 2015). "Donald Trump is about to walk into a buzz saw". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- ^ Campbell, Colin (2 October 2015). "Hispanic business group thrashes Donald Trump for suddenly backing out of its event". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- ^ Collins, Eliza; Gass, Nick (18 September 2015). "Clinton slams Kasich's comment about Hispanic community". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- ^ Smith, Allan (18 September 2015). "Hillary Clinton slams GOP rival in Spanish for awkward comment about Latinos". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Axl Rose. There is consensus that this page is not required; while only two users mentioned redirecting, I am creating a redirect post-deletion per Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and WP:BOLD. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Rapidfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably not notable on it's own, only had one member (Axl Rose) that went on, band never released a proper album, was only around for a year. RF23 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - The band is not notable except as an early endeavor for Axl Rose, and everything in this article is already mentioned at Axl's. No need for a separate article as the band did not achieve its own notability otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete since subject fails WP:band. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - per both Doomsdayer520 and The Gnome. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Axl Rose, where this topic is covered. Coverage doesn't look to extend beyond Rose. Don't see a need to delete the history. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Axl Rose#1983–1986: Early years as a categorized
{{R to related topic}}
and{{R to section}}
(try this script) where Rapidfire gets a short treatment. As the title "Rapidfire" is a useful redirect that would be acceptable at WP:AFC/R, there is no reason for outright deletion here. The deletion policy suggests in such cases that we simply redirect boldly per WP:BLAR, see WP:ATD-R. Sam Sailor 15:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hobo Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject gained attention due to a submission from him and his band to NPR's Tiny Desk Concert Series. The limited press mainly comes from that or as a result of that, but it is still quite limited. Doing a Google search, most of the few sources are from local newspapers, and the YouTube video sourced in the article, although done by a notable music critic, is not a reliable source. Andise1 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Hobo Johnson has received press coverage and the album The Rise of Hobo Johnson charted on Heatseekers Albums. Here is another article with info that could be used [10]. Article needs clean-up and expansion. Meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Perhaps move/reformat page to be about the band. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Charting on a Billboard chart in and of itself does not always mean a musician or band is notable. Also, the sources are primarily local (Sacramento) and aside from those I can find no sources from major, non-local news or music outlets. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Andise1 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up: As above keep said, Johnson's album charted on Billboard's up and coming artists list. Between NPR publicity and the local scene, he meets notability guidelines. I would quibble more about the "local" coverage, but the Bee is the flagship newspaper of a major city and one of the 30th largest papers in the United States. I can't see how a reformat would survive, as Lopes is the only notable member of the group. Still, the article is a mess and needs to be cleaned. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep agree per Etzedek24. Emily Khine (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Annie LeBlanc (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment. I see the sources in reliable publications, however:
- I am unsure how reliable the publication used for the first and third source is. - The second source is about the family vlog channel she is a part of (should there be an article on the whole family instead?) - The fourth source mentions the subject briefly in passing, but also mentions the family vlog channel. - Sources 6, 7, and 8 are more about the shows themselves, which could be used if the shows were notable, but I question whether they should be used here (since they are a legitimate source, but do not really cover the subject much) - Some of the other sources are either not really sources (Billboard,iTunes Chart) while others, such as the Shorty Award sources, are from questionable publications.
In the article, some sentences seem unnecessary, a fan's words, or promotional:
"After it was speculated that LeBlanc was dating fellow social media star Hayden Summerall in 2017, the alleged couple was dubbed "Hannie" by fans, who created elaborate fan-fiction with complex storylines about their high school relationship, and photoshopped thousands of pictures that appear to show the two together."
Also, the mentions of views on the web series and songs seem promotional to me.
