Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

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. Sandstein 09:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirer (magazine)

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

I can't find evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no plausible assertion of notability, no substantive sourcing or useful references. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam & (mostly) unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat

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

The article is an example of what Wikipedia is not - a directory. It is a fork of the unofficial 'Monstercat Document' and 'genre sheet' which are not relevant to this record label and does not accurately portray the label for what it is.

"The standard on Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that record labels generally don't have list articles of their entire back catalogs (there is not a Rhino Records discography article for instance), but should instead populate categories. In this case, it would be Category:Monstercat singles and Category:Monstercat albums." - Mendaliv, 2016. This still holds true. Prizyms (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, not remove. There are at least five articles on Wikipedia directly related to Monstercat: Two articles for their compilation albums 001 - Launch Week, 002 - Early Stage, and three wikipedia pages for songs released on the Monstercat label: Alone, Faces, and Saving Light. Clbsfn (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - There is also a large amount of wikipedia articles on artists who have released on Monstercat, some of which include: Aero Chord, Aruna, Au5, Bassnectar, Darren Styles, Dirtyphonics, Draper, Fractal, Gareth Emery, Grabbitz, Haywyre, Jauz, Krewella, Marshmello, Mr FijiWiji, Muzzy, Nervo, Pegboard Nerds, Project 46, San Holo, Seven Lions, Slushii, Snails, Timmy Trumpet, Varien, Vicetone, and Wolfgang Gartner. Clbsfn (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Artists who have released, collaborated, featured, or remixed on Monstercat not placed in the official Monstercat rosters, but have wikipedia articles of their own: Andy C, Cash Cash, Chali 2na, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Dani Deahl, Ducked Ape, Eden, Elizaveta Khripounova, Excision, Getter, I See MONSTAS, Juliette Lewis, Kerli, Klaypex, Modestep, Monarchy, Morgan Page, Morten Breum, NGHTMRE, Pierce Fulton, Rusko, Talib Kweli, Taryn Manning, Teddy Killerz, Terravita, Tommie Sunshine, Virtual Riot, Xilent, and 12th Planet. Clbsfn (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - And just for the record, I'm only arguing for the existence of a wikipedia article on Monstercat, as the label is significantly notable to have its own page. What I am not defending is putting a long list of Monstercat's releases on its page. A more viable option would be to simply create categories for Monstercat albums and Monstercat songs. Clbsfn (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entire article as a whole should not be deleted whatsoever. It should be rewritten or something along the lines of that. It is more than definitely notable enough for Wikipedia. OblivionOfficial (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable as a record label, and meets GNG. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. What should have happened is a discussion on the talk page about whether the artist roster (it's not a discography) should be included. Does it meet WP:V? Is it a list, and therefore not everything needs an inline citation? Good points for discussion, but the article shouldn't be deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable enough to have a page. May need some editing, but that's it. Micro (Talk) 23:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would agree that this is a sufficiently notable entry per the sources. Modify to remove any aspects that may not be entirely appropriate in their current form, but keep the article. ToddLara729 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page looks like it was cleaned up a lot. I don't know who exactly was trying to add a list of every single Monstercat release, but the nomination for deletion should be removed, and the page should be left alone with only edits to things like the history and roster. PurpleGladiator (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2017 (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 WP:BOLD redirect to International Literacy Association. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba Reading Association

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

Regional chapter of an international association. The chapter has appeerntly done little that is striking on its own -- in my view this just barely avoids an A7 speedy deletion. WP:BRANCH says: " As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Of the five currently cited sources, three are pages of the chapter's own website, and two are passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE search using google, google news, google newspapers, google scholar, and google books found nothing better. Delete, or perhaps redirect to International Reading Association, unless sources clearly establishing notability of the chapter can be provided. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Redirect I also had a hard time finding good independent sources, but the size, geographical reach and longevity of the organization suggested notability. The policy at WP:BRANCH is a good solution, and one I was not aware before. Thanks for the help. I think this AfD can be closed unless someone else is passionate about the topic and wants to expand the page. If so the content is in the page history. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a redirect is fine with me. I'll leave this open for a bit in case someone else wants to comment. DES ^(talk) 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene E. Jackson

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

Eugene E. Jackson was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France (where he died of his wounds). He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER; his early death precludes notability under WP:GNG. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to meet requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Prinsipe Ybarro ^{(Talk to me)} 08:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with caveat - if there is a demand for information on specific members of E Company 506th PIR who are not independently notable, it may be sensible to place the information in a section on the company's own page or even create a new one. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (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 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolfeld

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

The subject of this article has not itself received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

And he works for Bernstein Medical, which has had its article deleted at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernstein Medical.

And for Robert M. Bernstein, who has now three times had his article deleted. See here and most recently its G4 speedy deletion when it was recreated with the only difference being that the new editor wrote out the subject's middle name so it appeared as Robert Michael Bernstein. Very persistent. Looks like a gaming of the system.

The article was proded. But a fairly new editor removed the prod. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F993:BCA:C3F0:6EE6 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing a path to notability right now. An assistant clinical professor appointment at any medical school doesn't help to meet WP:PROF; he hasn't served as an editor-in-chief, been named to a scholarly academic society or fulfilled any of the other criteria for that guideline. Citation counts are high in clinical medicine, but this subject has written only a small handful of articles and they have hardly been cited. I'm not seeing enough independent/significant coverage to meet WP:GNG either. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It seems that unregistered IP users from the same zip code (as checked by Geolocate) in Manhattan (or one sockpuppet) have made/are making favorable edits to one physician's page (Cameron Rokhsar) and then made/making negative edits to other NYC physician pages, even nominating them for deletion. All of these IP addresses are in the same zip code of Rokhsar's office. The nominating IP user stated above is in that same small NYC zip code as numerous different IP editor(s) that have contributed a lot of content to the Cameron Rokhsar page (which was just reverted by another user). This nomination was nominated for deletion last December from a similar IP address in the same zip code right after that user made favorable edits to Rokhsar's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:8000:ACDB:6C7A:84D5). Also, the IP addresses of December/January edits to Rokhsar's page are similar to user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C8 who had nominated several other NYC physician's pages for deletion back in December. This IP user's history in non-existent now that the pages it nominated/negatively edited have been deleted. WikiPolice2017 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:TOOSOON per above. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banner County Wind Farm

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

Article created in 2009 about proposed wind-power project in western Nebraska. According to a 2013 article, at that date there were no transmission lines and no plans to build any; the two developers who'd earlier expressed interest in the project had dropped out. A 2014 article in the Omaha World-Herald lists a Banner County project as one that "may be built", but says that wind-power growth in the state was slowing. The only more recent things I've found have been echoes of this WP article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ammodramus (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for crystal ball reasons. Even if built, would this be notable? --Lockley (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Might not be notable even if it had been build. MB 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AMF Futsal Men's World Cup squads

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

None of the players are notable, list is incomplete and the event has questionable notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the tournament isn't notable enough for such a list Spiderone 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the players are almost, if not entirely non-notable, so it is hard to see how a list of them could be notable enough to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links to team articles are already at 2015 AMF Futsal Men's World Cup. This article is superfluous. South Nashua (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non notable tournament/sports and players. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur Commons

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

Seems like a WP:PROMO for an unfinished land-development project. The article doesn't establish notability of the subject outside of simply being a land-development project in Oakland, CA. If there was something notable about construction, or additional secondary coverage of the project, maybe it would deserve a page. But as it stands, I think this fails WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This structure is not notable and is not even finished. --Lockley (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this is anything but a wp:mill apartment building. Fails GNG. MB 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2017 (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. Consensus is that there are not currently sufficient sources for an article, but it may be recreated if more are found. Sandstein 09:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odiyan

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

The article was PRODded for several days, and has no sources, but I am still hesitant to delete it without a community discussion. The terms Odiyan, or odi vidya (which seems to be equivalent) provide quite some search results, but I can not find any reliable sources. May be users more familiar with Indian topics could help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Odiyan is a local folklore which gained currency after a movie with the name starring a prominent actor was announced. Some insights into the myth is provided in announcements about the movie - here, here and here among other links. However the entire article is composed of original research or sourced from non reliable sites. Searching in Malayalam does not yield any better results as well and therefore a deletion till more details emerge (which probably will if the movie starts shooting) may be in order. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found several references such as this one. Whether or not this is notable and worth an article I can't say, and the article as is needs a good pruning, but the underlying concept is legit. --Lockley (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2017 (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. So Why 10:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

María Almenta

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

Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Non notable BLP article about model. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Fails WP:BIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent, significant reliable source coverage in El Mundo, El Espanol, and Hola!, among others. Per WP:NONENG, these are allowable and should be acceptable sources for WP:GNG purposes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't have any Spanish but I'm accepting on good faith and Google Translate that the links provided by User:Eggishorn cover this person to an acceptable level of detail to get them past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 11 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iced Earth (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG no references and my Google search found only one WP:RS: http://www.allmusic.com/album/iced-earth-reissue-mw0000675161. I found http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-reckoning-ep-mw0000326194 but it has no review (just a database entry) and http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iced-earth-the-reckoning-single-to-surface-in-early-october/ (which is a user review) Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't help that those mutthonheads named the album after themselves, so not helping with Google searching, but I found this review. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: I found that Sputnik user review too. It's not a professional review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - only two participants so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2017 (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 Feed the Machine. Limited merge -- don't include the table of dates and cities -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the Machine Tour

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

Non notable tour, PROD rejected Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or just redirect if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would also be on board with a redirect (or a merge). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelback. Per WP:NTOUR, all concert tours that exist do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just to list the tour dates, the end; to qualify for a standalone article as a separate topic from the band, a concert tour needs to contain reliably sourced analysis of its impact. (For example, The Tragically Hip have undertaken many concert tours in the past that didn't warrant and don't have their own standalone articles — but last year's Man Machine Poem Tour cleared the bar as a special case, boy howdy did it ever, and even then the article didn't actually exist until a week after the tour had ended.) But that's not present here; the content amounts to "the tour is happening, here's a list of the venues, the end", and the sourcing is a mix of primary sources and routine coverage of the initial tour announcement, with no evidence of any reliably sourced analysis of the tour's financial or artistic impact (and none even possible at this time, since the tour isn't even starting for another month yet.) So no prejudice against recreation in the late summer or fall if some of the necessary depth of media coverage about the tour can be shown, but nothing that can be said about it as of today already earns it a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Feed the Machine. More specific destination than the band, and the album article can contain some more information about the tour than it currently has. f e minist 11:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Feminist:, with the number tours that Nickelback does, I agree with a merge to Feed the Machine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge - and to which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am leaning toward a merge of everything to Feed the Machine, except for the cities and tour dates. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NCONCERT and WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2017 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

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

Subject is a music school for which I am unable to locate in depth coverage in reliable sources. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Google search revealed such hits as: 4 square, face book, yelp, and local directories. There were hits for "Royal Conservatory of Music", but that is a different entity. Some performers listed subject among venues in tours and CV's. There are Google books hits for books credited to subject, and some books that include subject in lists. There is no substantial coverage. WP:Gale search was also unavailing through my library. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's really no content here. If the article creator can dig up significant profiles about the school in major newspapers, it is probably notable. Not much worth saving at the moment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 00:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advocacy, being cited only to the org itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school is legit enough to be officially recognized (to some extent) by the province. There's no sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (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. czar 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedowyn

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single independent reference produced. Searches yield nothing of worth other than social media and self promotion and directory listing, Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are sources. They range from the niche, to the niche and probably unreliable, completely indeterminate reliability, the decidedly local, and whatever this is. But I'm not really seeing much that manages to be in depth, reliable, and broad in scope all at the same time. Probably still slightly too soon. No prejudice against recreation if the sources improve over the next year or so. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, promotional, not encyclopedic. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage, but I'm still not certain how much that counts here. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - consensus still unclear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn band. Having a song included in a video game is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (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. czar 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oppenheim

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

This attorney does not appear to meet notability requirements. The closest thing to claims of notability are that he was "part of the team that took the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case to the Supreme Court" and was involved in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

A look at the Supreme Court opinion in the Grokster case shows that he was not the lead attorney; the lead attorney was Donald B. Verrilli. Oppenheim was just one of the team of eighteen lawyers who contributed to the brief.

