Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Attila album)

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

Album not notable. Nothing online or in the article's references to verify any notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After the AfD, an editor has added sources for an AllMusic review and placement on the Billboard chart, which the nominator would have found with a cursory WP:BEFORE search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. RF23 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting album, now sourced. Sam Sailor 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping in United States Congress offices

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

Phenomenon does not meet notability criteria for an article. BilCat (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be significant. WP:NOTNEWS, plus WP:NEVENTS. -- Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP: NOR. Vorbee (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it isn't a recent phenomenon, has been discussed and "criticized" multiple times over the years. 2011[1],2015[2][3]. Apparently it has been going on since the 80s, and even banned by a Speaker at one point. Although now our current speaker does it himself. Not sure it needs it's own article, but it could be mentioned elsewhere in a parent article. I disagree with previous votes calling it original research, or some recent news event. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it's newsworthy, it doesn't become notable.No redirect. Also WP:TROUT the original author Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't have a COI? If you are working the Niteshift, you obviously wouldn't be sleeping in an office. Natureium (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or move/redirect) - Hot button issue in Congress that is receiving significant press coverage. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Bennie Thompson, List of acts of the 115th United States Congress or some other suitable target. Perhaps it can be moved to the name of a bill that gets drafted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the bill? That defeats the whole purpose here. The SUBJECT is not notable. Merely giving it a new name doesn't help. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:NOTNEWS and could be mentioned in a sentence or 2 in another article if appropriate. This is an interesting piece of trivia, not an encyclopedic event. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, not having independent notability. Not a viable redirect term - why would someone come to an encyclopedia to research something like that? Very low page views outside of the days of initial creation all but confirm this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that it's a thing some congresspeople have done is not the same thing as it being a notable concept in its own right. If a bill actually gets put forward, then that might well be an appropriate article topic — which could then briefly address this by way of background — but that doesn't mean this needs its own standalone concept article separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, unless these people are sleeping in the same office and having congress with each other (woo hoo). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer talk 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable topic. Although I could imagine including much of the material in a page on the compensation of legislators in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @E.M.Gregory:, such as Salaries of members of the United States Congress? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking the historic salaries of the legislative branch and complaining that some members have a cot in their office isn't even apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and airplanes. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And unless it's survived a deletion discussion of sorts, it's just an invalid WP:OSE argument too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eunuch#China. Consensus about this redirect of the term, no consensus about whether we should have a (differently titled) article about the "traitor" meaning. Sandstein 20:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taijian

