Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Vova Lert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, nom notable artist. Emily Khine (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both !votes for deletion were weak, with little other discussion, with the nominator suggesting a redirect as a second choice. Merging or redirecting can happen outside of the scope of this AfD, and may be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Soap Award for Best Actor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak delete. Although the article is in a different layout to that of The British Soap Awards, it still wouldn't be difficult to find all the best actor nominations if that's what you wanted. I don't feel that the individual award for best actor is notable in its own right as it is usually discussed as part of the ceremony. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 13:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm judging consensus to be keep here, but it isn't an easy call. There seems to be enough disparate sources to indicate readers will be seeking encyclopedic information about this topic, but currently the sources are on the weak side. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lawrence (singer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jass Manak

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Google News gives no substantial coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Mentions are pretty strong in the RS. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything other than a few mentions in less than reliable sources and some basic coverage in the Times of India. Certainly insufficient to support an article on a living person. He is known for a single song which briefly trended on Youtube but did not chart. Does not meet the notability requirements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just looked over the sources myself, and they're casual mentions of the subject. (The song gets more, and that's still not enough for an article.) "Trending on YouTube" meets no notability criteria I know of, nor of any song: if it didn't make the national charts, its ephemeral YouTube performance doesn't elevate it, and besides which, YouTube scarcely provides information upon which to write a BLP. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 23 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. ansh 666 07:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guri (singer)

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Google News gives no substantial coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Meh?!? : Isn't this AfD for "Guri (singer)" a bit of a charitable AfD when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guri(singer) has already been deleted. -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the redirect that's been deleted, a speedy delete and not relevant to this. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable WP:NSINGER& has been deleted earlier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guri_(singer) this time User:Yuvrajwaraichpublished the page using a space between page name "Guri_(singer)" Heshiv (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you searched in the Punjabi language? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, searching for his full name, Guri Khattra, in English and Punjabi might be worthwhile. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Possibly a undisclosed COI. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singer has reasonable level of coverage in news sources e.g [2][3][4], and two of his songs appear to have been ranked among the top 10 Punjabi songs of 2017 - [5]. Should qualify under WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for more input regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as non-notable individual. Onkuchia (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--The Indian media outlets has a reputation of paid-promotion in entertainment-industry and the pieces resemble unadulterated PR.On a side note Radio&Music is an unreliable fan-promo-blog.∯WBG^converse 10:47, 1 August 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. Spinningspark, based on this discussion it appears better to try to include your proposed text in another related article such as Civil Services of India. Sandstein 09:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Division Clerk

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

This is nothing more than a job title and has never been sourced. There is little encyclopedic about it and wikipedia is not a dictionary CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable position. bd2412 T 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per ~~L3X1~~ BD2412. Not a notable position, and the article fails to attempt to establish notability. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't vote or anything, just procedurally sorted the debate into the right categories. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I read the wrong name in source. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources whatsoever, and no real claim to notability. The article does little more than define what the position is. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of this could be sourced from Indian Administration (Sixth Edition). Interestingly, The Home Office, 1848-1914, from Clerks to Bureaucrats discusses lower division clerks in the UK government in much more detail. Especially interesting is the history of the reluctance to promote from the lower division, presumably through class prejudice, and how this attitude changed over the years. India's retention of this post is undoubtedly a legacy of British Rule so it would not be unreasonable to include the UK history of the post in the same article. On that basis, I say the subject is notable. SpinningSpark 23:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that just be merged into Clerk, then? bd2412 T 23:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, it's far too specific for that article. I'm not against a merge to a more appropriate place, but it's clear to me that it is possible to expand this page into a decent article if the historical background is included, so as far as AfD is concerned I remain at keep. SpinningSpark 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for more input regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't care whether this can be sourced: it's obviously not encyclopedic to be writing up garden variety civil service positions simply because the government uses the internet to publish them. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a job title directory. This is a descriptive title that could apply to any number of jobs. If the content were referenced, it might be appropriate for an article on Clerks in the Government of India, but the existing content is unreferenced and WP:TNT quality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe and Power~enwiki: The expansion I had in mind would be something like the following. Would this change your mind? SpinningSpark 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

The origins of the post of lower division clerk can be traced to British Rule in India. In the British Civil Service the lower division reflected a class division. Lower division clerks were not expected to be promoted to the higher divisions, one of many grievances that led them to form a staff association to promote their cause.^[1] However, such promotions were not impossible and did sometimes occur under exceptional circumstances. The first clerk to achieve this was Home Office clerk G. H. Tripp in 1884.^[2] The implementation of this structure in the Indian Civil Service took the form of lower division clerks being recruited from Indians and all higher posts being filled by Europeans. Even following independence, upper division clerks were employed by direct recruitment rather than internal promotion. It was not until the late 20th century that it became normal for these posts to be filled by promotion from the lower division.^[3]

References

^ Pellew, pp. 112-114
^ Pellew, p. 102
^ Maheshwari, p. 77.