A look at the First Circuit opinion in the Tenenbaum case shows that he wasn't lead counsel in that case, either; that was Paul D. Clement. Again, Oppenheim was one of six lawyers on the brief. The Tenenbaum could be a reference to the district court portion of the case, rather than the appeal, which is much less notable, at least from a legal point of view (generally, district courts don't set precedents, especially where the court's finding is appealed, as here; opinions in appeals do), but if so, that's unsourced and difficult to verify, and in any event doesn't amount to notability anyway. (The text of the article suggests he may have had more involvement at the district court proceeding; but somewhat confusingly, the link is to the article on the appeal rather than to the article on the district court proceeding.)

The article has no references, as such. It does have two external links, though: Copyright Conundrum and [1]. If considered references, these might save this from WP:BLPPROD; but both are dead links. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per breath-takingly lengthy nom.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nom pretty much covered all the bases.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2017 (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. Uncontested deletion request. Can be userfied, etc. on request. Sandstein 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness in children

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

More essay than article, not sure how it can stand as a stand alone topic when it seems to be a synthesis of sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to suggest, in spirit of compromise, kicking this back to Draft. Give it some number of months for development there. Given to understand that Draft articles with no progress made automatically see deletion in some number of months. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't even notice the first AFD, part of the problem of patrolling at work, get distracted. Regardless, I don't have a problem with it going to Draft, although I don't have high hope it will leave there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping that the student would improve the work but didn't. Since the class is officially over, I unfortunately don't think that it will be likely that they will return, if they didn't for the first AfD. Unless someone here wants to take on this draft as a project, deletion looks to be somewhat more certain in this scenario. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - still only three participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2017 (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 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yōhei Tadano

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

Non-notable voice actor, listed as a main supporting in Hime-sama Goyojin, and supporting character Shigemori Sumimura in Kekkaishi, that is not enough to meet WP:ENT. Everything else is minor/guest characters galore. No news articles in ANN. Seems to have some coverage in JA wikipedia, but not referenced very well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There aren't any notable voice dubbing roles here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not from looking at ANN [2] which usually highlights starring or supporting roles. From that list you can see they're mainly episodics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like he has had some major voice dubbing roles, including Yoda in one of the star wars movies. Would definitely be a major role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources to back that up? I'm not talking just a cast announcement, but anything to show that this voice would meet WP:GNG? Also Yoda's role in Force Awakens was a cameo / bit part. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - still only 3 participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't comment on how significant his roles are, but we are lacking in sources, and a quick online search didn't turn up any significant coverage. The Japanese Wikipedia has quite a few Japanese language sources, but most of them appear to be just cast list announcements or WP: PRIMARY sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2017 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Ohlsen

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

This page does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies, and does not cite any reliable references for its information. My online searches have revealed no new sources or information that would resolve these issues. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I tried to tackle this as I felt he must be notable, but I can't uncover sources that cover him with more than a passing mention. There's a lot of "noise" around the Munch exhibit of which he was co curator, but no depth. StarM 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Change to keep per DDG's confirmation re: pubs and WP: Prof. I'll try to find some sources to solve the BLPProd issue Mduvekot. StarM 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design. Quite a few GNews hits actually but like Star Mississippi I cannot find anything more deep than passing coverage. However, he is the director of a clearly notable museum and his name might be a plausible search term, so I propose redirecting there per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 08:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is he a director or a curator? Major language issues as Karl_Twist (talk · contribs) noted below, but this is perhaps the most confounding. The list of directors in the museum's article doesn't include him and it seems in some of what I found that he might be a curator. I'm also pinging DGG (talk · contribs) who knows the professor side well and may be able to help with some of that. All that said, redirect also makes sense StarM 01:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has made a lot of contributions to various publications as well been referenced often. Doesn't help that much of what's useful is in German. The problem here is that the page needs to be referenced properly as well as tidied up. Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senior curator and scholar. The publications clearly meet WP:PROF. It's absurd that this was even challenged. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is still a biography of a living person without any references, and as such it remains eligible for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. The simple solution would be to just add references to independent, reliable sources. Can someone do that please? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done with artnet. Going to try and find a German speaking member of WP:Museums. StarM 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artnet ref has the same content as a webpage of the Neue Galerie. Not a WP:IS Mduvekot (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this though. That's from the dpa, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, which is a solid source. Mduvekot (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this and this. But even with those sources I still can't figure out what his title is. Curator is not wrong, so perhaps go with that. Mduvekot (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Director has too many meanings in English, let alone when someone is trying to write this in the context of translating German and Norwegian museum duties to an English speaking audience. I think that Director may be akin to a senior curatorial role, but not director as in Executive and/or member of the museum's board of directors. Thanks for catch re: artnet, hadn't noticed that it was likely a reprint of a press release. WorldCat has some of his books so we can verify their existence, but nothing of note in them. StarM

The dpa source mentions him taking the job. The taz one is a portrait of him (weird that I didn't find it) as the new curator of the part of the national gallery that contains art from the romanticism to 1950. The third ref mentions him only in passing in the context of a Munch exhibit. Regards So Why 10:55, 11 June 2017 (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. czar 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin O. Soriano

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. This has significant overtones of résumé (as opposed to encyclopedic) presentation, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that cannot assist in demonstrating notability with very little evidence of reliable source coverage provided. As always, municipal councillors are not automatically accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for their role for a Wikipedia article to become earned, but nothing here demonstrates or sources that. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage insufficient to meet GNG. Looks like a promo piece for a NN politician.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, plus this may be a paid creation of article. Ptrck.dgzmn, who created this, must be notified of possible conflict of interest, that he must disclose on his user page by policy.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user about possible COI, see here.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the author is paid, they should edit professionally to conform to Wikipedia style. Boldface the topic in the lead sentence, and section headings in sentence case, per MOS:SECTION. Invalid use of DISPLAYTITLE, too. wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Water

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

No evidence of notability for a company that seems to have had an article for a while yet garnered no reliable sources. Looks like just another bottled water company, albeit it one with a philanthropic heart. Regrettably philanthropy doesn't get you notability on Wikipedia. Would have been a potential candidate for speedy deletion but there have been many editors in its life. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThe references for the philanthropy are all dead and the company makes no mention of such beneficence on its web-site. I think that it is fair to assume that this was a marketing ploy - perhaps to gain notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is neither a marketing nor an advocacy platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2017 (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. Should future events unfold and sources appear to establish WP:N, this can be created, and the existing text restored for a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishk Sajnani

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

Appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject also lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sanghvi940940 (talk · contribs) (the creator of this article) and two others are confirmed sockpuppet of Sanghvi6722 (talk · contribs) please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanghvi6722. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete- not seeing an assertion of significance. Even if we grant that, WP:BLP! comes into play. Beyond that, insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject may be covered in a Single event but his contributions made to cyber security are quiet notable. Chances are, he'll be back in the news soon. If this article gets deleted, the editor may have to go through the pain of writing the whole thing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeshna3194 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC) — Ayeshna3194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is a hagiography that misrepresents the sources. There's no indication the subject is notable. Huon (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no assertion of significance. does not meet GNG w/ lack of in depth coverage. WP:BLP1E applies,Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2017 (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. Per WP:BLOWITUP Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Adamescu

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

this article would require a total rewrite to be acceptable. it is much too detailed and is clearly an advocacy article. Fails WP:NOTADVOCATE Domdeparis (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Half the sources, such as they are, deal with the subject's father. The other half are mostly editorials and position papers. Alexander may deserve a line or two in the article on Dan, but nothing really suggests he's independently notable. Anyway, the article as it stands is fatally flawed, an endless screed against the Romanian government, so WP:BLOWITUP applies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (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. To delete, but consensus that, if at all, this should be covered together with Draft:HESS J1857+0263. Sandstein 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PSR J1856+0245

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

As far as I can tell, this fails WP:NASTCRIT, because other than what's in the article the only other related article I can find is doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118685, which is really more about HESS J1857+026. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: There are a few other articles mentioning this pulsar that are listed here, but there aren't many on this object at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found a few of those, but the issue is (per CRIT #3) it's being mentioned as part of a general survey of 35 or 200 sources. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CooperScience, creator of this article says:

There's a whole detailed paper about this pulsar that can be found with the following link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/590908/fulltext/22902.text.html

I made this article because there is a lot of information about this pulsar, which is young, energetic, and somewhat unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperScience (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-WP:NOTNOWCurrently it is too early to determine if star is unique or not .May acquire notability latter due to more detailed survey⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 07:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Essentially the only paper about this object is the discovery paper. It is mentioned in a number of other articles as one of many, but that isn't enough to meet WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and only one paper describes it. Σεμέλη Στεφανίδου (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are actually several papers about this particular pulsar/source, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This is not just a run of the mill pulsar. It is also known as HESS J1857+026 or HESS J1857+0263 which is a gamma ray source. see https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118685 http://tevcat.uchicago.edu/?mode=1;id=278 https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/som/2008/07/ a book paragraph: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jCPn3v-o_KoC&pg=PA205 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what we really need is an article about HESS J1857+0263? Lithopsian (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess Graeme Bartlett's sources - is this simply a case of "topic is better known under a different name"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the list of HESS J1857 papers. There are a few more papers specifically on the gamma ray source, as @Graeme Bartlett: says. I'm not !voting, as I'm not sure where the notability border lies here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that becomes the issue, though. The PSR seems to be a relatively non-notable pulsar, but the HES associated with it is potentially notable. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Primefac: In that case, why not have an article on the HESS source, with a subsection on the PSR, and a redirect from the current article title to that subsection? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine by me. I've got some time today, so I'll see about whipping something up. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've created Draft:HESS J1857+0263, and I'm starting to become concerned that it, too, fails WP:NASTCRIT. While the link you give above gives a large number of references, all but three (the current ref in PSR J1856+0245 and the first two refs in the draft) seem to only be [mentions] alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties.... The third ref in the draft is maybe the closest they come to specific coverage, but even that isn't much more than "here are some odd PWNe and some facts about them." Primefac (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      For reference, the three sources I'm referring to are [4], [5], and [6], with [7] being the borderline case. I'll keep working on it, and see where the rabbit hole leads. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, those three papers do seem to be the main ones about the source (they're the only ones that mention the source in the title in the list I linked to). Whether enough 3 specific papers + mentions in other papers is enough to determine notability, I don't know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of several papers is sufficient tojstify the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I know I keep mentioning this but... which papers? Most of them are about the HESS source (or simply list the PSR in a massive list of similar sources, which contravenes WP:NASTCRIT #3). Primefac (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably right--I forgot. It should be retitled for now at least. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 9 June 2017 (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 Get Weird. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grown (Little Mix Song)

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

Song is not notable; does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. All content in this page is already in the main Get Weird album article, save for an unnotable one-line review that is just part of a track-by-track album review. Title has inappropriate capitalisation that does not follow WP:MOS, and there is already a Grown (Little Mix song) redirect page, hence this page is not useful as a redirect either. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Get Weird just as Grown (Little Mix song) was redirected. This is simply an alternative capitalization of that title. Redirects are cheap, and they don't necessarily have to follow WP:TITLE. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per KuyaBriBri. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same like above. Raritydash (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources that cover the song outside of album reviews, but I am not certain and a little doubtful about whether or not they are enough to support notability. I just wanted to present some sources to help with this a little: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. A majority of the coverage for the song appears to be restricted to album reviews so I would lean more towards a redirect as well, but I think I will stay out of the voting process on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the arguments already made above and per the nominator. I do not believe the above sources that I provided support that this has enough notability for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – has independent notability and per Aoba47's citations. Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per the arguments made above, and per the nominator. livelikemusic talk! 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above and nom. Domdeparis (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2017 (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 The Aunty Jack Show. After the merge, redirect for the reasons outlined by SpinningSpark -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Nine Show