I think there is a case for articles on the web series she is in, or the production company behind the web series, but I am not sure if the subject is entirely notable at the moment (although I may be wrong, we will see). Andise1 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - non-notable Youtube person. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - It appears as to read more like a fan page. I am working at creating an article for the "Brat" web series company - I think this should cover the many social media stars who appear in the programs. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Artist charted on Billboard [11] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Also won a Shorty Awards as shown in [12]. Clearly has a significant following. Article needs clean-up and expansion. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- comment- Also plays a lead role in a production [13] and guest starred in an episode of Bizaardvark per [14]. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to let it be known, the song that this subject recorded which charted on the Billboard chart is a cover. The song was originally recorded by Maddie & Tae. Andise1 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note- Not sure what the relevance is of the response above. That is already mentioned in the article. The fact that her song was a cover does not change the fact that her version charted. LeBlanc was nominated at the Streamy Awards in 2017 in addition to the 2018 Shorty Awards. Both of these awards are Wikinotable. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to let it be known, the song that this subject recorded which charted on the Billboard chart is a cover. The song was originally recorded by Maddie & Tae. Andise1 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and, in my opinion, WP:TOOSOON. This individual has not been mentioned non-trivially by a sufficient number of WP:RS, and existing on a single chart does not itself establish sufficient notability per WP:MUSICBIO. --HunterM267 talk 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|
- Keep Artist charted on Billboard [15] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Charting is an auto pass, it does not matter if it's a cover, other votes say "NN youtuber" but she's a musician with a charted single. She'll be in the history books of American charts. GuzzyG (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Charting does not mean much if there is not much coverage on the subject aside from brief mentions, which is why some musicians who have charted are not inherently notable on Wikipedia, there is not enough reliable, independent sources about them out there. Andise1 (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not true from what i've seen, care to share some examples of people who charted with no wikipedia's? It's what got RiceGum and George Miller (entertainer) articles. GuzzyG (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Charting does not mean much if there is not much coverage on the subject aside from brief mentions, which is why some musicians who have charted are not inherently notable on Wikipedia, there is not enough reliable, independent sources about them out there. Andise1 (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Update: I tried starting a better formatted singles table with chart positions. LeBlanc has also had appeared on US and CA Billboard Digital Songs charts for her cover of "Little Do You Know." She charted on the Emerging Artists Billboard chart. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Time magazine says "Brat, which works on small budgets relative to Hollywood, has one certified hit in Chicken Girls, starring Annie LeBlanc and Hayden Summerall. The franchise’s debut episode has more than 10 million views, and it secured a movie deal with Lionsgate." [16] So she is staring on a hit show. And if any of her song's charted, be they original or a cover, then that counts towards her notability. She is also on the cover of Girls' Life (magazine) and they of course interviewed her as well. Dream Focus 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep agree per GuzzyG and meet WP:MUSICBIO#2. Emily Khine (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local church. Nothing but local coverage, which you would expect on any church. Onel5969 TT me 02:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as church is the first church to be built in downtown Raleigh in over half a century. The opening ceremony, also covered by news sources, included over 500 attendants. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources in article, including regional newspaper this News & Observer article are substantial. --Doncram (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The article could be improved by covering how it is part of split of conservatives, perhaps within split covered by this 2008 New York Times article (which does not mention Raleigh). To build a new big church in a downtown is pretty unusual. Why this happened deserves more explanation in the article. The News & Observer article gives brief treatment that could be used, about it starting from 200 members of other church that did not like how liberal it was. --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Article should be moved to Holy Trinity Anglican Church (Raleigh, North Carolina), consistent with naming of Wikipedia articles for U.S. buildings and other places, e.g. National Register-listed buildings. "Raleigh" is not part of the church's name. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Covered by multiple sources. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 21:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ahvaz derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find acceptable sources to support a claim of general notability. Fa-wiki doesn't have any description of the subject, either. This article was deleted in 2014 and apparently, the subject still isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, as no citations have been provided to article. Govvy (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence provided in the article that the rivalry exists, and difficult to research because of the language barrier. Curiously, besides having no references, the article does not mention the year for any of the matches. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vienna Residence Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This was created by an SPA and translated from the German-language version. Some of the citations (since removed) are from WRO itself and the others look like press releases to me. I couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. Most of what's out there are tourism websites, self-published stuff, or mere mentions. I'm pretty sure this article is purely meant for promotional purposes. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of international tours, these recordings held by libraries, and German-language references. See the "find sources" above. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- See also the significantly longer German article at de:Wiener Residenzorchester which includes information on international tours. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: The longer article seems to have more promotional material. The fact that the group has toured or libraries have recordings are included in NBAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Tours are point 4 of WP:NBAND ("Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.") Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Eastmain: The longer article seems to have more promotional material. The fact that the group has toured or libraries have recordings are included in NBAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- See also the significantly longer German article at de:Wiener Residenzorchester which includes information on international tours. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:BAND now that updates have been made by Eastmain. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmertel23: How do you figure? The group hasn't charted, didn't win a Grammy, etc. I don't see how you think this group is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" as per WP:BAND. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmertel23: How do you figure? The group hasn't charted, didn't win a Grammy, etc. I don't see how you think this group is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Subject passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Multiple independent WP:RS mention the orchestra. Greenshed (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Meets NCORP and GNG with enough coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Any discussions on merging or redirecting can happen outside of AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Shootout on Juneau Wharf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiple. COI, with the usual effects, and essentially a reduplication of the Soapy Smith article. Qwirkle (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
While it has its flaws, it seems to me a lot more detailed than the Soapy Smith article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment At the very least, this should be redirected to Soapy Smith rather than deleted.
Undecided on notability for now,but would be opposed to outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)- See !vote below. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Further proving that it's a waste of time to come here to build an encyclopedia when others are only interested in tearing it down. Per Piledhigheranddeeper, this is a perfectly legitimate example of content forking. There's quite a few contemporary sources present in the article, plus a decent number of respectable retrospective sources. As referred to in the talk page, Stan Patty's book Fearless Men and Fabulous Women, published in 2004, devotes a chapter to this episode in history. Patty spent 34 years at the Seattle Times as their resident Alaska expert. What little has been published about Tanner's life suggests that he was highly respected as a figure in law enforcement and as a community leader in Skagway, including serving as a United States Marshal, based largely on his reputation from this incident. The nominator does not elaborate on the COI they refer to, despite how obvious it is to me. Perhaps WP:COIN would be a better forum-shopping venue? Wikipedia has sadly become a dumping ground for whatever people find lying around the web today. A lack of interest in real research and real sources is the cause of the state of the references found in the article at present. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per RadioKAOS. This was a fairly significant gunfight, involving a fairly well-known scoundrel. Too much to merge back into Soapy's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep After reviewing the evidence, the shootout is clearly notable and it's too much to be merged back. I'm also not seeing a COI - the article creator seems to be pretty interested in Soapy Smith, but that alone does not constitute a COI seeing as we all edit articles about subjects we're interested in. That's not the sense of the word that "interest" is being used in the phrase "Conflict of Interest." And in any case, the article has plenty of other editors too. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I had seen this as so obvious as not to need reiteration, but the articles creator, primary writer, and primary source is a blood relation who sells essentially self-published books on the subject, and has inserted his own judgement over that of disinterested authors. With that sort of thing removed, this might make an extra few sentences in “Soapy Smith” or ”Skagway”. This isn’t an encyclopedia article, it is advertisement for an author, not otherwise published, who has a book about his family...from a publisher with three, count ‘em, three books, two of which are out-of-copyright reprints. If you think this really worth a stand-alone article , then let’s blow up the existing mess that’s in its place. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I count 17 sources in the article from people other than this so-called relative. And Jeff Smith is one of the most common names in America, so I'm not even seeing proof they're all related unless there's something they've explicitly said. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, less than half the sources don’t lead back to COI spam, and you think that is a positive sign?