Bibliography

Perlew, Jill, The Home Office, 1848-1914, from Clerks to Bureaucrats, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982 ISBN 0838631657.
Maheshwari, S. R., Indian Administration (Sixth Edition), Orient Blackswan, 2001 ISBN 812501988X.

- It doesn't change my position. I still don't know what "division" means in this context. Discussing this on a wider-ranging page that clearly refers specifically to India is a better choice than trying to discuss this specific role separately. Would Civil Services of India be a possible redirect target? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 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.

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. ansh 666 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sabrosky

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

No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College should be enough for WP:MILPERSON criteria 6 and 8 and at least one of his papers was reasonably influential. His predictions and opinions were routinely cited in the press in the 1980s and during the First Gulf War.
NOTE: This article was fully protected recently due to persistent disruptive editing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the list of qualifications for MILPERSON and the closest qualification I see is #6 "Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them." The article does not currently establish this, so maybe it needs a few more references. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why being "Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College" makes him notable via #6 or #8. This academic rank seems no more intrinsically notable than being Dean of the Faculty at Harvey Mudd or Head of the English Department as ASU. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not comparable. I would say he passes NPROF as a director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university) - the Army War College is not a university, its a graduate level program only for military officers who have been selected.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word there is "independent", not "university." The SSI is not independent, it is a subordinate part of the Army War College. So that part of NPROF does not apply to this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing MILPERSON-6/8 or NPROF is borderline. I see (manual calculation) a h-index of around 10 and 1 major publication (Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war - 166 citations, the rest have 32, 28, 26, 26, 5 less than 20, the rest less than 10). What is of concern here is WP:NFRINGE in regards to his 9/11 and Mossad operation theories - coverage of this seems to be scant and mostly passing (at least in reputable publishing outlets....) - and not in depth - e.g. there is this and on the other hand [6][7] which support this - but there isn't enough in-depth mainstream coverage of this to cover the fringe aspect in a NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Nothing in the article is fringe. The unrelated fact that fringe theories can't be covered in an NPOV manner is a tautology, not a ground for deletion. Being Director of the Strategic Studies Institute is definitely enough for MILHIST 8. I don't know the details of his "theories" but given the coverage I have found, I'm inclined to believe that more sources exist about Sabrosky that aren't accessible.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject's pre-retirement career at the war college was entirely mainstream and covered in a NPOV manner in the article. However, the subject, following his retirement, is to a large extent known for his 9/11 views - which I do not see how we can cover in a NPOV manner given the lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources on this (see WP:NFRINGE). His prior academic career is borderline - but the NFRINGE issues (which also seem to be causing BLP/vandalism issues on the page) - sets a higher notability bar. Note that fringe theories and promoters can be covered in a NPOV manner (in fact - we have several BLP subjects that are notable just for that) - however to do so requires good independent sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFRINGE is completely irrelevant, this is a BLP. I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy theory issues are contributing to vandalism on the page, but both 9/11 conspiracy theories and BLP are DS areas. If all it takes to get an article deleted is a couple of months of bad behavior we won't have much of an encyclopedia left. That said, I don't particularly mind either way, because it is a minor article and notability is borderline, if it requires this level of policing and attention it probably isn't worth it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said about 6 times that the reason you do not find many sources on me is that the Wikipedia collective excludes my middle name. I learned two years ago that using "Alan Sabrosky" misses almost all of my military and government and academic work, but using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" brings all of that up - including a lot of sources. Having said that, I personally think the "Alan Sabrosky" article as it exists should be deleted. notability aside - it is factually inaccurate in several places and a best demeaning. If the Wikipedia editors feel that what comes up on "Alan Ned Sabrosky" merits an article, I would be gratified (and I think what was briefly put up in late May might give some idea of that), but I would rather have nothing than what is there now. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the books should pass notability [8] and the academic work has been cited enough to be incorporated into existing articles. That might be another option to preserve notable encyclopedic content and resolve the fringe theory/blp/vandalism issues of this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: A keep (selective content) but rename to the notable book on alliances would be a good option, and would place the later fringe stuff clearly out of scope. Suggestions on which title?Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm honestly not sure about the specialized notability criteria in this case, but in practice we usually keep articles about academics where there is significant published discussion of their work; incorporating the middle name as suggested, I see about 3 pages of potentially useful JSTOR hits, including two reviews and a summary of his degrees and the title of his dissertation (predating the Army War College). That plus the number of citations on Google Scholar make me pretty confident I could construct a summary of his book publications from third-party sources, so that box is checked. I did not find independent sources for his birthdate and birthplace; Docbrosk1941's proposed material on the article talk page (very similar to the May 13 version of the article, so much so that I wonder whether there is an official published biography being used as model, but Docbrosk1941's version cites sources) cites a regional Who's Who, but my understanding is that we don't cite Who's Who as sole source for biographical details in a BLP because of its self-sourced nature; in any case I don't believe I have access to it. (Is there a faculty page from any of the teaching/administrative positions, perhaps now only preserved at the Wayback Machine, that might state year and place of birth in addition to attesting to the non-military academic posts?) So the article would be mostly a summary of academic work, which is not unusual for living academics. (We often have to wait for an obituary to fill in biographical details, since newspapers rarely write articles about academics, and I imagine military researchers are all the more likely not to have garnered such coverage. In any event, I didn't find any.) What puts it over the top for me is the ongoing coverage of "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond". True, it's not extended coverage, but it's widespread enough that I believe notability has been achieved. And I agree with Seraphim System that neutral and not excessive coverage of that aspect of his career is possible and that we should therefore seek to give the reader a balanced article rather than deleting it. (I would set to and demonstrate, but the article is full protected. If I have time, I'll draft something in user space.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Using the new name, the only work by Sabrosky with more than 100 citations in Google Scholar is his book on alliances. Taking a closer look at some of these, I did not find people citing it as influential or important but saw its inclusion in footnotes and citing others who disputed his claims there. I am also not seeing mainstream coverage of the article "Treason, Betrayal, and Deceit" (unless you count a brief mention in Washington Times as mainstream coverage,) just a lot of POV pushers using it to vilify Sabrosky or Israel, based on their POVs. 16:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair and balanced assessments. Please note I am NOT a retired Marine officer, I did not retire and was never an officer. If anyone does decide to rework (& protect) the article with the extended name, I could email them copies of relevant documentation (e.g., DD214 after 10 years in the Marines, Army War College diploma & Chair info & award at the completion of my service there) - that way you would not have to wait for my obit (which I would like to defer as long as possible).Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the article is full-protected, I've made a proposed rewrite at User:Yngvadottir/Alan Sabrosky rewrite. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful is participants could review and discuss the proposed rewrite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: as 78:26 said, it would be helpful if participants examined the proposed rewrite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - addressing re-write - the rewritten article in and of itself is reasonable, however it does not demonstrate that Sabrosky passes the WP:NFRINGE bar. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is covered therein by:
1. ref13 - Alan Sabrosky himself on Salem-News(!) - not an acceptable source per WP:FRIND.
2. ref14 - The Forward (a decent source) - that gives Sabrosky 14 words in a list - not INDEPTH.
3. ref15 - American Free Press (RS?) - gives Sabrosky less than a paragraph - not INDEPTH.
4. ref16 - Commentary Magazine - give Sabrosky a paragraph and a half - not INDEPTH.
5. ref17 - ADL - this is an in-depth report by a respected organization, however we often view SPLC/ADL reports as primaryish.
6. ref18 - JPOST reporting on ADL's report (which is a good sign regarding the ADL's report - it isn't a tree falling in a forest...) - however while Sabrosky is given as an example by JPost - he gets a short paragraph (around 4 lines).