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

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

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

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

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunty Jack's Travelling Show: these are five more episodes of the same series which were created after that discussion was initiated, but did not get caught or bundled into the original batch in time. But they're still subject to the same problems as the first set: they offer no substance or sourcing to demonstrate the standalone notability of each episode, and are referenced entirely to episode guides and IMDb, rather than reliable source media coverage about the episodes. As always, every individual episode of a TV series is not granted an automatic presumption of standalone notability as a separate topic -- you need to show quite a lot more real-world context about the episode to get it over the bar, not just a basic plot summary. Many TV programs only have one or two episodes that actually warrant standalone articles separately from the series as a whole, and many more than that have none. What's required to get an episode over the bar in its own right is reliable source coverage that's specifically about that episode itself -- but none is being shown for any of these. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them - I didn't see the first AfD; sorry. The Aunty Jack Show was as notable in Australia, in its day, as Seinfeld or The Simpsons. We have articles on every episode of those two shows. Aunty Jack should not be given less treatment because it is Australian, or was on TV before the Internet age. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of television shows do not have separate articles about each individual episode. What determines whether that gets to happen or not is whether enough reliable sources cover the episode in enough depth to give it context for why a separate article is needed — mere plot summaries and cast lists simply do not cut it. The Puppy Episode of Ellen, for example, is the only episode of its entire series that actually has (or ever will have) its own standalone article — and it qualified for one not because it existed, but because it's been extensively analyzed by reliable sources as one of the most overarchingly important moments in the entire history of LGBT representation in media. The standard that a television episode has to meet to qualify for a separate article is "noteworthy and substantive context", not "IMDb verifies that it existed". Yes, there are a few shows (Seinfeld and The Simpsons are two examples; Star Trek is another one) that have been so extensively written about by reliable sources that almost every episode can actually support a standalone article — but that's not a treatment that any show automatically gets just because of one user's subjective assertions of importance, it's a treatment that reliable source coverage about the episodes has to be there to support. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Aunty Jack Show then delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge and redirect, the substantive content of all these articles is just a couple of sentences, so they can easily be accomadated in the main article. I don't get why User:Dennis Brown is calling for delete after merge. First of all, the history needs retaining for attribution reasons after a merge, and secondly redirects are cheap and these will help anyone searching on an episode title to find the right place. SpinningSpark 12:09, 11 June 2017 (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. There seems to be agreement that the (now much-expanded) content about this museum item should be kept, but it's not yet clear whether it should be merged somewhere or otherwise made part of a broader article. These discussions can continue outside of this AfD. Sandstein 09:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

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

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article significantly, and added references and many wikilinks. Let me know how you feel about these changes. -PKM (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a significant amount of reliable source commentary about this particular caftan as evidenced by the improvements to the article and supporting references. Nice job. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but with concerns about implications - see comment) - Hmmm. Keep does set a pretty dangerous precedent, for exactly the concerns I had with an earlier AFD that I opened for discussion - while very specific, individual museum exhibits (that aren't typical artworks) are notable (such as Tristan Quilt or Margaret Layton's embroidered jacket or Luck of Edenhall - these are very exceptional instances. (I also thought of the Tarkhan dress but that article is very minimal, although the object itself is indisputably notable). This is "my area of specialism" - being clothing/fashion related - and I'm dubious about it because of these reasons. I vote keep, because I feel obligated to do so based on the article and that it is something sort of approaching my area of specialism, but I am aware that this will potentially make it fair game to flood Wikipedia with articles on every single thing from museum catalogues that has been discussed in multiple sources. I think notability for this garment as a very rare survival of its type has been demonstrated beyond doubt. However, if kept it will need to be renamed so as not to confuse it with the 100+ other caftans in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Has this caftan a "name?" Is it called, say, the Moshchevaja Balka Caftan? Perhaps someone should create Moshchevaja Balka burial to discuss the archaeological site and the artefacts found therein, and have a chapter/section there specifically for this caftan as a notable artefact found therein? Mabalu (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu:. Did you notice sourcing is entirely PRIMARY, to journals published by the Met (and 2 cites sourcing info about the type, not the specific object). Would you consider supporting a redirect to a new article about archaeologically discovered textiles or garments along the silk road? (you would know how to phrase/delimit such an articls better than I.) Because, as you say, keeping articles about objects sources exclusively to the museum that owns them is a highly problematic precedent to set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the abobe: I'm not really bothered about primary sourcing in cases such as this, because major museums are usually really reliable sources even if technically there is a conflict of interest. They're not trying to sell a viewpoint or sell their stuff, they just want to share their research and findings and more-than-usually-informed interpretations of objects they have, from an expert's point of view. So no, in this circumstance, the COI doesn't really bother me. Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming question, drawing from examples in a different medium, one could include the accession number., as in Neck Amphora by Exekias (Berlin F 1720). The new title could be Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1) or Caftan from Caucasus region (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vases are often referred to in this way, like manuscripts; generally catalogue/accession numbers are best avoided in titles, as no-one even in the field will recognize them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article could gave a stronger name. Thinking about what it should be called .... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (as expanded) any reasonably complete 1200-year-old garment from anywhere is very likely to be notable, for heaven's sake, as they are so rare. Personally I am in favour of decent articles on individual examples of all sorts of artefacts. There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Yes, a more specific name would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is trying to do too much, covering both what a caftan is and one fine example of one in a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following article expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As above, any object like this, 1200-year-old - rare as hen's teeth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the article ~~is entirely PRIMARY sourced~~ (correction: lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing) (with the exception of 2 sources that describe this category of garment, not the garment itself). I love articles on individual museum objects such as the Arles Rhône 3 or the Magdala stone, but objects require secondary sourcing. Here we have only the Museum's own curators and journals. I think we need to Redirect and merge to an article on something like Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not WP:PRIMARY at all, but they do lack full independence. However, this is normal in articles on museum objects, where the best sources are very often provided by the museum, although often only as publisher, with the authors outside experts. There is no precedent being set here; instead the normal practice is being followed. In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited are scholarly, but they are published in the journal of the Museum that owns the object. Notability needs to be supported by sources that are independent of the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. Btw, Knauer at least does not seem to have been a museum employee. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnblod, you are aware that the Met Journal commissions such articles, not for pay, rather, the Museum invites scholarly experts to come to the museum in order to examine a specific object and write it up for the journal? All perfectly scholarly and legit, just not independent.(private but widely understood info among museum professionals; no I don't have a source for this assertion. I just know how this journal works.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And I am aware of the standards WP normally applies for such articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the scholarship, only WP:INDY. I have brought this question to [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Conflicts of interest "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as per: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conflict of interest, but COI's can be managed, and the MMA's standards, like those of other major museums, are such that it can reasonably be assumed that they have been. If there was a decent name to use as a search term it is very possible other sources would turn up. There may well be ones in Russian, but that's little help to most of us. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target? Unless notability can be WP:INDEPENDENTLY sourced, I suggest that this discussion focus on finding an appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per E.M. Gregory. Sources most affiliated with the subject. Also agreeing with Peterkingiron's comment that most of the article expanded version does not deal with that particular caftan but with caftans in similar contexts. Hence, the deadly blow to Wikipedia's general architecture, that keeping such a page would mean. A peril that Mabalu explains very well in his comment. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a cogent, interesting, appropriately sourced article, exactly what I think of as "encyclopedic". The concerns about COI and independent sources are valid -- but unavoidable with many many objects of antiquity. @PKM:'s work here to expand the article is solid. The article should be renamed per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend WP:GNG for "objects of antiquity". I paraphrase Lockley and most of the editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's accept, at least prima facie, the "independence" or ability to manage COI of major museums. In fact we do this all all the time, for example for all types of information put out by government-run or financed organizations. It's a great mistake to prefer, as many editors do, garbled summaries of the same information scribbled down by "independent" journalists. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the scholarship of scholars, including scholars employed or commissioned to evaluate artifacts by museums. However, we absolutely require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish notability.as I and others suggest above, this material can be WP:PRESERVED by merged this to a broader topic with INDEPENDENT sourcing in re: notability..E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTABILITY is clear on this, notability is evidenced by independent sources. This has nothing to do with reliability, scholarly etc etc. And there is not enough independent sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - lack of independence does not cause this article to violate our key policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, in my opinion. The completeness and tone of the article shows that the subject can be encyclopedic without OR. Also, the MET Museum Journal is an edited journal with a review process standard to academic journals. The editorial board is all(?) MET department members, none of which are the authors of the articles on the Caftan. Two of the three authors are, however, connected to the MET. Harper is Curator Emerita in the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kajitani is conservator in chief of the Department of Textile Conservation. Knauer was not at the Met and was a leader at the Penn museum (her husband was Georg Nicolaus Knauer). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Metropolitan Museum Journal is issued annually by The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Its purpose is to publish original research on works in the Museum’s collections." [9]. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Saying independence is required as you did further above and repeat here, does fit with what WP:IS says, but every time that essay says that, it refers to WP:RS, and to me the MET Museum Journal is a reliable source. I guess my argument is based on WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article doesn't violate, for example, WP:USESPS, and is more or less a secondary source based on WP:PSTS/WP:USEPRIMARY. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kaftan, the existing article on the garment. Those who advocated for "keep" above have not addressed the "independent of the subject" clause of the general notability guideline. This is a common problem among the many articles recently created for objects in the Met's collection following the Met's open access image release. No one is questioning the garment's importance, but how should it be covered? If the Met-specific garment is only covered in Met-specific sources, it would show that the object is only of importance to the Met. If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications—that is the intent of the "independent" clause. (Please ping me if you find more of those sources!) As it stands, most of the article is about the general use of the caftan, as @Peterkingiron noted, and as such, can be reasonably covered in the general article on caftans. (The Met journals are also fine sources for the general article, with no issues of independence because the article's subject isn't the Met-specific caftan.) If and when the garment, in specific, becomes separately notable from the general history of the garment, as shown in reliable sources independent of the subject, it can always split out summary style. czar 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The independence issue has been extensively addressed above, it's just there is not agreement on the matter. Several people are "questioning the garment's importance" - what exactly is the difference between notability and importance? To say "If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications" - by which you effectively mean more publications available online in English - shows a misplaced faith, in particular given that the garment only reached the market in 1994, and that in this obscure field most publications are in Russian and German, like the large books on textile finds from this site by Ierusalimskaja, which no one involved in the debate has seen (in Russian and German). I don't see how "most of the article is about the general use of the caftan" at all, and this article would unbalance a shortish article about this very broad term, which is unspecific, not to say vague, like "robe" or "coat" in European clothing. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed, not addressed. If there is some litany of Russian/German sources that address the garment in detail, they are not mentioned in the article. All the other sources are affiliated with the Met, the organization that also holds the garment, making it (and those those articles) non-independent. If the article was on the burial or series of findings there, source independence would not be an issue. czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(did not vote above)Restructure -- The suggested merge target is a wide-ranging article, which would be unbalanced by a standard merger. Furthermore that article states that the Russian version differs from those of other countries some as far afield as Senegal. The Met Journal looks like an academic journal, probably peer-reviewed, and may therefore be sufficiently independent (though I have not investigated closely). I would suggest that we keep a short article on the Met garment itself and merge a summary of the rest into Kaftan. Nevertheless, we should not encourage articles on every museum object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that the Met Jornal appears once a year, with 12-14 articles. The museum contains over 2 million objects, so most will have to wait millennia for their turn. Yet this object has had three different articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and proposal. Well, this has all been most instructive. Comments first, and then a proposal.
- Comments: (1) If this article had first been moved to main space in its current form, I doubt that anyone would have raised objections to its structure, focus, or sourcing. I am well aware that it is far from perfect - I have dug very deep looking for additional discussions of this object, to no avail. (2) It's news to me that a section on "background" or "context" for a highly-specific topic is inappropriate. Given an encyclopedia that has essentially infinite page space and infinite entry points, establishing context seems critical to me. (3) I believe articles on historical and cultural topics are once again being held to a higher standard than articles on other topics. How many articles on spacecraft do we have that are based solely on NASA documents? (Note, I think there's nothing wrong with that.) (4) I think establishing a standard in support of the independence of scholarly work published by or on behalf of museums is important, but I don't this AfD discussion is the place where that can happen.
- Proposal. I suggest that this article be moved to Moshchevaja Balka textiles and expanded to include the leggings at the Met and anything we can properly source on the related items in the Hermitage, with the caftan cited as a representative example. We can also expand Silk Road which doesn't mention the North Caucasus route at all currently, and possibly trim the "Context" section after. Would these changes satisfy the outstanding objections? - PKM (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the best merge/repurpose proposal, though I'd be interested to see how the current nom will do at closing. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'd prefer to keep as a standalone article, with a possible more descriptive rename to North Caucasus caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (especially as the link to Moshchevaja Balka is based on a very educated scholarly deduction and not a documented chain of custody to an excavation). - PKM (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Rename Moshchevaja Balka burial, as suggested above by User:Mabalu would enable us to source the article to sources like this book on the silk road [10]. 'Note two things about that reference to the burial: First, that this source does not mention this caftan, only that silks were found in the burial. Second, that it is only one of the many preserved remnants of ancient garments found along the silk road in recent year. I want to Note also that this significant object is very far from being as unique as some editorial assert above. Garments have emerged from digs not only along the silk road, but out of the tundra, from European bogs, and from deserts; the Met itself owns a spectacular collection of ancient garments from Roman era Egyptian burials (i.e. older than this garment) that were previously held by the Brooklyn Museum. Certainly we should have articles on these things, but they need solid INDEPENDENT sourcing just as all articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a discussion with so many !votes is unorthodox but in this case it seems the prudent decision to allow further discussion on the merge/redirect/restructure proposals made in the last two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve content. There's not a standardized, catchy, one-word answer to how I think this needs to be handled. The current article is problematic. It approaches this topic from its perspective as a museum exhibit. Accordingly, the academic journal sponsored by the museum to publish research about its exhibits strains the definition of sources "independent" of the subject. But of course, what is important and notable about this object is not that it is a museum exhibit per se, but that it represents an archaeologically significant textile discovery from an archaeologically significant Silk Road burial site. The information here (absent some of the backgrounder on the definition of a caftan) is best served in an article at a different title. Moshchevaja Balka burial is my preferred choice, which also allows us to include other information about the site, its history, its discover, and so forth... Moshchevaja Balka textiles is a narrower topic that also seems plausible if there are other sources that specifically address the textiles at length. I'd rather we start with the former and spin out the latter if that proves necessary. Something like Silk Road archaeology is a broader alternative if Moshchevaja Balka lacks supporting sources. This approach solves the independence problem; the subject is no longer a specific item qua museum exhibit, and so the non-independence of the current sourcing evaporates. It also avoids the uncomfortable suggestion that articles on every individual museum holding might in and of themselves be plausible. This isn't strictly a redirect, and since the target article doesn't exist yet, can't in good faith by called a merge. Fundamentally though, our goal should be to keep the encyclopedic content, but not here and not precisely like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Moshchevaja Balka burial allows wider information, but who exactly is the "us" who's going to write it? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like PKM, I'd prefer to keep it as it is (as !voted above) but Moshchevaja Balka textiles is certainly better than deletion. But who will write the broader content, to do which properly Russian or German are really necessary? The article is now greatly improved since nomination, and the nom arguments now I think don't apply. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An expanded Moshchevaja Balka article would be fine for details on the excavation, caftan, other items, but since it doesn't exist, I have to stick with the merge recommendation as the article's sources are not independent (all affiliated with the Met, the garment's holder). A merge, I'll add, also preserves the article history for anyone who wants to excavate it. Speaking of, want to drop some sources for this burial so we can stub it and call it a day? czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that this artefact has been the sole subject of multiple scholarly papers is a strong indicator of notability (and I'd certainly expect a perfectly preserved garment from the 8th century to be notable!). I appreciate the concerns about the independence of these sources—I can't find any indication that the Metropolitan Museum Journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board all work at the Met—but let's be pragmatic here. We require independent sources to protect the encyclopaedia from promotionalism and misinformation disseminated by people with an axe to grind. The Met, one of the world's foremost museums, has nothing to gain from misrepresenting objects in its collection in its in-house journal. And I highly doubt it gets any promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation. The journal may not be technically independent, but it fits the spirit of the independence criteria in the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I interrupt this discussion to Note that museums do in fact covet "promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation." Museums are not so unlike other institutions. They can fail (see Category:Defunct art museums and galleries), even major art museums in wealthy cities can fail (see:Corcoran Gallery of Art, not to mention the Met's current, massive financial problems. Museums compete for scholarly prestige not least because it attracts loans, curators, visiting scholars and, most of all, donors of both cash and artifacts. Note moreover that this article was promoted and (deprodded) by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Met who ought at that moment to have insisted that it either find an WP:INDEPENDENT source or be included within a topic that has secondary sourcing. A small slip by someone who contributes a lot to the project, but surely an indication of the ease with which great institutions and the Wikipedians associated with them can too easily regard themselves as above the rules that apply to lesser mortals. ~~It is problematic to have a "Wikipedian in residence" at a museum arguing to "keep" [11] an article sourced solely to a journal published by that museum.~~ Would we feel differently about a single-artifact article sole sourced to articles in The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, a highly regarded publication of the highly regarded - but small - Wolfsonian-FIU? WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule. We need to apply it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the museum, and I had deprodded it, because I felt it deserved a full AfD discussion, but have abstained from a "keep" or "delete" here. FWIW, I think this is a general issue of sourcing to museum journals, and that principles should be applied uniformly, not just to the larger ones.--Pharos (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a PROD was too aggressive. Certainly WP:PRESERVE this well-sourced material. But can you specify what principles should apply to museum journals?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)(I never miss visiting the Wolfsonian when I'm in South Beach, and certainly regard The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, as a WP:RS. But I do not think we should WP:IAR and keep any article single sourced to the journal of the museum that holds it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that WP:IAR applies here. WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule, but applying it pedantically here would be a net loss for the encyclopaedia. Does anyone actually think there is something wrong with the material in the article cited to the Met's journal? – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now can we return to considering whether to WP:PRESERVE this material by merging it into something focal like Moshchevaja Balka textiles, Moshchevaja Balka or Moshchevaja Balka burial or into something broad like Silk Road archaeology, or Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're here to consider whether the article should be deleted. Keeping it in its current form is a viable option – one which so far the majority of editors have supported. Please don't try to restrict the discussion to your preferred outcomes, E.M.Gregory. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a majority vote, it's a discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to delete it. Only to avoid the precedent that would be set by keeping an article about an object sourced solely to an organ of the museum that owns it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my citation above of the fact that while the Metropolitan Museum Journal i sscholarly, it only publishes articles about objects owned by the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: as the PRODder and then AfD nominator, I feel I should add something to this lengthy and thoughtful discussion. When I PRODded the article with rationale "It's an interesting object but nothing indicates that it is notable in Wikipedia terms: the encyclopedia can't reproduce the museum catalogue of every museum in the world.", it was a very few sentences, sourced to the museum record and one of the journal articles. I was probably alerted to it by noticing it as an item in Category:Stubs with a bracketed disambiguator - while stub-sorting I often check these to make sure that they are accessible from their undisambiguated title, via a hatnote or dab page entry. I've just added a rather ungainly "redirect" hatnote to Kaftan. I am amazed that this object, if it is such a treasure of the museum, does not have a popular name like the Lewis chessmen - but perhaps it is more of a scholars' object than a museum visitors' attraction. Clearly this object is of scholarly significance, but I wonder how anyone is likely to find it in the encyclopedia - the article is not linked from any mainspace pages, though from a vast number of internal Wikipedia pages. I am not a textile history or museology expert so find it hard to opine on the notability of this object. The article as it currently stands appears to be of encyclopedic value, and we need to somehow establish criteria so that items on well-documented and extraordinary objects can be retained, while WikiMedians in Residence and others are deterred from copying large chunks of their catalogue records into the encyclopedia (Tall-stem thermometers?). PamD 22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form (!vote of nominator): On consideration of the arguments above, I think that the museum's journal, while not strictly "independent", is a valid source: the museum's own regard for its reputation will ensure that only quality scholarly papers are published in it. I have concerns about the article title, but the object is almost certainly "notable" and merits coverage in our encyclopedia - whether as this stand-alone article or as a section of Moshchevaja Balka burial site or similar. PamD 22:14, 9 June 2017 (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. So Why 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RDX (Band)