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

Unreferenced, appears to be a blatant WP:POV fork. The term does exist in Mandarin, perhaps more on the Internet than in real life, and has in fact been used by both Pan-Blue and Pan-Green camps to attack each other. This article deals with only the (deep) Pan-Green perspective, and seems to be more interested in pushing this perspective than discussing this term. There are already several places for explaining such perspectives such as Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwanese identity. Also notice that there is no zh.wiki counterpart for this term. At any rate, Taijian should direct to eunuch, its primary use in English. Timmyshin (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to either Taiwan#National_identity or Taiwanese_identity#Taiwanese_opinion (which one is more appropriate). Just to take note that Taijian (as the disambug in the page show) doesn't mean eunuch but Taiwan traitors. In chinese pinyin, it is (tai1) （台）and not (tai4) （太). So there is no grounds for Taijian should direct to eunuch, which will be wrong. I feel that a merge of content can just be copied and pasted to the correct site as not much attribution purpose, then the page can be redirected to the community determined correct site. So redirect. Just to address POV, the article is neutral IMO and since it is used by Pan-Blue and Pan-Green camps which are the main opposition / rulling party in Taiwan, there can be no doubt a search in Chinese newspaper to give reliable sources where GNG can be met. But it doesn't warrant an article still. --Quek157 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC) updated --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part should be merged? Timmyshin (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article is just unsourced, if with sources it will be better. However, I don't have the time to source for it, but clearly this "With the beginning of democratic elections, Taiwanese nationalists now view Taiwanese citizens who collaborated with a hostile foreign power, especially the People's Republic of China, as Taijian. At the same time Chinese nationalists view these so called Taiwanese nationalists as hanjian for collaborating with a hostile foreign power such as Japan." with source can be merged with Taiwanese_identity#Taiwanese_opinion via copy paste with citation needed, plus "After the end of Japanese rule on Taiwan, many members of the Republic of China administration arrived on Taiwan with fresh images of Japanese atrocities on mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. As a result, anti-Japanese sentiment caused many to view the native Taiwanese who had been brought up and educated under the Japanese system as politically untrustworthy traitors. At the same time, some Taiwanese viewed the Japanese Empire favorably and held anti-Chinese sentiment, thinking the Chinese backwards and corrupt. As a result, many Taiwanese discriminate Chinese and their descendants. After the February 28 Incident in 1947 in which a nativist rebellion was suppressed, Taiwanese who collaborated with Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang party were commonly considered[by whom?] as Taijian." can be linked (if cited) to Taiwan#National_identity --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found the Chinese wiki zh page on this [4] Quek157 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The zh.wiki article was deleted via AFD: zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2010/03/21#台奸. Timmyshin (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the Afd, proposer asked for transwiki to dictionary, 1 vote for transwiki, 2 opposes but without any good reasons in term of notability, 1st 毫無營養的條目，刪 = totally non-edifying, delete ; 2nd 令人反感。= cause people to be disgusted, then the voter for transwiki commented "那漢奸這條目對你們而言，難道能算得上營養嗎？請先把個人的喜好放下，那名詞是台灣新聞裡慣用的名詞，確定能有一定的關注度。在維基百科內，負面性的條目不少，只有詞意解釋的，移動到維基辭典，何錯之有" - then hanjian to both is edifying, please put down individual likes, that term is regularly used in chinese news, verifibility and notablity must be there, it should be focused at. At wikipedia, negative articles are much, but those which are just dictionary should be transwikied, but this is not the only one, have more. (END OF TRANSLATION). This ended in close. This is in 2010. I will say this Afd (no malice to the mod) is too brief, no GNG argument, just delete. If by current day standards, it will be relisted and close as keep / transwiki. I will say notability are different for each wiki, English wiki we uses WP:GNG, I feel that if I search Taiwan news, there will be more than a few significant, independent coverage of the article. I cannot agree with Afd there equal to here especially with such narrowly discussed Afds. --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eunuch#China, which is the most common usage of "taijian". -Zanhe (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: can you please read the page and above my comments before suggesting such a move. This is 台奸 not 太监. --Quek157 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant as there's no difference in English (unless you add the tone marks). The usage for eunuch trumps all else. -Zanhe (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, if merged, the original page will be merged without a redirect. Page movers should know. I don't think we need a taijian redirect to eunuch page (such a page serves no meaning). I oppose such merges. I feel that my comments have been clear enough. So I will revise to just a comment. I will feel the best way to handle this is to move those citable materials to the relevant pages (with the context of taiwan traitor - explaned above), then the page to be deleted. Since no clear opinion exists, this is the only view I can give to this Afd. To make it crystal clear, I am neither from Taiwan (ROC - for extra clear) or China, supports the One China consensus (1992) but an ethic Chinese with native English, Chinese language writing and reading skills. This will be my take on this Afd and no more --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, what is this Afd for, if merger or redirect, why to a totally different in meaning topic. If we are talking about the article to be deleted, then it must be evaluated based on notablity, suitablity and etc and all the policies are in. If we are talking about POV issues, why can't someone write it to be neutral. This topic, based on my assessment, is notable as argued above, but I think the content can be added to exsting pages, therefore, these are my proposals. If not might as well keep the article with citation needed. --Quek157 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more, I know this is a very politically sensitive topic, so I am very careful in my commenting. --Quek157 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your personal background does not really matter, only the quality of your argument does. My vote for redirect to eunuch is based on the most common usage in English sources for "taijian" according to Google books results. Merging the content (if sourced) into hanjian is fine, but that does not change the primary usage of the term "taijian". -Zanhe (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, taijian --> eunuch. But do we need such a redirect based on hanyu pingyin or not? I don't think so. I mentioned my background (and in fact my ancestors are from two different sides of the straits (the closest possible where artillery shells can reach each other) - can guess where already?) just to make sure I disclose my potential COI in this discussion as well as I am really neutral here. I agree with merging with hanjian (as Taiwan is Han anyway, based on One China Consensus)), but I don't think there is a need to merge given the little contribution history. Someone can just copy and paste. Since there is nothing to delete ultimately and even if you want taijian -->eunuch, given that you and the proposers are page movers, we can take this to the talk page and see which to merge, then why not then just copy and paste the relevant parts, then don't even redirect, just leave the page blank and marked as PROD. Why need to take this issue to Afd? Off topic :And one more thing that I hate the most is that when we are discussing the Afd, the author of the page is always not here for all the Afd I am in, and often this is due to the fact that they are newcomers and create and run (not for this case though) even if we do notify them, so I thank all the NPPs (which are you all). --Quek157 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) As Zanhe mentioned your ancestry doesn't matter, and nobody is questioning your COI or neutrality.

