Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahvaz derby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Residence Orchestra

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - @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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND now that updates have been made by Eastmain. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
  - @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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Multiple independent WP:RS mention the orchestra. Greenshed (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCORP and GNG with enough coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any discussions on merging or redirecting can happen outside of AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout on Juneau Wharf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Stardust the Super Wizard. So Why 10:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Adventures of Stardust the Super Wizard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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