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

Refs are mostly to a PR / SEO firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that this is undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's content may be a promotional mess, but the subject may scrape by WP:BAND with non-trivial coverage from Jamaica Observer and Clash magazine. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still comes up short of WP:GNG, promotional or not, if you look at true WP:RS sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG. sourcing in article insufficient in depth. Clash is not sufficient in depth. Just saw reviews that are WP:MILL.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2017 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waging War (album)

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

not notable, no sources, just a tracklist Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for the album confers blogs and Discogs, none of which contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (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. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eian Beron

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non-notable individual with no actual coverage in RS. Google news gives exactly 3 hits and the sources included in the article aren't exactly coverage. In fact, the supposed coverage are links to his copyright infringing video on YouTube with a measly 90k hits. Most of the sources fail to even mention him and if they do it's in passing. And according to his iMDB page, I'd hardly say any of that work would qualify under WP:NACTOR. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:44, 2 June 2017 (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. So Why 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Bennett

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

Non notable actress, Planned to source it however.... there isn't any sources! - Can't find any evidence of notability on Google, Fails NACTOR as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, if at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Agree this is WP:TOOSOON. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sources either. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2017 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoSpaces

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haved made some changes to the article, hoping it will match the guidelines. Please update me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-pluralvonglas (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing enough substantive coverage here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:30, 2 June 2017 (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. Sandstein 09:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean chamber

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

Non-notable newspaper with zero references. I did a quick Google search to see what coverage, if any, the subject had, and wasn't able to find any to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Ukrainian-language newspaper of Crimea. Its archive placed on Wikimedia Commons. On Google search result gives a transliteration Krymska svitlytsia --Jbuket (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching the proper terms makes a great deal of difference. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for better results that demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 9 June 2017 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest (band)

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

Don't think that there is anything here to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent WP:RS, Not to be confused with the band Conquest from St. Louis, Mo. --Bejnar (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2017 (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. There's no basis in policy for the argument that all religious groups are automatically notable. Sandstein 09:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus

AfDs for this article:

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

It appears that nothing on this page can be verified through reliable sources. Several references did exist, but for various reasons (spam, broken links, irrelevance to the text of the article, self-publishing) not a single one went to a reliable source. I performed the basic searches looking for usable sources but didn't find any. In particular, this organization does not appear to exist on JSTOR or Google News at all, and everything else I've found is only a passing mention. I'm new to this process, so let me know if there's some other information I should be giving or a step that I'm missing. Alephb (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bluemask (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [12] and [13] suggest that it is an extent church with at least two congregations. I don't see any reliable independent sources, only a few self-published books through Google Book Search. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here. I would have no objections to an article on this subject, but if we can't come up with anything we can source, I'd imagine we have to delete the article and wait until third-party reliable sources start covering it. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, Keep -- as we normally do for denominations. The problem is with verifiable content, but that might involve reducing it to a stub, rather than deletion. The problem may be that the relevant sources are in Talagog or some other local language. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any special exception granted to religious denominations that automatically gives them an article outside the normal notability criteria. In fact, WP:ORGSIG claims that all kinds of organizations are held to the same standard. "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see 'If it's not notable', below). 'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.' No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." And I don't think we keep an article on the chance that it might be discussed in reliable sources no editor has managed to find yet. WP:PROVEIT places the burden of proof (finding reliable sources) on whoever is arguing for inclusion. The default position, until sources are found, is the removal of the unsourced material. Alephb (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even for a country filled with tiny sects this one is not notable. Religious organizations and churches are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 05:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge. Interesting. At first I thought that denominations are auto-notable, but indeed, there is no rule saying so, and why they should have an exception? Still, I'd be ok if we could merge it into some sort of a list. List of minor Christian denomination in the Philippines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article keeps getting relisted. But perhaps the reason it hasn't attracted much comment is that we have an open-and-shut case here. There's zero significant coverage in reliable sources, and no one is attempting to argue this point or add citations. What more is there to talk about here? It's going on four weeks now and no one has yet proposed that a single sentence of this article can be supported with references. Alephb (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (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, salt and block the creator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stagger (film)