To sum up, while I applaud the quality of Yngvadottir's rewrite, it does not address the NFRINGE issue - A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.. As for the sources in the rewrite covering his pre-conspiracy career - refs1 to refs12 do not cover Sabrosky himself in depth and independently, but rather are either self-written or cover (or in some cases - just reference) works by Sabrosky. Sabrosky himself does not get an automatic pass via SOLDIER/PROF. I could see how we could write an article on one of Sabrosky's reviewed works (the alliances book) - as it has been reviewed independently.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:NFRINGE bar? - this is a BLP. His work is highly-cited enough to pass NPROF.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a BLP is known, to a large extent, as a "conspiracy theorist"(per [9] and several other recent sources - non of which cover him INDEPTH, but do apply the label in their own voice) - NFRINGE is relevant to the BLP. He has a h-index of 10. One fairly well cited work - Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war (166 citations per scholar) - the rest being in the 1-30 range of citations - does not pass NPROF.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir's rewrite Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ certainly fails WP:PROF and WP:SOLDIER. Also fails WP:BASIC because there is no profile, not even enough in the way of INDEPTH coverage in the articles that mention him to source a basic bio (where was he born, where did he serve). Fails WP:AUTHOR because little note has been taken of work he has published. That leaves us with the tiny cluster of articles about accusations he flung at Jewish Americans in 2017 and the quesiton of whether it passes WP:NFRINGE. It does not look like enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Turns out he held a named chair at a major institution. See below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think votes based on NFRINGE should be deweighted. This is not a standalone article about a fringe theory. In cases where there are likely additional inaccessible sources for a subject that is most likely notable, the usual practice is to keep the articles. This is especially true in the case of notable persons from the 80s or early 90s where additional sources are less likely to be found by searching Google. For a former Director of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, there is a high probably that additional sources exist, and also that the Google Scholar citations count is not fully accurate and should not be taken as authoritative. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "base" my iVote on NFRINGE. I wrote that since he fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:AUTHOR, and I will add that he also fails WP:ANYBIO, his claim to notability hangs on the notability under WP:NFRINGE of an accusation he flung.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think fiat statements that something fails NPROF or NAUTHOR or NSOLDIER that doesn't give reasons for this or address any of the substantive issues raised during the discussion are unhelpful. All you said it "certainly fails WP:PROF." You should also tell us why you think so. Icewhiz in his above vote also relies on the citation count, but in the discussion above there are other NPROF criteria discussed that neither of you have addressed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is on those citing the SNG. Sabrosky has no grounds for most SOLDIER criteria, and SOLDIER(8) would be a big stretch for one 100 citation book - note that SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability anyway - it is not a SNG. NAUTHOR for one book with a 100 citations? A stretch. NPROF is the only SNG with weight. evaluating NPROF(1) the h-index (weighted per field) is relevant - and 10 wouldn't be a pass. NPROF (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), and (9) are quite clearly not relevant. His academic position is not sufficients for NPROF(5)(6). What we are left with is an individual promoting fringe theories that does not have INDEPTH coverage leading to GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree about NPROF 6. Director of the SSI is a very important academic position in an institution that is not a University. According to the Library of Congress SSI "publishes national security and strategic research and analysis which serves to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between the military and academia." In fact, other directors of the SSI would pass notability under NPROF 6 also. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. If he held the top level post at the War College it probably would a PROF6 pass. We might have had something to discuss if he were head of SSI (a sub branch of the college). However he did not head the SSI (per SSI - plain director) - he was "director of studies" - someone who answers to the director.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't anywhere in the link you cited. Sabrosky is even cited by David Petraeus. His earlier work was hugely influential - one of his essays from the 1980s was cited by David Petraeus in 2010 (while he was a 4 star general, he became CIA director in 2011) [10]. He still passes NPROF under various criteria. Google Scholar isn't even picking up the Petraeus cite - while Google scholar can be helpful to support notability if the cites are high quality, it shouldn't be relied on for deletion, especially where the subject is most likely notable.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would be stronger if you brought the sources that you assert support notability to his page, with the passages that show its significance. But it for a single article to establish notability, it would have to have had quite an impact; such as reshaping an entire academic field, or starting something in the real world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was first published in 1986, and then reprinted in 2010 one year before Petraeus became CIA director. This was Petraeus' doctoral dissertation - his ideas of course became quite influential when he was selected to serve as director the the CIA ushering in this COIN business. The cited essay of Sabrosky's is Preparing for Low Intensity Conflict Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is it cited merely, or is there a substantive engagement with Sabrosky's argument in the body of the text, and, of there is, would you be willing to copy paste the material here? I ask because a mere citation in an PhD thesis does not usually mean all that much. This is because in the social sciences in your dissertation you are expected to cite every previous article on the narrow topic you have chosen, significant or not. It's the done thing. It is not at all an indication that the cited papers are individually significant. It is more of an academic exercise, a sort of high-level homework assignment to show that the student has learned to thoroughly search the literature before addressing a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source confirming he was a named chair at the Army War College which I posted below. If there are no objections I'm going to collapse some of this extended discussion to make life easier for the closing admin. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he Sabrosky either is or used to be a columnist for something called Veterans Today, a FRINGE, hate-site about which a series of Wikipedia pages have been created, and deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is not inherited. There are no sources for Veterans Today except one SPLC article. However if you go back to pre-9/11 sources - around the First Gulf War and a bit earlier, most likely additional sources do exist for Sabrosky. Sources from that time period are less likely to be indexed in Google Scholar or found through Google Books or a web search. We don't delete articles about likely notable people because they've written articles for non-notable blog sites. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you refuting things I never suggested? My point is that most of what has been noticed about him in SECONDARY sources is that he is spews hate-speech and is a conspiracy theorist; I mentioned Veterans Today only specifically because being a "columnist" for a FRINGE website does not confer notability, yet this is what comes up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do not keep articles because somebody guesses that more sources exist. I did a little searching in Proquest news archive, what turns up are sources establishing that he is a minor league 9/11 conspiracy theorist. If we keep the article we would have to 1.) rewrite the lede and the text demonstrating that his notablity - such as it is - lies in his status as a conspiracy theorist; and, 2.) find a WP:RS for the statement that he was "Director of Studies of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute" (it appears to be accurate, but also brief. It would be useful to know the dates of his service in Carlisle.) But being a minor FRINGE theorist doesn't him notable. And I ocntinue to think that he fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check He did not "coauthor" the book Prisoners of War?: Nation-States in the Modern Era., as the aritcle states. He was co-editor with Charles S. Gochman of a collection of articles published as a book, which seems to have gotten zero reviews and has been cited only a handful of times. Co-editing such a volume confers little if any notability. Apologizing for the multiple posts, but when someone argues for keeping a bio on someone who looks completely WP:MILL to me I can't help double checking to see if I'm missing something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys not know what SSI is? There is already RS cited for his position as director. WP:MILL is a joke. See the above comment about an essay of Sabrosky's from the 1980's cited by David Petraeus in 2010. Google Scholar isn't even picking it up. Why do you find it so hard to believe that additional sources exist? You should also strike the above BLP violations, they are not ok here just because it is AfD. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the article would have to be sourced to articles that use the phrasing I use above, including, Oberlin Students Receive Anti-Semitic Email from Self-Proclaimed ‘Truthseeker’, 9/11 Anniversary Sparks New Wave of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories] and similar. The conspiracy theories and hate-speech are the sole aspect of his career that has gotten any attention in WP:RS. Just not enough attention to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way, the notability of an article is not determined by some demands that editors make about its content at AfD. Also noting this article was only nominated for AfD after it needed full protection for persistent BLP violations.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was not director of SSI (yes, I know who they are... And they are fairly small - around 20 faculty) - he was "director of studies" - one of a few "director of" positions that are below the director.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will futrher note that several bona fida directors of the SSI, including the present one I believe, are redlinked.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another 1980s source I don't have full access to right now. [11] - Based on what I have found out in a somewhat rushed manner, it seems that Sabrosky was influential in Pentagon policy up to at least around the First Gulf War era. His publication on Low-intensity conflict was cited by David Petraeus in 1986 in paper which was republished in 2010 shortly before Petraeus became CIA Director. Sabrosky is routinely cited in documents that are not indexed by Google Scholar like [12] this DTIC Low Intensity Conflict: A Selected Bibliography in which he is cited twice. I think based on these two additional sources, it is not unlikely that more sources exist and that Sabrosky's work was influential at the policy level. I think we should at least give this article some time before deletion to see what other sources can be found. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the snippet from the Johns Hopkins source he was also a named chair the "General of the Army MacArthur Chair of Research" at the Army War College - there is further content that I don't have full access to right now, but a named chair position should be enough to pass NPROF. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And is the Army War College a "major institution of higher education and research"? This is far from obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an accredited institution for graduate level studies, I mistakenly thought it was not a university because at universities college is colloquially used for the undergraduate school. Why would you think it wasn't?Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Army War College is one of our great research institutions and graduate faculties - in a limited field, but so are several of our elite post-graduate studies and research schools, such as Rockefeller University. It is an honor to be appointed to attend, and an honor to be invited to teach at Carlisle. There is a "General Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research" at the War College. If Sabrosky held it, he automatically passes WP:PROF. We need a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the WP:RS above, but here it is again: [13] You can search it for Alan Sabrosky, it's on Page xiii.