2) As Zanhe has shown, the primary use for "Taijian" in English is the term for Eunuch. I should probably point out that this term means "Grand Guardian" and was used in the official government bureaucracy from at least the 11th century to the 20th century. This topic thus deserves a standalone article (just like Grand Commandant, Grand Preceptor etc.) and there are several reference books like A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China that can support it. But we don't have an article yet, so redirecting to the western equivalent Eunuch makes the most sense. The point here is this usage trumps that of "Taiwanese traitor".

3) I don't think you are opposed to redirecting/merging this article. I agree that the zh.wiki AFD arguments look unconvincing, but I share their general concern that such terms are best suited for the Wiktionary. The term does exist in Taiwan, but so do 賣台賊 (Taiwanese traitor), 舔共伢 (Communist ass-kisser), 共匪 (Communist bandit), 皇民 (Subject of the Emperor), 滯台難民 (Refugee remaining in Taiwan), 台巴子 (Uncouth Taiwanese), 高級外省人 (Elegant Mainlander), and also Internet slangs such as 9.2, 覺青, 吱吱, 綠蛆, etc which I can't translate. The list could be endless. These terms simply demonstrate a political or identity divide in Taiwan as a result of Taiwan's unusual political situation, and are not each inherently encyclopedic. Another option is to create an article List of political insults in Taiwan, but sources are required. Timmyshin (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1. Thanks 2. I know that 隋朝，唐朝，明朝，宋朝 ( Sui dynasty ,Tang dynasty, Ming dynasty, Song dynasty) all have the kind of / sort of Grand Guardian . I also support a full article on 太监 is supportable as it noted. 3. I don't support such list as is just WP:LISTCRUFT. I am clearly not opposing any merger, but I am thinking of whether "Taiwan traitor" can have a topic on it's own. The subject have it's notablity that is what I wanted to say initially as your initial rationale is not what I am convinced of. The title is really sound weird to start of with. Why not we don't merge and redirect, which will cause a lot of problems as source text doesn't match the redirected text / merge. But just to move the page to "Taiwan traitor" + put it with citation needed + Afd it if needed, but do it with your page mover rights (I am not sure if both of you Zanhe / you) WITHOUT leaving a redirect. That will solve this problem ASAP. --Quek157 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC) In addition, I am real tempted to vote as WP:IAR delete without prejudice for recreation --Quek157 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Just to add, the tag is wrong is not secondary sources, it is WP:OR balantly. --Quek157 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin and Zanhe:, since this is for sometime and for non Chinese this is way too complicated, I will try to summarize the key points from this long discussion, do correct me if this is wrong:

The main use of taijian is Eunuch#China (tai "fouth" sound), an alternative can be "Taiwan Traitor" ("first" sound) sound - in hanyupinyin.
No objection for a redirect for taijian to the above main use
If properly sourced, no objection to merge to hanjian.

Therefore, my proposal will be like this:

Move this page to a separate page named "Taiwanese Traitor" and then put unsourced, let someone source it and then we then merge accordingly / let it stand
The original page a redirect to Eunuch#China will be there.

Any objections or comments, this will settle this as I don't intent to let this relist--Quek157 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mianchi County. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mianchi

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

Unreferenced, cannot find anything in English. Googling the Chinese name seems to suggest that this is the Mandarin pronunciation of the Cantonese name for Miso. Anyway, the primary topic for Mianchi is Mianchi County. Timmyshin (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

don’t delete. As-is does not make much sense as an article, but there are better outcomes than deletion. Restore the redirect to Mianchi County. Or a disambiguation page with that and Miso. Leaning towards the former, as can find no evidence miso is known as "Mianchi". The Chinese/Kanji chars may be the same but that is taken care of by the redirect 味噌.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is inadvisable, because Mianchi County is definitely the primary topic, WP:TWODABS or not. This can be verified by Googling "Mianchi" in GoogleBooks. Timmyshin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this very dry (not good for miso) text, you can see it History of Miso - Mianchi gets a couple of passing mentions as between variants.