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

Non-notable film, only sources I can find are IMDb and websites offering free streaming. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as non-notable film. Actually, you could also block the creator as a likely sockpuppet of WP:LTA account SEFPRODUCTIONS (talk · contribs) and speedy delete the article under G5. Pichpich (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (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 and move (rename) to Mrs. Coverlet series. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present, and rough consensus is to use the word "series" in the title of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Coverlet's Magicians

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT Killer Moff (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said, I hesitated before creating the page, precisely for that reason. It's up to you, masters of the Wikiverse. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I acted very WP:BOLDLY, expanding the article to focus on the 3-book series of which Magicians was the second book and the first book in the series While Mrs Coverlet was Away was apparently the most popular. I believe that the sourcing I have added is adequate to support keeping. @HandsomeMrToad: to return and help improve the article on books that were very popular. There's plenty of sourcing out there, including articles by former children like Mr. Toad who remember these books fondly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:E.M.Gregory, Thank you for your support and kind words, but, I did some internet searching when I first created the page, and did not find satisfactory good-seeming sources, which is why I hesitated to create the page, almost scrapped the idea, and expressed my doubts on the TALK page about whether the page should survive scrutiny. PLEASE post REFERENCES to the "sourcing out there", if you have time, that would resolve the whole debate. Thank you very much! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Oh, I see, now there are references to FOUR articles from NY Times, and one from Boston Globe, and one from NY Herald Tribune. That should pretty gosh-darn well put the "notability" question to rest! Thanks.

From WP:BKCRIT:

"A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews."

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly the books as a group are notable. If anyone is dissatisfied, I can expand and improve the sourcing. User:HandsomeMrToad, any thoughts about a new title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roseohioresident (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that illustrator is bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title Once this is kept, it will need to be moved to something like Mrs Coverlet series.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Mrs. Coverlet TRILOGY"? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with suggested title move (I should think the individual titles redirected to a page for the series as a whole will suffice unless/until someone takes it on to expand the entry so dramatically forks are required for each book, but we're not there yet). Thanks E.M.Gregory for your work locating sources: a good reminder that Google News often doesn't suffice to evaluate notability of pre-internet topics. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given the new sources, I withdraw my nomination, but do feel it should now be moved to another title. I'd prefer Mrs Coverlet Series over trilogy, but not overly fussed one way or another. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer series. There is no indication that it was planed as a trilogy, but, rather, every indication that it was the more usual sequence of events in which a novel is so successful and it's characters are so popular that the author writes a second book about them, then a third, and, in this case, happens for whatever reason to stop at three.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Series" or "Trilogy", either works for me. But, plenty of trilogies were not originally planned as trilogies, including, perhaps most famously, Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. (I'm pretty sure that Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy wasn't planned either. And, I seem to recall reading that The Ring of the Nibelung--a trilogy with a prelude--was not originally planned as a trilogy, but involved into one in reverse order, as Wagner kept wanting to provide background information, and then background for the background. I don't know about the Orestia, or about Beaumarchais' Figaro-trilogy.) HandsomeMrToad (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Huff

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of an investigator. Every last one of the references goes to either WP:SELFPUB websites of true believers or self-promotion. None of the claims in the article is backed up by independent sourcing and it is likely that we have either WP:SOAP issues or perhaps a poorly-executed article produced for pay. Once people who are not "paranormal investigators" notice this fellow, he can rise to the WP:BIO threshold, but as of now this seems an obvious delete. jps (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO No secondary sources outside of blogs found so far. KarlPoppery (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any RS supporting notability, and whilst (normally) I would say "in universe" notability counts I am not even getting great deal of that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLPNOTE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But... but... he has 166000 followers on Youtube !!!!! Hahem. Delete, per nom. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case it is not notability that concerns me, but that this seems like a BLP violation. The main text of the article uses substandard sources to claim that 1) he has suffered brain damage twice as a child(!) and 2) other paranormal investigators consider him to lack morals. This sounds like a hatchet job. We have more sympathetic articles on Billy the Kid and Jesse James. As for the sources, one of them seems to be off-topic anyway. It is a brief mention of a 2015 documentary where Huff appeared, posted on a blog website about horror films. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Paleo Neonate - 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just looked for sources (I initially thought, maybe a Youtube celeb afterall) but I failed to find anything credible demonstrating notability. —Paleo Neonate - 00:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking we can go for a speedy delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most of above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW ? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence for notability. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello -- I was thinking: "Steve Huff? Sounds familiar. But this bloke doesn't sound familiar at all." Let's take a look. The article starts:

Steve Huff is an American photographer. . . .

The reference for that is: <ref>{{cite web|author=Name * |url=https://shotkit.com/steve-huff/ |title=Steve Huff's Camera Gear Exposed |publisher=Shotkit.com |date= |accessdate=2017-06-01}}</ref>.

The Wikipedia article we're discussing tells us that Huff's website is www.huffparanormal.com. However, the "Shotkit" page cited in the very first sentence says:

My name is Steve Huff and I run and own SteveHuffPhoto, a camera and lens review site that I started 5 years ago as a way to provide real world use results of cameras and lenses.

SteveHuffPhoto has a page titled "so who am I"; its content isn't strangely capitalized, it doesn't mention the string "paranormal", and a skimread -- it's rather long -- doesn't show any fringe beliefs or activities.

Huffparanormal.com has an "about me" page that once, obscurely, mentions camera reviews but mostly bumbles on (with Lots of Capitals) about the paranormal.

What evidence is there that the Huff of huffparanormal.com and the Huff of stevehuffphoto.com are the same person? -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Huff Photo/Steve Huff Paranormal. Also C2CAM. Same guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, LuckyLouie. Well, Huff is less a photographer than a writer about photographic gear. As the latter, he's not negligible, but I struggle to see [WP-defined] notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Khan Mahi

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are a blog, a passing mention and a vanity piece. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Done some more BEFORE searching, and appears to have no coverage. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything substantial either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2017 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Turner (journalist)

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

Other than candidature in the upcoming election, subject of article has little claim to notability - the organisation he works for is largely unknown and does not have a Wikipedia article itself. RaviC (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first contribution to a talk page, so hopefully I'm doing it right - but I'll disagree here. What's your definition of "largely unknown"? Do you just mean that you haven't heard of it? Otherwise, Turner is primarily notable for his legal battle against Shell. However, in addition, Kate Hoey MP has made him further notable by trying to remove him from a photograph - this is an elected MP performing Photoshop on a rival for political gain. In my opinion, she's nominated him herself for notability! Additional note: Further reading shows that Deryk_Chan has already rejected a deletion request over this from RaviC in the past week. Shakeheartbreak (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2017 (PST)

"Otherwise, Turner is primarily notable for his legal battle against Shell"
--- Please read WP:EVENT
"However, in addition, Kate Hoey MP has made him further notable by trying to remove him from a photograph".
--- This does not qualify him for an article in any way.
"Deryk_Chan has already rejected a deletion request"
--- That was a WP:PROD, please refer to that page to learn more. This is an AfD.
RaviC (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not ineligible for AFD just because a PROD was declined — they're two different processes, with different standards for what qualifies and what doesn't. It is completely possible, in fact, for an article to be an absolute no-brainer delete with no legitimate grounds for keeping, and yet still not eligible for the PROD process per se and thus deletable only at a full AFD. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. A non-winning candidate for election to political office is not more notable than other non-winning candidates just because a rival purportedly airbrushed him out of a photo — if that incident is even notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia at all, then it speaks more to the notability of the airbrusher than the airbrushee. And he's not the subject of the Shell-related coverage; he's merely namechecked in coverage that's fundamentally about the Shell campaign, which is not the same thing. So that's not enough to demonstrate preexisting notability prior to his candidacy for office — note, for example, that the article didn't even exist prior to his candidacy for office, whereas if he qualified for a Wikipedia article on Shell campaign grounds then it would have existed two years ago when the Shell campaign was underway. The place for content about that controversy would be in an article on the building, if one exists, rather than a standalone BLP of him. So no prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins a seat at Westminster, but nothing present here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to delete. Little notability. MB190417 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: It is correct procedure to take an article to AfD when PROD is declined an anyone still thinks the article should be deleted. --Deryck C. 16:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But as the editor who declined the PROD, I guess you'd expect me to argue to keep this article. The article and its cited sources show that George Turner is already known for multiple causes, each attested by independent reliable sources. Therefore he meets WP:NPOL. Deryck C. 16:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several reasons, also affirmed in talk page:

Turner is not notable for his campaign against Shell. This campaign was unsuccessful and merely gained local media attention. As mentioned above, he was not integral to the campaign either.
Turner is not notable for his candidacy in the election. Although his campaign may have attracted local media attention (again), not a single election forecaster predicts that he will take the seat from Hoey. YouGov, one pollster, even suggests he will finish behind the Conservatives in third-place. He is therefore unlikely to win and to be of future notability because of his campaign.
Even despite the above point, the local media attention has been directed towards the Liberal Democrat campaign, not Turner himself. So even if we concede that the campaign is notable, it does not mean his candidacy deserves its own Wikipedia page. It would be more appropriate to reference the campaign in passing on the Vauxhall (UK Parliament constituency) page.
Following on from the above, there is little precedence for creating a page for an unsuccessful candidate who is not successful for other reasons. Sarah Olney's page was created on 2 December 2016, after voters had gone to the polls and in the early hours of the morning when it was clear that she had a chance of winning; and Olney arguably had a similar level of media exposure to Turner at this stage of their campaigns too. The entry for Liz Leffman was similarly created only well after her campaign and is also undergoing a notability dispute.
In the long-run, even if Turner's campaign is notable in the local media, it does not warrant a page about Turner because the campaign will not be so notable in the long run to have its own page. The Liberal Democrat campaign is notable; not Turner himself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site - the article may well contain even more information about Turner's campaign than local media does. None of it will be notable enough tomorrow for it to go anywhere except in the Vauxhall constituency page under political history.
The article has been edited and edit-warred by users suspected of sockpuppetry. The four users accused of sockpuppetry have collectively created the page and defended it against certain modifications. They have accused me and other editors of being biased in our coverage when we tried to include reactions to Turner's campaign which was negative. They have also repeatedly taken down templates regarding neutrality and POV concerns and have not engaged in discussions on these on the Talk page, instead preferring to edit-war. It is highly likely that the existence of the article, which itself is biased because it gives disproportional importance to the Lib Dem challenge in the seat (I point once again to the pollsters saying Lib Dems won't take the seat), has come about and persevered only through the actions of these four users which may or may not be one single person editing for political purposes in vested interest.