Yes, and in several other sources, although the phrasing of the title of that chair does vary. Switching my iVote to Keep as per WP:PROF. He's not the first academic to turn into an advocate for a FRINGE cause. Article will need major revisions for accuracy and to give WP:DUE to the coverage his crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy has gotten.E.M.Gregory (talk)

@E.M.Gregory: Have you looked at the rewrite in my user space, or just at the article as it currently is? (I believe it's still full-protected.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nemra (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Karakeyan

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

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

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

@Dreamer14513181: citing WP:MUSICBIO,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge with redirect to band's article, per nom, Jmertel23, and primarily due to WP:MUSICBIO quoted above. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This individual may become notable, but consensus is that notability has not been achieved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Kaur (Canadian actress)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divestyle

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

Fails on WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything in credible source that can help in establishing notability. Unreferenced since 2013. Hitro talk 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being cited to the official website isn't the same thing as being unreferenced. There is some independent coverage in GBooks. James500 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about citation is pedantic nitpicking, so it's useless to talk about it. Apart from that, if you want to demonstrate notability then provide us with the link to "some independent coverage in GBooks", just saying that there is coverage won't help. Hitro talk 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to demonstrate notability. I was merely asserting verifiability (WP:V), and I only did that because you said the article was unreferenced, and because article topics have to be verifiable in addition to being notable. At this time, I do not know whether or not the magazine is notable. My comments were not a recommendation about what should happen to this article because, right now, I do not know what should happen to it. James500 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and a WP:NMEDIA violation. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:16, 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 Already deleted.. Part of mass deletion per DENY. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ennui (band)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranea Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TPS Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I can't speak Russian, but the sources do not seem to be of much merit, and I could not find any significant coverage in English. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the group gets covered fairly regularly in the Russian business press: [14]. It's co-owned by three Russian oligarchs, who of whom have Wiki articles. The group co-owns Ocean Plaza, Kyiv's second largest retail and entertainment development, which it's apparently trying to sell in the wake of sanctions: [15]. Etc. All of these combined amount to a valid claim of significance. The article does not look terribly promotional either. The company seems to be better known under the name of TPS Real Estate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 23 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 Steven Crowder. The consensus is to merge to the Steven Crowder article before redirecting . (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change My Mind (meme)