You can also see it at Soup for the Qan - mianchi is mien shih (that's also in the first link btw. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid these passing mentions are not enough for a standalone article, and I don't see what is different between this and Miso (other than the name). Timmyshin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Definitely looks like it is the Chinese variant of Miso - which, given the number of sources, amazingly enough does not include a variant bit. In any case, they are very similar and is merely a variant (and Miso is the overriding name, it just isn't complete yet). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mianchi County - primary topic. Mianchi (as miso) is almost never used in English, not even common in Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bjornstad

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG coverage includes an extensive obituary in the American Alpine Journal as well as multiple other climbing publications. Although they oddly all use the same image, they appear written independently and demonstrate compliance with WP:ANYBIO#2. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources presented above are sufficient for a stub or a start-class article. Notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G7. Alexf^(talk) 12:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron M. Burns

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

subject does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Original author blanked the page. Acnetj (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Robert Scott

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

Simply does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, as per WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need an awful lot of sources to justify having an article on a 10-year-old, and I do not feel we have such yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Attila (metalcore band). Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack to a Party

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

I cannot seem to find reliable indepth coverage--not even an AllMusic review. There is discogs and music download sites but those certainly do not count toward GNG TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. London Hall (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A different and more notable album by the same band has also been nominated for deletion, but this early release really has no significant coverage beyond basic listings of its existence. Its release can be mentioned as a brief historical fact at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I can't source it either, but a redirect to the artist article at Attila (metalcore band) seems to me to be a fair, policy-based outcome per WP:ATD-R. What do fellow editors (TheGracefulSlick—London Hall—Doomsdayer520) think? Sam Sailor 08:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Sorry for the delay. I have been a frequent participant in album AfDs for the past few months and have noticed that this recommendation is becoming more frequent. As you said, it's a fair policy-based solution and I have no problem with it for sketchy album articles in general. But while redirects are cheap and easy, so is reversing them, and instead of just eliminating the data we leave open the chance for someone to bring it back into the light again and again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: No worries. Alternatives to deletion is an often overlooked part of our deletion policy, and redirects from albums to e.g. an artist article or a discography article are so common we even have a specific WP:RCAT for these cases: {{R from album}}.

I can't see anything in the article history that suggests we would have edit warring over a redirect. No need to cross bridges before we come to them. And should a problem arrise, a typical scenario would be an IP editor restoring the article without better sourcing, then a simple solution would be to put the redirect under WP:PCPP and eventually WP:SEMI, should the problem persist. In retaining the article's history rather than deleting it, we not only comply with deletion policy, we also comply with editing policy, and leave a little window open for someone to source the article adequately, rather than start from scratch.

Even if a case was made for deleting the current article for whatever reason, a Delete and recreate as redirect !vote would be more logical rather than just Delete: this title typically got 20–30 daily views in April, and if it did not exist and someone requested it at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with creating it as an {{R from album}}. Sam Sailor 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Well explained as always, but a question remains. This collection of policies appears to be so well established that it might as well be the outcome for most, or all, album AfDs. So why have discussions? If someone decides an album article should be deleted, when they hit "XfD" (or they start it manually), should the system just tell them to redirect to the artist's article and see if anyone reverses it later? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: We have these discussions, I think, because Twinkle makes it far too easy to hit XfD, and does not come with a reminder saying "Before nominating an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion" the same way the edit notice does. I am sure a function could be added to Twinkle that searched for e.g. {{Infobox album}}, found the value in the |artist= parameter and suggested a redirect. Should we make a joint effort to propose such a function at WT:TWINKLE or WP:VPT (or whereever the best venue is)? But until then I think we should try to raise awareness about WP:ATD by participating in the AFDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. (That is very much a reminder to myself.) ... Perhaps you would reconsider your "delete" !vote in this discussion? Best, Sam Sailor 07:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attila (metalcore band) as per WP:ATD-R. A reasonable search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamictube

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - there are multiple significant sources (some given in article) that have a small amount (4 or 5 lines, usually) on Islamictube, with a high repetition of data between them. There are also a couple of books that give a couple of lines on it. It all seems to come together to form a number of strong mentions in reliable sources. Because a large number of weak notability sources is still weak, it remains delete (especially since it is functionally the same couple of duplicated paragraphs), but it only needs a bit more to be a weak keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me, the article's promotional tone fails NPOV. I don't find a clear way with existing sourcing to write an encyclopedic article with improved neutrality without primary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolver Music Inc.