In all, therefore, delete. If Turner wins, recreate the page. But there is no precedent to have a page on a losing candidate that is not notable for reasons other than their candidacy, however much media attention the campaign has garnered. I am all in favour of the essentials of the article being put into the Vauxhall constituency page. Matt 190417 (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete: This article doesn't meet notability criteria for the reasons above, but might meet them in two days if he is elected (which would merit a speedy keep in my opinion). I think the decision should be postponed until then to avoid having to recreate the article just hours after deleting it. The content of the page should be reviewed separately in the event of a keep because I am not satisfied that the content stems from a neutral point of view. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the case Matt 190417 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG or WP:BLPNOTE. He unsuccessfully contested the seat of Vauxhall for the Liberal Democrats in the 2017 general election. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2017 (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 09:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khashayar Farzam

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable individual. Article appears to be promotional in intent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there may be a sock farm involved in the editing of this article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (striking !votes by confirmed socks; RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)) By any standard, a silver medal at a world championships as a part of the national team alongside media recognition shows notability. This is a case of blatant disregard for notability in another culture & language (Persian in this case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medica1987 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) — Medica1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It appears Google has not indexed some of the referenced sources. Cumulatively I would think there is evidence of notability but editing is required for any promotional components. Christina Co (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC) — Christina co (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ (striking !votes by confirmed socks; RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)) IPF Worlds is the highest level of competition in Powerlifting. Obtaining a medal at that level is notable. As the sport of powerlifting grows, there will be more lifters with biographies and that is a positive thing given the participation levels seen in the sport today. I do also agree there should be a couple edits made to any content that may come off as promotional. However the individual has numerous media articles where he is the only subject of that paper. Criteria is undoubtedly satisfied.Matthew99x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Matthew99x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: Medica1987, Christina co, and Matthew99x are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guptalab.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NATHLETE lists no criteria that would confer an automatic presumption of notability for weightlifters at all — which means a weightlifter's notability is entirely dependent on passing WP:GNG on the depth and quality of media coverage that can be shown. But the writing tone here is noticeably advertorial rather than encyclopedic, and the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources — the only reliable source coverage about him in media being shown here at all is entirely to weekly community newspapers (two Oshawa and one GTA-ethnic). Those would be acceptable for some supplementary sourcing of stray facts if the rest of the referencing around them were better than this, but they are not widely distributed enough to carry a GNG claim all by themselves if they're the only media sources you can show. All of which means that WP:TNT (a/k/a "blow it up and start over") applies here — even if he can actually be shown to clear a notability standard, this is not the article or the sourcing that gets him there. And no, this is not a "disregard" for Persian language sourcing either — of the 13 sources used here, only one of them is in Persian, so language is simply not the issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. I know that our criteria for inclusion of sports-people are absurdly lax, but this person appears nevertheless not to meet them either in general or as a student sports-person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given my extensive familiarity with the sports in discussion I would make a logical case to keep. This is ONLY due to the extensive editing that has been made to the article. Jazz4477 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looked into it more and this person does indeed satisfy the general athlete criteria in that he competed at a major world level event. I would personally say participation is not sufficient but winning a medal + setting a world record would satisfy the general athlete notability requirements. Hence I think it's logical to keep the edited version of the article. Jazz4477 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess whether later edits after the last delete !vote changed the article sufficiently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plain non-notable. Noting notable with regards to the sports. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2017 (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 09:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szilvia Varga / Silvia Vargová (actress)

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

No eevidence of notability for this actor despite an enormously long list of parts, mostly in the thatre. Seems to be a jobbing actor who has never achieved any significant notice. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. Her stage performances are not significant roles. WP:NACTOR. Ceosad (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local/regional actress with no significant sourcing. Searches locate IMDb, social media, etc. No WP:RS either in searches or in article to support notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2017 (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. czar 19:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At'son

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

The article lacks notability WP:BAND as it is built on Nuru's references quoting as self. Also, the existing references are invalid (two iTunes store links, one article that doesn't have artist name). Entire article is around WP:SOAPBOX/ WP:ADVERT Devopam (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN backup singer. It's far too soon to see where his career might go. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no coverage beyond passing mentions in RS, and article is a badly referenced BLP. One nomination for a non-notable award does not guarantee notability, especially considering it was not even At'son himself who was nominated. — Quasar G. 09:32, 2 June 2017 (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. czar 19:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Media Arts Academy

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

Organization has shut down. Was local in nature, only had 30 students, not notable https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/07/02/janefinch_palisades_music_program_closes_amid_union_battle.html Rogermx (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source in the article is a dead link, but much of the content appears to be a copyvio from this website Mduvekot (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – copyvio removed, but tha only coverage in sources is in local news. Fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 09:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The remaining article text is effectively just setting our the wares in a way more appropriate to a primary website. Searches find nothing to indicate that this project is/was notable. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2017 (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. czar 19:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure capital

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

Not notable. The only usage of the term I could find (with this meaning) is in the single reference. This is my first AfD (and first use of Twinkle) so excuse me if I've missed something. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable neologism which appears to be only used in a single article. Article reads as a dictionary entry. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think it's notable, can't see anything when I google it. Seagull123 Φ 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at Talk:Adventure capital, there is a comment by Al95521, asking for the page to be "removed or merged with "venture capital"". Seagull123 Φ 20:10, 2 June 2017 (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 Schon Properties. Redirecting seems the logical conclusion based on the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Schon

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

fails WP:GNG.. cited sources only namechecking the subject. couldn't find source which can demonstrate the notability of the subject . Saqib (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination - fails WP:BIO, with no evidence of independent notability in secondary WP:RS. His company might turn out to be notable, but WP:Notability is not inherited. I can see his name mentioned in passing some controversies about the company online, and that's about it. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: He probably is notable. 8th richest Pakistani with personal wealth of 1 billion per one of the sources in the article. However since his activity is in Dubai and Pakistan, non-English coverage is probably key. I am not going to look these up in this case (outside my expertise), but unless he is a "Closet billionare", he probably has WP:SIGCOV in at least non-English sources.Icewhiz (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject is also mentioned in The National, The Nation and here. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

name checks. --Saqib (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A new account has just attempted to systematically replace all mentions of Danial with Asher Schon, including on the rich list article, without any explanation or credible sourcing. Existing sources make no mention of "Asher" (but there is at least some mention of Danial). This seems quite suspicious to me, a possible hoax or something? Murph9000 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess whether edits after May 27th, which added multiple new sources and content, might influence the decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Schon Properties, Schon lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Rich does not equal notable. Did not find significant Urdu sources. Almost all the article is about the company anyway. Note: He is sometimes listed as Danial Schön Husain and Danial H. Schön. --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Paras

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

fails WP:GNG. cited sources are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither source is in-depth coverage. The second source in particular is trivial at best. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 10:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show it meets notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 9 June 2017 (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 08:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENZO (Singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO: No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A list of Youtube videos won't help to establish notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO standard. The only external links used presently in the article are his songs and related info coming from the producers. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:12, 2 June 2017 (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. czar 06:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Woods (band)

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

They do not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Lack of reliable sources. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several article references are dead links. Searching found nothing useful to notability. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Happy to reconsider if better sources are located. Gab4gab (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's very hard to search for them: they share their name with a stage and film musical, releases by more famous bands, an unrelated Australian band, and their only album is eponymous; add to that the many musical things called The Woods or Woods. There is a risk when searching that Google will hide less notable results where a publication discusses more than one Into The Woods. Having said that, while Metal Hammer is a reliable source (despite recent woes), there doesn't seem to be any others. (Metal Music Archives seems to publish user-submitted stuff[14] and the other links on the article are social media or ticket sales.) I will be happy to be proved wrong though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2017 (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 Deleted as a blatant hoax. DES ^(talk) 15:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Manchez

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

No sources, no claim of notability. The only web content I can find about this person are Wikipedia mirrors. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a user-generated hoax, far as I can tell. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it looks like a hoax. Bronwyn isn't even a male name. Agricolae (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA biography on a subject about nothing verifiable can be found. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Prinsipe Ybarro ^{(Talk to me)} 08:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a potential HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles

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

Also nominating the following related page because [it is interconnected as a sub page of the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park tennis event]:

One of probably hundreds of articles on the non notable doubles event from barely notable challenger tour tennis tournaments. These are small tennis tournaments (total prize money for the tournament $50,000, of which only a smaller part goes to the doubles). According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability, every challenger tournament is notable: but that is an essay, and doesn't make it clear that the separate sections of the tournament are notable as well. Looking at 2014 ATP Challenger Tour makes it clear that usually, there are two to six of these tournaments every single week, which now all get three articles (a main one, and separate ones for singles and doubles).

In general, the coverage for these double events is minimal, the players are mostly barely known. The winner will be announced in one or two newspapers, and that's it. Most Google hits are automated listings from betting sites.

In this particular event, the winners had a career highest doubles ranking of 339 (Kern) and 220 (Ouanna), so even in the world of doubles tennis these are barely notable small fish (Ouanna had a fairly good career as a singles player though). Everything that needs to be said about this doubles tournament is already in 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park, a separate article for this non notable sub-event is overkill. Fram (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are this. Tennis Project has determined through many years that doubles events will be treated as we do singles events. There's rarely any exceptions. And we have always looked at the minor league tournaments on the ATP Challenger tour as notable. Barely, but notable. That being said, there is no reason whatsoever to break down the singles and doubles events into separate articles. Everything should be on the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park page since it's so small as is. This should be done to almost all minor league Challenger tournament articles. Three articles for each of these events is two articles too many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should be determined by the sources, not by a WikiProject. Doubles gets much less attention than singles does in the reliable sources, no matter what way we turn it, so treating both types of competition at par is wrong as it is at direct odds with the sources.T v x1 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has never totally been the case. With so many items we would be here a month of Sundays arguing on the edge about notability. In fact they were 10-15 years ago until project guidelines were set up. We take the items of a subject that are "usually" notable and simply say this group is notable. that is what happened with the professional ATP Challenger Tour events. There are more tournaments than on the ATP Tour, but less than what is on the professional ITF tournaments. What was never discussed was whether we should be making singles and doubles draws of these tournaments, and that answer should be no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this individual competition meats the GNG. All coverage that can be found is WP:Routine. Anything that needs to be told can be told on the main page of the tournament.T v x1 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say all coverage should be found on the seasonal article for the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fyunck(click). There is no need (or basis) for the article split. Base article is not too large. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2017 (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. Already relisted twice, the slight consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Cox

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, article created after subject asked their fans to make it. "I want a Wikipedia page" Alizaa2 (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you do any WP:BEFORE? The article seems skeletal at this point but the subject is a well-known gaming personality. I think this can easily be WP:RESCUEd, and the nom rationale says to me WP:IDLI (everyone wants a Wikipedia page, who doesn't?). Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite persuaded. He has won a Golden Joystick Award which is a strongly notable prize (although in one of the less important categories based on media coverage). But are any of these sources reliable?[15][16][17] He certainly hasn't got as much media coverage as some video game vloggers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is lacking in content, but then again that is why Wikipedia has a stub category. Perhaps in the future the article will be further expanded. While I have no doubt that this article has been added to by Cox's fans, he only referenced it's existence on 23 March 2017, two months after it was originally created. I can guarantee that the subject of the article did not request it's creation, as I <disclaimer> created the article. I believe that the nominator of this article for deletion was simply unaware of WP:BEFORE. More work is needed, but a WP:RESCUE is likely.--SamHolt6 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references and viewcounts aren't particularly notable Youtuber standards. I don't see any mainstream news coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More work IS needed, but this shouldn't be deleted right now. OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's less than perfect, but looks to me like it's sufficiently notable to keep, as established by the references. ToddLara729 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2017 (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 Batman in film#Christopher Nolan. czar 20:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Trilogy