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

Short-lived meme that did not gain continued coverage to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Hi! I'm not going to vote one way or the other since I oversaw the class that created this (I try not to vote either way in AfDs) under my work account, but I wanted to float the option of merging this into Crowder's article. My thought process was that there's really no in-depth mention in the article about his YouTube presence and while his podcast/YT show Louder With Crowder is mentioned, there's not really a lot on there. A section that goes over this would be good to add in general. From what I've seen, the Change My Mind bit is actually a regular segment he does for the show so it stands to reason that a sub-section about the meme (summarized, of course) would be a good fit. This may gain more coverage in the future, so we could leave the article history intact so that if/when it happens it can always be restored. This is just a suggestion though, and not a solid recommendation for either way. If this is deleted this is fine, of course. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we shouldn't write too much about memes on their subjects' articles and should only briefly mention them in one sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be made into a subsection about the CMM segment as a whole, with the meme being a 1-2 short mention. I didn't anticipate the subsection going beyond 3-4 sentences as a whole, TBH. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Steven Crowder per ReaderofthePack. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a very brief section that could cover this - I'm not really familiar with Crowder or the show, so a lot of this was very terse at best. User:ReaderofthePack/Change my mind This is more of a general suggestion or idea of what the section could include. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crowder as suggested. There is some coverage but in most it is merely a mention, however a merge seems more than reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 23 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YUVA (Youth United in Voluntary Action)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Has non-notable awards, and no demonstration of coverage by reliable secondary sources Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your feedback. The organisation has won notable awards. The African Leadership Awards alone are recognised and celebrated across over 60 countries in the African and Middle Eastern regions. The sources I have used are independent of the organisation and I have made an effort to use several different ones since a single one is not enough. While the organisation has not been featured in Western media, the sources used are reputable ones that are recognised in Africa. YethuIsMyName —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above user is the page's creator. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. "Youth United in Voluntary Action" returns no Google News results and only 302 Google results. None of the references cite reliable sources, and Africa Leadership Awards wouldn't be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Newslinger (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been edited and improved. Additional information has been sourced from reputable sources according to WP:SOURCE. These are Mauritian weekly print newspapers. Awards section has been removed from the article.YethuIsMyName (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Issues resolved - do not delete. New reputable sources (according to WP:SOURCE) have been added from two different national newspapers. Inclusion in Google News thus unnecessary - especially as a small African country with more traditional media than online media. Remove from Articles for Deletion (AfD). Khumo Sebambo (User talk:Khumo Sebambo) Khumo Sebambo (talk · contribs) is a sock of YethuIsMyName (talk · contribs) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough in Mauritius. This is more of a promotion article. Kingroyos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article based on a factual, unbiased information. On what grounds do you say it is not notable in Mauritius?YethuIsMyName (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User had already commented once above. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please discuss in subthreads rather than making new headings. Headings should follow AfD procedure and indicate a desire to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, etc which you have already done. This isn't a page to discuss how the article has been improved, use the talk page for that (which apparently has never been used!). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Khumo Sebambo is a sock of article creator YethuIsMyName, sock permabanned and article creator banned for one week. Worth noting that article creator was only thing resembling a keep vote. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like a worthy organization, but I'm just not finding enough sources to meet WP:NORG. There's a few directory listings (ex: https://www.f6s.com/yuvamauritius) but nothing else I can see. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 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 delete. If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Dias (game developer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast drinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments & Questions :

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

And then looking into content:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN, and the content is sourced in the article, although more sources for verification are needed in the Description section of the table. I don't view the content as "crappy" at all, which is simply a weasel word. Some sources demonstrating WP:LISTN as being met include, but are not limited to: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:LISTN actually says:

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

Furthermore, from WP:NOTDIR, there's

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

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

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

IZZAT (musician)

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD Brows

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

Covert advertising of a non-notable company. The best I could do in terms of sourcing is [21] (not a reliable source) and [22][23] (both stink of native advertising). MER-C 13:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thais Weiller

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources mentioned include a passing mention in El Pais, a (very short) article in estadao.com.br and a mention as a participant in the Tehran Game Convention, which is not independent. I found no other sources and all this does not add up to notability. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: more sources now added.Appears notable. PamD 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With additional sourcing, passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The VentureBeat article is the only non-interview reliable source with significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources look fine. Nothing wrong with interviews when it comes to meeting WP:N. The fact that an independent, reliable source does an interview is a sign that the person is in fact notable. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kari DePhillips

(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 [24]. The others can all be discounted as part of her experiment to generate backlinks. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient input to reach consensus, and two relists have failed to attract further discussion. Michig (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Potato Family

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Petrou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sans

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

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

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

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

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notablity guidelines. Eagleash (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial first of a first: he is not notable because of some remote connection. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Super 8s

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:22, 9 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) 12:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 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. Nomination withdrawn (Speedy withdraw/keep WP:Music #6). (non-admin closure) RF23 (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornbugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TDRS Music

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per criterion #1: no valid reason for deletion advanced. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Self Seeker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Admin deleted as A5 "Article that has already been transwikied to another project". (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haupt (German word)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Cunard's sources seem to just raise this beyond the bar. ansh 666 22:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De Sarthe Gallery

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's look at the available online sources
[25] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.

[26] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.

[27] 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).

[28] 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.

[29] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.

[30] 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.