- Given that you have not read the article creator’s talk page, I don’T see how you can have such a strong opinion here about whether there is a COI. Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 17 sources is more than enough to establish GNG. There are plenty of editors who edited the page besides this so-called relative. And most importantly, AFD is not cleanup. So whether someone's related to the subject somehow is really irrelevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 17 good sources central to the subject might establish notability , but we don’t have that here now. GNG does not, in itself, establish the need for a stand alone article. Finally, “AFD is not cleanup” explicitly notes tht a substantial portion or writers believe that a realllllly bad article, like this one, should simply be deleted. Qwirkle (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- In other words, it appears that you're attempting to play the same tired old bullshit game often played at AFD of judging the content and sources solely by what's present in the article at this moment and ignoring the advice given at WP:BEFORE. If Wikipedia truly was the collaborative environment it claimed to be, we could have avoided the COI and sourcing issues, not to mention this discussion, a long time ago. Stan Patty was a highly credentialed journalist, with a book published by a reputable publisher (Epicenter Press), which in part discussed this episode well over a century after it happened. The fact that he grew up in Alaska and went on to write extensively about Alaska for many decades may mean that he wasn't a "disinterested author" in the eyes of some, but that's quite a stretch when one considers his credentials. Many of the clearly reliable sources present in the article probably aren't geographically far enough removed for the crowd that are fond of making that argument. You know, the "It's not the New York Times" types. Well, a search of the NYT website shows a piece from 1928 which discusses this episode as part of the greater context of Smith's time in Skagway. Which brings me back to the first part of this particular argument: if reliable sources are still discussing this incident well over a century later, then just how many reliable sources have been published in between which are being ignored here? There are some people who don't wish to acknowledge those sort of sources because they wish to push Wikipedia in the direction of being a compendium of trending topics on the web from one particular day or another within the 21st century. So much for "the sum total of all human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 17 good sources central to the subject might establish notability , but we don’t have that here now. GNG does not, in itself, establish the need for a stand alone article. Finally, “AFD is not cleanup” explicitly notes tht a substantial portion or writers believe that a realllllly bad article, like this one, should simply be deleted. Qwirkle (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 17 sources is more than enough to establish GNG. There are plenty of editors who edited the page besides this so-called relative. And most importantly, AFD is not cleanup. So whether someone's related to the subject somehow is really irrelevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I count 17 sources in the article from people other than this so-called relative. And Jeff Smith is one of the most common names in America, so I'm not even seeing proof they're all related unless there's something they've explicitly said. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I had seen this as so obvious as not to need reiteration, but the articles creator, primary writer, and primary source is a blood relation who sells essentially self-published books on the subject, and has inserted his own judgement over that of disinterested authors. With that sort of thing removed, this might make an extra few sentences in “Soapy Smith” or ”Skagway”. This isn’t an encyclopedia article, it is advertisement for an author, not otherwise published, who has a book about his family...from a publisher with three, count ‘em, three books, two of which are out-of-copyright reprints. If you think this really worth a stand-alone article , then let’s blow up the existing mess that’s in its place. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Stardust the Super Wizard. SoWhy 10:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Further Adventures of Stardust the Super Wizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List and fan cruft. Page is an extension of an article that was absurdly long before I shortened it. Don't see why this needs its own article. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Stardust the Super Wizard. This doesn't meet GNG on its own, but the content isn't currently summarized in the main article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Stardust the Super Wizard per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The article was split from Stardust the Super Wizard because it made the original article too long. The stories are indivudual interpretations and explorations of the original character created in the 1930s. The stories fill in plot holes, propose backstory, and otherwise enhance a primitive, yet seminal character in comics history. They all strayed enough from the original stories and one another to deserve their own entry. Admittedly, the summary could use some polishing. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: The above user is the creator of both Stardust pages. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or Summarize then merge: Obviously time was put into this article, but it appears to be based on WP:SYN from primary sources. Unless it can be demonstrated from third-party sources that this topic has any notability, I'm skeptical that we should dedicating space to mention arbitrary projects, let alone their publication history. The crux of the notability argument is that this character is extensively used because it is in the public domain, but that claim is unsourced. Additionally, the title of the article makes it sound like it is the title of a series, but that does not appear to be the case; Unofficial Stardust the Super Wizard comics may be more appropriate, if the article is to remain. —Ost (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this is fancruft, a "List of unofficial Stardust the Super Wizard stories" (many of which appear to be Blogger or Tumblr posts) is better suited to FanFiction.Net than Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per power~enwiki. This simply isn't encyclopedic content. ansh666 08:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.