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

Should be redirected to the superior Batman in film article. WP:CONTENTFORK that should never have been created in the first place. Following the recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman (1989–1997 film series), same situation applies here. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough independent coverage to have a standalone article on this topic, though it could use a lot of improvements. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the Batman in Film article devotes about 1100 words to this trilogy. The nominated article is 1500 words (prose), and a significant portion of that (480 words) is devoted to home media. Another 300 words is about Batman: Gotham Knight and videogame tie-ins. That means the nominated article actually has less information on the three films than Batman in Film. The Gotham Knight material should be merged into Batman in Film (currently it has a one-line mention). The home media and video game information is already present on the individual movie pages. As an aside, the "Proposed Justice League film" section at BiF should be moved to the DC Extended Universe section. The text even makes clear that it's entirely unrelated to Nolan's work. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could try and get some of the information from Batman in film to insert into here. I still feel this is a topic notable enough for its own separate article: it's been widely covered by independent sources, and even today news stories about the movies will still pop up. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - there are articles like this one, for example, but there's no doubt this is a content fork. BiF is the parent topic over the Dark Knight Trilogy, and the BiF article is about 5300 words (readable prose, 5600 if the Gotham Knight section is merged). The lower range for a WP:SIZESPLIT is 6000 words. If you want to take it upon yourself to expand the DK part of BiF so a size split is warranted, I wouldn't oppose greatly reducing the BiF portion and adding a main article template. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Argento Surfer. The subject is notable, and I'm sure there is some interesting scholarly analysis of the impact of the series that could be included but hasn't, but that also belongs to 'Batman in Film'. And while that article is getting long, it's also got some (what I consider to be) unnecessary detail that could be trimmed so it could focus on the film series as a whole. Scribolt (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman (1989–1997 film series). While there is no question the trilogy is notable the article duplicates the content at Batman in film and List of Batman films cast members, which provide comprehensive coverage of all the Batman films. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Batman in film per nom and comments. Notable but info can be better presented within context of all Batman films. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2017 (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. There is a consensus that this producer does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sess (producer)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG & WP:INDEPTH as he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable press. Furthermore the few sources which discuss him all look like bare mentions as none really discuss him in details. Also it is imperative to review the awards he won (Two in number, as per article) as this Awards were issued to him by non-notable organization in Nigeria. A strong delete !vote is what i propose as this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CAPTAIN RAJU please do help me by placing this deletion discussion into the diverse categories that best suits it. i find it quite tedious, thanks.Celestina007 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~Delete: Promotional non-notable article. Most of the content are incorrect and the reliable references in the article make no mention of the artiste. The other award he won (supported by primary sources) isn't notable at all! Darreg (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg How exactly is most of the content "incorrect"? And you should do a quick search on Google before you decide an award "isn't notable." And every reference listed is either to an interview about him or about his work. Keep MayowaGeorge (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MayowaGeorge Firstly, notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not Google hits even though that may be a pointer to it. I just spent the last few minutes doing research on this producer and I still think he isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia atm. When we talk of reliable sources we are speaking of newspaper websites and web portals with editorial board. Most of the references you included, aren't reliable, However, I found some reliable sources on him from the internet, which you should consider adding to the article if you want it to be kept. I also did some finding on Beatz award and discovered only two editions has been held and even though there are reliable references that documents the award winners, the award ceremony in itself isn't notable or even weakly notable to confer notability on its winners. The factual accuracy of this article amongst other things was what prompted me to !vote for its deletion. You need a strong source to use words like "a multiple award winning music producer" (can you really call a Nigerian artiste a multiple award winning producer if he has not won/nom best producer for The Headies or Nigeria Entertainment Awards?), "He is a versatile producer, having produced beats across numerous genres such as Hip hop, Afrobeat, R&B, Afro House and more", "Sess began to draw attention and praise in the music industry for his creative beats", " He went on to produce 5 more songs for the album, including Soft Work, which is widely regarded as Falz's most commercially successful song", "Sess became one of the country's most sought-after young producers. ", "He's been particularly praised for his unique style of beat-making", "His collaborations with Falz continued to be successful in 2017". Many of these statements are both literally and factually incorrect. If you can clarify these words with reliable sources and add the reliable sources that are not included in the article I might just give you a weak keep. For now, my findings have prompted me to change to an ordinary delete. Darreg (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not gained significant coverage to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The fact that the subject has worked with notable artists doesn't make him notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subject of article does not pass primary notability requirement such as WP:BASIC , WP:GNG talk less of WP:MUSICBIO article's subject simply has not received significant coverage due to the fact he is a paradigm of WP:NotJustYet. The creator of this article need not feel bad or as though they are oppressed, the problem is the subject of article, he simply does not yet merit a stand alone article.Celestina007 (talk) 21:5, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete: per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Waggie (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restructure Due to poor coverage of record producers by the Nigerian media, I think the subject meets at least two criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Others. Aside the promotional wordings which I think should be copy-edited, these sources quite prove notability [18], [19], [20], [21].

I just found out the the creator has WP:COI issues. He is a blogger for 360Nobs.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please what is the link between 360nobs and a music producer, Sess? Correct me if I'm wrong but 360nobs is an entertainment site, the author of this article is a music producer. Does that automatically mean there is a COI, or is there something I'm missing? So if I write for Complete Sports, does that mean COI applies to me if I want to create Enyimba F.C. article? Or if I'm a writer for Hollywood Reporter, does that mean I can't create articles for Hollywood actors. Please don't take this wrongly, this is an honest question. The tone of the article is promotional but I didn't think it was because of COI reasons. Darreg (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man you should Google the search words "Wana 360nobs" and "Mayowa George", you'll find a common link to 360Nobs. What I'm trynna point out is that as a music blogger, he might know Sess personally hence the COI suspicion. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of not going off-topic, this will be my final reply on the COI issue. I have Googled him, and I still think if he edited a 360nob wiki article, or it is established that 360nob is somehow connected to Sess or anything that concerns his career, then I will agree that a COI exist. He even writes on variety of topics, not just music. So I still maintain my earlier assertion.

I'm an advocate of Wikipedians writing on topics they are knowledgeable about. That is how we can have quality articles on WP. I know how unfortunate it can get when I engage in a content dispute with an editor with little or no knowledge in my area of specialization. Especially when such editor is a newbie or an oldie that isn't properly grounded in WP policies.Darreg (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz If he does not have significant coverage in reliable media, it simply is too soon for him to own a stand alone article on the encylopedia.

This record producer; Don Jazzy seems to be a Nigerian record producer with well furnished reliable sources in his article. I'm sorry but double standards and special treatment isn't a feature of wikipedia editing. A strong delete !vote! is still best applicable.Celestina007 (talk) 6:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete There simply aren't strong enough sources to clearly demonstrate notability and pass the criteria for inclusion at this time. Checking for conflicts with one source wasn't promising. In a nutshell, everything must pass WP:GNG and this doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete could not find coverage required to establish GNG. Sources in article fall short.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2017 (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 Remember the Name. While Jc86035's concern regarding this redirect is warranted, the limited consensus is to redirect this page there. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified/Remember the Name

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

"Remember the Name" already has its own article, and most of this article is about "Remember the Name" and not about "Petrified". The standalone article for "Petrified" was not AfDed but seems to have been redirected here for not being notable enough. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Remember the Name No indication of independent notability and no text that requires merge. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn: I suspect that a redirect like that (and a redirect from Petrified (song) to Remember the Name) would end up at RfD, since it doesn't seem like a very plausible search term. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 06:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Remember the Name appears only marginally more notable than Petrified and the former's sources are weak too, but Petrified/RtN is the title of the single linked with RtN and as long as an article exists for that song, the single's title should redirect there. czar 06:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John R Norris

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

Contested prod. I don't believe there is anything notable in his resume - minster counselor and chief of staff are not exactly notable positions As a candidate he fails WP:NPOL until he is elected Gbawden (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definetly notable, passes the GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The USDA appointment would likely be enough to make him eligible for an article if it were sourced properly — but there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and the sourcing is not where it would need to be to claim that he passed WP:GNG in lieu. Iowa Starting Line, for example, is a one-man WordPress blog, not a reliable source, and most of the rest of the sources here are primary ones that don't assist notability at all — for valid sourcing, all we have here is (a) a single unnecessarily quadruplicated citation to Radio Iowa about the initial announcement of the USDA appointment with no evidence of ongoing coverage of him in said role, and (b) routine wire service blurbs about his hiring and departure from the non-notable position of chief of staff to a cabinet secretary. And being a potential candidate in a future gubernatorial election does not boost his notability either — people get articles for holding notable political offices, not just for announcing that they might maybe run in the primary. So no prejudice against recreation if he wins the gubernatorial election next year, but nothing present here right now is enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somewhat promotional article on an entirely low-level political figure. Fails WP:NPOL. Absolutely zero in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:18, 2 June 2017 (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. czar 07:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Puaz

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

Non-notable musician. A search for reliable sources turned nothing up, just social media accounts. References used in the article are blogs and what looks to be a poorly-run tabloid with copy paste information from the blog. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 14:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am here to improve for a better article in wikipedia ,The reliable source might not as much as it is expected due to the website we have in Tanzania. it is my first work and it took me a day to learn about wikipedia articles . But the instead of deleting it i would like to have a room of improvements on this but also your support on making it a perfect one. all source of information given are reliable within Tanzania. Randyjoel (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could be moved to draft space (under WP:AFC) pending discovery of sufficient sources? DES ^(talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Kindly recheck the page again and see if it has meet the standards of wikipedia as i have added few links that indicate this is an artist.Randyjoel (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to an itunes page is not an indication of notability, and I suspect the same would apply to the Sound Cloud page, had that link worked. You need reliable sources to show that he is a notable person. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any notability as musician and photographer. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything noteworthy here, then it escapes the attention of his own (main) website. (As for his photography website, it's not responding.) His website does point to a blog; this blog (titled with somebody else's name) turns out just to have Puaz-irrelevant filler from years back. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2017 (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. czar 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Eden

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

Publicity stunts and minor awards do not meet gng and/or pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 20:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:BEFORE clearly wasn't done, Tons of sources all of which confirm notability[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]([32][33][34][35][36][37][38], May not meet PORNBIO however she certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources indeed.darthbunk pakt dunft 15:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey2010 Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2017 (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. There really isn't any merge potential, since they are already included in that list now. I take that to mean a stand alone article isn't warranted. Redirecting to the list which only gives the name doesn't make sense since there is no content at the destination and isn't supported by consensus. The two keep votes are utterly unconvincing and not based in policy, so delete is the only option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to keep per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 10. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Stagg

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

What does it take to make a character notable? This one is mentioned in some books, but those books are all auction/directory/encyclopedic books which are of dubious quality and reliability or devote nothing more than a sentence to our character. This is the best I could find, and it's nothing. We like to say that mere existence is not enough for notability, and that should certainly apply to mere fictional existence. Note also that this article has no secondary sourcing whatsoever and as such cannot pass the GNG; Drmies (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. He is a supporting character of Metamorpho and had a hand in his origin. Also, Simon Stagg did have notable media appearances. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable media appearances" means the character was in other comics too, I imagine. Well, without reliable secondary sourcing, there's no passing the GNG. There is no reason to think that somehow these characters are exempt from the usual requirements. For instance, they are not notable because the book(s) they appear in are notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), and WP:V applies as it always does. Wikia may feel differently, but that's not us. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No..."media appearances" means the character has appeared in television and video games, as discussed in the article. Did you not read the article? And how did you not find that when you searched for sources? It's the top results when you search the name in Google news. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I don't know what a "television game" is. I assume it's animated, since we're talking about pixels on a screen. Yes, I read the article; I even edited it. None of the things you try to bring up mean anything at all without secondary sourcing. As for Google, that also doesn't mean a thing. Secondary sourcing. God, I wish you manga/rassling/anime/comic/TV show fans would realize we're in an encyclopedia, where everything should be based on secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Drmies: - Is English not your first language? Television and video games. Not "Television game". I hope you edit articles more carefully than you're editing this discussion. The items I linked are secondary sources discussing the television shows, not the television shows themselves or press releases from the companies making said shows. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're going to be insulting, don't bother pinging me. You're right: English is not my first language--nice little attempt at a jab, dude. Parse "hoof and mouth disease" for me--I know, it's a thing of the past, since Louis Pasteur. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It was a serious question, not a jab. Based on your obvious misunderstanding of the article (which has a section on the television and media appearances), Rtkat3's original comment, my clarification of that comment, and the primary/secondary status of the sources I linked, I'm not sure AfD discussions are a place you should be participating. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: S. There's been some coverage of his appearance in The Flash (2014 TV series), but I think it's sufficiently covered at List of The Flash characters.