[31] 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)[reply]
Those sources have now been presented by Cunard below. Keep. Vexations (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate reliable sources to establish notability, per Vexation's excellent analysis.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Cunard's sources below.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.242.226, did you also check out my remarks on those sources? -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [32] Vexations (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 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.
2. 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:
  
  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.
  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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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:
  
  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.
  The 1997 date is a typo. It should be 1977.
8. 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.
9. Chu, Chloe (2018). "Hong Kong". ArtAsiaPacific.
  More information about the source:
  ArtAsiaPacific. 2018 supplement, p103-107. 5p. 6 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph, 1 Map.
  Here is the article's abstract:
  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.
  The article notes:
  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.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow de Sarthe Gallery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 demand deep or significant coverage which means overview, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.
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".
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:
1. Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe launched de Sarthe Gallery in Paris in 1977.
2. In 2011, the de Sarthes moved de Sarthe Gallery to Hong Kong.
3. de Sarthe Gallery represents international artists with a particular focus on French Impressionism and modern and postwar Chinese painting.
4. de Sarthe Gallery opened a second outpost at Beijing's Caochangdi gallery district on April 4, 2015.
5. The Beijing outpost is led by Vincent de Sarthe, Pascal de Sarthe's son.
6. The Beijing outpost's inaugural show was "Borderless," which featured the work of Beijing-born Zhou Wendou.
Art+Auction is a reliable source. Its parent company, Louise Blouin Media, has been involved in controversies. From a source quoted above, "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." This is not the case for the Art+Auction articles I linked above, which were written by Darryl Wee, Claire Bouchara, and Nicholas Forrest, who are all real people:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 other controversies at Louise Blouin Media#Controversies about a defamation lawsuit (resolution not included in the article) and the failure to pay former executives and freelancers do not cast into doubt the reliability of Art+Auction's articles.
The quarterly art magazine Art Republik provides detailed analysis of the gallery. From http://www.heart-media.com/magazines:
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.
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.
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".
Cunard (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SentinelOne

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Response Did you find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. ansh 666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

^ 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)[reply]

Rapidfire

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:band. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both Doomsdayer520 and The Gnome. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Johnson

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 [33]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Etzedek24. Emily Khine (talk) 09:57, 23 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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie LeBlanc (entertainer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom - non-notable Youtube person. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears as to read more like a fan page. I am working at creating an article for the "Brat" web series company - I think this should cover the many social media stars who appear in the programs. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist charted on Billboard [34] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Also won a Shorty Awards as shown in [35]. Clearly has a significant following. Article needs clean-up and expansion. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment- Also plays a lead role in a production [36] and guest starred in an episode of Bizaardvark per [37]. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom and, in my opinion, WP:TOOSOON. This individual has not been mentioned non-trivially by a sufficient number of WP:RS, and existing on a single chart does not itself establish sufficient notability per WP:MUSICBIO. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)|[reply]
Keep Artist charted on Billboard [38] which meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. Charting is an auto pass, it does not matter if it's a cover, other votes say "NN youtuber" but she's a musician with a charted single. She'll be in the history books of American charts. GuzzyG (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep Time magazine says "Brat, which works on small budgets relative to Hollywood, has one certified hit in Chicken Girls, starring Annie LeBlanc and Hayden Summerall. The franchise’s debut episode has more than 10 million views, and it secured a movie deal with Lionsgate." [39] So she is staring on a hit show. And if any of her song's charted, be they original or a cover, then that counts towards her notability. She is also on the cover of Girls' Life (magazine) and they of course interviewed her as well. Dream Focus 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per GuzzyG and meet WP:MUSICBIO#2. Emily Khine (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Raleigh

(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.

[1] Pellew, pp. 112-114

[2] Pellew, p. 102

[3] Maheshwari, p. 77.

[4] "Parveen Kaur IMDB". IMDB.

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

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

[NPR_Idea_Stations-7] Fields, Lanny. "New Music from American Babies and Marco Benevento on Royal Potato Family". NPR Idea Stations. Retrieved 2 May 2017.

[EQS_House_Sessions-8] "Session #18: Marco Benevento". House Sessions. 2008-02-03. 9.00 minutes in. WEQX-FM 102.7.

[Relix_Magazine-9] Greenhaus, Mike (January 11, 2011). "Root Down: The Royal Potato Family". Relix Magazine. Retrieved 9 July 2018.

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

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

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

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

[Politico2015-14] Schreckinger, Ben (1 October 2015). "Donald Trump is about to walk into a buzz saw". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[BI2015-15] Campbell, Colin (2 October 2015). "Hispanic business group thrashes Donald Trump for suddenly backing out of its event". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

[PoliticoKasich-16] Collins, Eliza; Gass, Nick (18 September 2015). "Clinton slams Kasich's comment about Hispanic community". Politico. Retrieved 17 July 2018.

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]