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

Non-notable company with no sources provided to back up claims. Tinton5 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non.notable label, fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You state the company has released award winning albums but you failed to provide any information regarding these awards. If they do exist please provide the name of the awards and sources to back them up. If you can't I feel the article needs to go Freetheangels (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly put award-winning and corrected since Betty Moon was actually nominated for multiple awards while on A&M/Universal records. This is now fixed, and all citations, links and relevant stats have been added to back the relevancy of the label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbobbradley123 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Betty Moon: fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. I can only find ten releases by the label, all of which are Ms Moon's own output. Of the references added by Mrbobbradley123, two fail to mention Evolver Music at all, three are simply "released on the Evolver Music label" passing mentions, and the only even vaguely noteworthy reference is the Soundgirls blog, in which Ms Moon writes her own article and uses it to plug her label, so it's a primary source. No evidence that this label has any notability beyond its founder. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like another case of a self promoting company (links at bottom use words like "official") --Sau226 (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This closure should imply no prejudice against recreating the article if the subject is elected, and I'm happy to restore the delete content in those circumstances (just drop me a line). Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John James (businessman)

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

Article was prodded, but was removed with the following quizzical explanation: "Notability in being one of the top candidates in Michigan for the Republican nomination." Fails WP:NPOL. Every source on here and every source I found in WP:BEFORE pertain to the Senate campaign, therefore expressly failing NPOL. No indication this could meet GNG on any other facet of his life than this campaign. IMO, the fact that it is only on the campaign makes it at least to some degree WP:PROMO too. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page can keep if/when he wins Senate election in Michigan. Outside his candidacy, he's not notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Move the page to the draft as it doesn't meet notability guidelines currently but would if he was elected. Acebulf (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you aren't notable for being an unelected candidate unless you otherwise pass WP:GNG, which he does not. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - obvious answer on notability as already mentioned above and in WP:POLOUTCOMES. Promo but contains some relevant facts - might as well keep it around in case he wins. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no "inherent" notability just for being a candidate in a party primary per se — and even if he wins the primary and goes into the general election as his party's official candidate, that still isn't an automatic notability freebie. He'll obviously qualify to have an article if he wins the general election in November, but as a candidate he's notable only if you can demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable for some other reason besides the candidacy itself. But this demonstrates no serious evidence of preexisting notability — even his business career is referenced not to coverage about him in the context of his business career, but to mentions of his business career by way of background in the candidacy coverage, which is not how you demonstrate that someone is notable as a businessman. (Since every candidate's routine campaign coverage is always going to mention their prior career background, every candidate would always be able to claim notability on those grounds as a dodge of their not having achieved notability as a politician yet — so making a person notable for their prior work requires preexisting coverage of that prior work in its own right, not just background mentions of it in the candidacy context.)
POLOUTCOMES also explicitly states that we do not hold onto candidate articles in draftspace pending the election results, precisely because we do not want draftspace to turn into the repository of campaign brochures that NPOL is intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming — if he wins the election in November, then an administrator can easily restore the deleted article with one click on a button, so the principle of not losing the work doesn't require draftspacing. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity - "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures " is not a fully clear statement.

It makes is crystal clear that losing candidates are deleted - but it does so in order to prevent establishment of precedent for a distinct category, it isn't actually specifically stated that candidates within elections are deleted. You may well be specifically right on the issue, but if so that aspect of POLOUTCOMES must be re-written to be clearer or it cannot be acceptably used as an argument. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the distinction you think you're drawing between what I said and what POLOUTCOMES says. It does not rule out articles about losing candidates "in order to prevent establishment of precedent for a distinct category", it rules out articles about losing candidates in order to prevent articles about losing candidates from being here at all. QED. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018. Major party candidates for the US Senate should be redirected to the wikipedia page about the election they are running for, if they are not already notable. The election page can include verifiable facts about the candidate. The proposal to draftify the page should be discouraged per Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If James wins the primary, that may propel him to notability. However even that is unclear, since with Michigan having a governor's election as well, most of the focus is on that race. People are not notable until they win an election, with very rare exceptions. Wikipedia is not the place for candidates to host their campaign brouchers, which is what it would become if we start delaying deletion until elections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, politicians have to be elected to be considered notable. Unless there is some other claim to notability, which is not the case here. Suggest moving to the draft space and restoring if he wins, deleting if he does not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. The way I looked at it was that there was sufficient notability based on coverage in non-local sources (which i could add more) and the significant endorsements he has received. However, I also get the points made above. Would it not be that he is notable until he loses?Patapsco913 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, notability cannot be lost - you either have it permanently, or you never had it. Poloutcomes (attempts) to set out that it doesn't matter how much electoral coverage someone has had (for almost all elections), notability also requires them to have won the election. POLOUTCOMES is supposed to indicate this as well for current candidates, but does a poor job at saying so. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 - I'm with Bearcat here regarding applying the lessons of WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's also WP:TOOSOON. However, since there's so much that's been done and the sourcing is decent, a simple redirect, proposed also by Enos733 above, keeps it from taking up space, yet makes it easy to bring back from the dead without having to bother any admins. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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