The proposed merge target is currently a bulleted list of names, but this entry could be done in a way that mirrors List of Marvel Comics characters: A and start the process of improving the DC side of things. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: S. No indication of stand-alone notability, just plot summary and list of appearances in fictional medial. This is stuff for DC wikia, not us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: S, as per the reasoning of Argento Surfer. While a redirect would suffice, I think if we flesh list articles out slightly, it prevents articles like this about non-notable minor characters from continuing to clog up editors' time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's bound to be some source out there. Does anyone have the Twomorrows book that covers Metamorpho? At any rate do NOT merge. I fail to understand how if an article is not notable by itself, putting it in a list with other non notable articles creates notability. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2017 (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 Youd. Pretty clear consensus, particularly since it has already been merged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eaude

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

These are largely unsourced and possibly contains original research. Not a notable name per WP:APONOTE as there are not at least two notable people with the name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the page creator may be planning pages for the two people listed. But the process has a way to go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - if there are only 11 people with this surname in all of England, I am going to need some secondary work on the family to show it is noteworthy, and to back up the speculation and Original Research presented. That being said, much of the same material appears on Youd, Youde and Yould all created or heavily edited by the same editor, and all of which have a very small number of Wikilinked family members - it seems to be an unneccesary content-forking multiplication over what are nothing but rare spelling variants. I think the best solution would be to have a single page that encompasses all of these, probably under the namespace of the most common, Youd. Such a merged page would still only have a handful of Wikilinked names, and we would avoid having four pages that all repeat the same OR (which would also need to be addressed). Agricolae (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it is all Original Research plus the same text is already on the other pages so nothing to merge (as per K.e.coffman, below), and we should WP:TNT or stubbify the others to purge them of OR. Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not think we can have an article on every surname. If there are several articles on people with that surname we would have a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yould, Youd, Youde and possibly Eaude, as these are unnecessary content forks apparently based on spelling variation. The article will have enough blue-linked entries to meet WP:APONOTE. Noting the existence of the similarly looking Youds, which according to these articles is unrelated. – Uanfala (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect per Uanfala. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to redirect, nothing to merge, but all should point to Youd, which seems to be the most common modern spelling. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior comments. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merged Youde, Yould and Eaude could now be deleted as I have now merged content into Youd. Will try to address sourcing etc. concerns later, no experience so far, may need some help. I was the original author.

Sindolf (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)User:Sindolf[reply]

- In general, if you ever need help, consider asking at the WP:Teahouse or using the template {{Template:Help me}} on any talk page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If content has been merged, its originating page should not be deleted so as to preserve its attribution info czar 20:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youd. Now that a merge has been performed, we need to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 10 June 2017 (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Waldron, Teacher

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

WP:BLP, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person with no genuinely strong claim of notability and not enough reliable source coverage to support it. Winning a local "teacher of the year" award does not make someone notable, and neither does being a non-winning candidate for election to a legislature — so the only potential notability claim here is that he was president of the United Nations Association, but even that is just asserted and not sourced or substanced. (Presidents of organizations, even notable ones, do not get an automatic notability freebie as a separate topic just because they existed — they get articles if and when they pass WP:GNG on the strength of reliable source coverage about their work in that role.) The only reference present here at all is a newspaper endorsement from the state senate election he didn't win, which is not enough coverage to claim GNG in the absence of actually passing of any subject-specific inclusion criterion. Everybody who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere could always show one media source to verify the fact, so election coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not assist notability unless they win the seat in the end. There's simply nowhere near enough substance or sourcing here to hang an article on. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for state house seats don't meet NPOL; no other claim to notability in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2017 (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 09:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Benghazi

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

fails WP:GNG. found nothing for its current or former name. If someone finds significant coverage in Arabic I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Lexis (0 hits), Newsbank (0 hits), Ebsco (0 hits), and the Libya Hearald. All I was able to find was this article from the Libya Herald in November 2012 about the planned demolition of the building (I read the full article through a link on a wikipedia blacklisted page, just search and you'll find it, but I couldn't include the link). The image credit also links to this article. Searched all the various names and found nothing. In the end, I guess we should know if a GNG-notable building is still standing or not. And I don't, so probably delete is best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From available scraps of info, this structure has been long-abandoned. With no credited architect found, and with no obviously special features or size or location, and with no notability asserted, this should be deleted. --Lockley (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (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 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of SAARC Countries

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

All the information is already available in Article SAARC. no need of separate article for flags of members of a particular organisation Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely unneeded. --T*U (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If there were any realistic prospect of it expanding beyond eight member states anytime soon, I'd have said redirect with possibilities. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't 't be declared completely unneeded because it has information which is currently absent in any single page. This page is about Flags, not about SAARC. Any improvement in future can be carried out by editing.Therefore, this page should be improved but it should not be deleted. Sinner (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we really need an article which lists the flags of an organization? If anything, any non-trivial information (of which I don't see any) could be added to the SAARC article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 9 June 2017 (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 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage for WP:BASIC and the website does not seem notable enough to have an article. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO under criteria 2 as a pioneer of amateur Internet pornography.[39]. Their story was featured in The Globe and Mail [40] and the article can be fleshed out further. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If carolcox.com was "started ... in 1994" and is "the oldest and longest-running amateur pornography website on the Internet", and that can be backed up by reliable sources, an article on it may be due. "Barry Klar (2003). Citizen Sex: The Girl Next Door on the Adult Internet. Trafford Publishing. p. 127. ISBN 1-55395-732-6." doesn't cover it; Trafford Publishing is a "company for self publishing using print on demand technology". The founders, i.e Carol Cox and Danny McAlear, could be redirected there if the above conditions were met. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the accomplishments / sources are not sufficient for wiki notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2017 (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 per blatant advertising. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Poliakov

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

No independent evidence of notability other than apparently thinking that he has solved the world's problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Wrestling Revolution

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 03:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete On 2017-05-25 I deleted this as an expired ProD. WP:Before had failed to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. 2017-05-29 restored on request article creator, who by a strange coincidence is the owner and operator of the subject. I restored, commenting that sourcing was inadequate. Since then, sourcing in the article is not of sufficient depth or independence to show subject meets WP:GNG. My own attempts to source the thing still did not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources unconnected to the subject. A purest might suggest the thing is a tad promotional. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never a good sign when there's almost no sources and almost everyone linked is a redlink. Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (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. Consensus indicates that the topic is notable and the nomination erroneous. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States Climate Alliance

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

WP:NOTNEWS. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Neutral - I could easily see this being notable. I'd say weak keep for now, but I could easily see this get deleted. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I don't see how this could not be described as "notable". This alliance could be very significant for future international climate policy. Strong keep for now. Noahnmf (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (PST)

Strong Keep - Significant coverage of this in reliable sources. Dont see a good reason to delete at all. Simonliyiyu (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For Now - Seems significant for now. If nothing were to ever come for it, I might change my opinion later (with the benefit of hindsight). The Jade Knight (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep' - Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duanedel (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Duanedel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - I don't see how it's not significant. Just from the founding states, the overall GDP is > Germany and the population is > UK. Copulative (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per above arguments Sherenk1 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is way, wayyyy to early to be nominating this for deletion. This literally happened today, we don't know the details of what this alliance entails nor if any other states are going to be joining this alliance but that doesn't mean we need to rush to delete this. Give this a few days and see how it pans out. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons: 1) on procedural grounds: a nomination where the nominator couldn't be bothered explaining their rationale for deletion is worthless. 2) An agreement between several US states to take actions seems likely to be of lasting notability. I'd suggest that this nomination be closed as speedy keep due to the procedural issues. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully agree. The nominator said that it's WP:NOTNEWS but this is a significant agreement with significant impacts between 3 governments that have a total population of over 65 million people and a 4 trillion GDP. Given the nominators lack of explanation as well as the near unanimous support for keep, I support the notion to quickly close this discussion. Copulative (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable and likely to expand. Alexf505 (talk)
Strong and speedy keep - As someone who has been following this event and making edits to the main withdrawal article all day, I believe notability is unquestionable. NOTNEWS is an invalid argument for deletion in this case. As the aftermath of the withdrawal continues, so will coverage of this alliance. Personally I can already expect more states to join. 70.70.5.26 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smudge (band)

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

Severe lack of independent coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC, a Google News search said much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find a slightly okay reference and added it, but still seems to be lacking. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entry in McFarlane's encyclopaedia. Multiple album releases through Half a Cow. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: How do either of those denote notability? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep: McFarlane's encyclopedia isn't a reliable source (nevermind for establishing notability). I'm not seeing the coverage needed. The only chance I'd see is the claim of being signed to Half A Cow, as they might be a notable independent label (thus meeting #5 for ensembles on WP:NMUSIC, but the Half a Cow article is almost entirely unsourced, and most of the musicians/ensembles listed on their page don't appear to necessarily jive with the claim (and have substantial sourcing issues themselves). I'd need to see a lot more reliable sources all around here. In fact, I'd say a number of these other associated articles probably need some serious scrutiny to make sure they conform with WP:BLP. Waggie (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop is definitely considered to be an independent reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entry in McFarlane, in AllMusic, two (or more) albums issued by a notable independent label, the group toured Australia, supported an international artist and hence passes WP:NBAND#1, 4, 5.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smudge, before Smudge was made into a dab page.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you read the band's Allmusic listing you'll see that the band have had a number of international releases on US and AUS labels, they have toured Europe and Australia. If you do an internet search you'll also find there are a significant number of independent references to the band on Australian and UK websites. The band's founder, Tom Morgan is notable musician. All of which clearly indicate that the band satisfies the criteria for notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an entry in McFarlane is definitely good enough as a single reliable independent source, and there is plenty of other material on this band to push them way past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Hi there Dan arndt, Lankiveil, and Shaidar cuebiyar. I am changing my vote, as I would say the article sourcing overall has been improved enough to establish notability - thank you for improving it. However, I want to point out that it is not because of the McFarlane entry or the AllMusic entry. These are not reliable sources. McFarlane is not journalistic, nor does it have the traditional fact-checking and editorial control that is expected of a reliable source (it's effectively a blog of Ian McFarlane, a nice one, to be sure though). Why do I think the AllMusic entry isn't a reliable source? Nick Corr doesn't appear to have written anything else, whatsoever for AllMusic, I find that quite odd if he's a journalist for them. I'm an IT person and I think any number of IT-related forums and blogs are a fantastic resources, but are definitely not reliable sources. Waggie (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waggie, don't judge a book by it's later online copy. Ian McFarlane is a highly respected journalist, researcher and historian with many years of writing in this field. His Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop is a book, not a blog [41]. It was published by Allen & Unwin a leading publisher with a history of over 100 years. This book was properly researched and checked, reading the book you will find a section on the process of researching the content including some details about the sources he used, such as major newspapers, music magazines and street press.

Interesting point about Corr (although not entirely correct [42]) but a source publishing an article written by a free lancer does not make it an unreliable source. duffbeerforme (talk)

Have to concur with Duffbeerforme - McFarlane is a highly respected journalist and rock historian. The Encyclopaedia is not a 'blog' site and is considered to be a reliable source and seriously question Waggie's statement that it doesn't have "the traditional fact-checking and editorial control that is expected of a reliable source". In relation to Nick Corr,, he has written other content for Allmusic, as identified by Duff (above). Allmusic is a reliable source as they have a history of fact checking and editorial control. Corr is not primarily a journalist however that shouldn't be an issue give Allmusic's level of editorial control. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your efforts improving the Smudge article. Waggie (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as per Waggie. You guys did a great job improving it, I'm proud of y'all and the rare occurance of AfD working properly. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:15, 5 June 2017 (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.