Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 April 26 April >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puff Puff (sexual term)

[edit]
Puff Puff (sexual term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sex term for rubbing faces on breasts that came from Dragon Ball manga. However, as far as I can tell this is not a common term, and is mostly just used within the dragon ball comic and other works by Akira Toriyama. It is not a term that has really caught on outside of that. As such, it's really more of an interesting foot-note, something that's more appropriate for a fan wiki.

As for sources, you may notice that only one is about puff puff directly the destructoid article. The other artices are ones where it's just mentions. Thus, the concept itself does not pass GNG for a stand-alone article. The reference and topic can be covered per game or per manga as needed.

As for what to do with the article, I couldn't think of anywhere to redirect it. It's not quite motorboating (and in any case, that concept itself doesn't even have a page). It seems like too much of a tangential footnote to include in breast fetishism or elsewhere. Thus I'm thinking about deletion. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is WP:GNG, which should be obvious from the opening. It has no notability outside as a footnote to the Dragon ball series. The page reads like a page on a dragon ball fan wiki. It's a WP:PERMASTUB since there's nothing else to explain. It's just a simple dictionary explanation for a term found in a few Akira Toriyama works. It's not a term that is meaningful outside of that, and it's not a term adopted by the wider society. Hell, Motorboating doesn't have a page, yet that is WAY more mainstream and noteworthy. I've never heard of anyone in the English speaking world use "puff puff", or anyone in Japan, or even anime/manga outside of Dragon ball.
Now let's look at sources:
  • Kalata, Kurt. "The History of Dragon Quest". Gamasutra.
It's a page about the game Dragon Quest, but isn't enough to establish notability for the concept.
  • "The Japanification of Children's Popular Culture: From Godzilla to Miyazaki - Mark I. West - Google Books". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
Trivial mention, doesn't establish notability.
  • "Ūron Arawaru!!" ウーロンあらわる!! [Oolong Appears!!]. Weekly Shōnen Jump (in Japanese). Shueisha (4/5). 1985-01-15.
"This is the actual Dragon Ball comic, thus it's a primary source.
  • Kauz, Andrew (2010-08-21). "The rubbing of breasts on faces in Dragon Quest IX". Destructoid. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
Okay, this is one article. That's a start.
  • "Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society - Rodney P. Carlisle - Google Books". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
Again, another trivial reference.
Conclusion: Does not pass WP:GNG. A single article is not enough for a WP page forever for the end of time. If you want to keep this page, you need to find more sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2019 (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. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PhilosophyTube

[edit]
PhilosophyTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable youtuber, despite the view count. I can't find any non-trivial coverage under his YT name or his real name. Fails notability. Praxidicae (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand your concern, but after reading Wikipedia's criteria for notability, it appears that multiple (reasonably substantial but not in-depth) sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. In addition to the in-depth interview cited in the article, it appears that there were quite a few articles that met this criteria:
  • Partially about PhilosophyTube:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2019/03/24/5-fantastic-youtubers-fighting-the-spread-of-alt-right-propaganda/
https://fstoppers.com/education/photography-art-do-you-even-know-what-art-300723
https://teneightymagazine.com/2018/10/31/seven-edutubers-you-should-be-watching/
  • Mention PhilosophyTube:
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/25/success-for-me-wouldve-been-three-grand-the-gamer-who-raised-340000-for-a-trans-charity-hbomberguy
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/22/how-a-57-hour-donkey-kong-twitch-stream-struck-a-blow-against-gamergate
http://felixonline.co.uk/articles/2019-02-08-lefty-youtubers-event-draws-large-crowds/
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/yang-gang-education
This is an addition to his IMDb page (as linked to in the article), subscriber count, and view count. I think combined these are evidence enough to justify an article.
User:EthanMagnuson (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to read up on WP:RS. iMDb isn't a reliable source, subscriber and view count aren't measures of notability. Forbes is a listicle by a contributor, not editorial staff, is questionable and more of a fluffy blurb, a listicle and the rest are mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still not enough. Not substantial. The best is the Guardian but it only mentions tangentially. Forbes is maybe okay, but it's only a start. The rest I'm not so sure are RS. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes piece is contributor content and not editorial staff (to my knowledge.) Praxidicae (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 26 April 2019 (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) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Jagrut

[edit]
Ruby Jagrut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an advertorial. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. NOT KEEP -- Alice McBanff 06:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i have concerns that, as it stands, this article does not show that Jagrut meets WP:NARTIST, although the number of sources cited may lead to WP:GNG, out of respect for one of the above keepers (hi PamD, hey coola! you're not meant to do that! well i am, so there:)) i'm staying on the fence. ps. as for upe/coi, these are heavy claims especially at a new editor, why do we regularly ignore don't be bitey? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I see no evidence that the subject meets WP:NARTIST, there is sustained (2011-2018) significant coverage in reliable independent sources (such as the Deccan Herald, Times of India, The Hindu, New Indian Express). One issue is that most of the articles include a lot of quotes from the artist (based on interviews?), so those parts of the articles would considered primary sources. However, they are not solely interviews/quotes. I have added one more source, and done a tiny bit of editing for a more encyclopaedic tone. More could be done - also, more information from the sources could be added. But that is a case for improvement, not for deletion. The article has already been substantially improved in content, tone and referencing since it was nominated for AfD, so the WP:PROMO rationale for the AfD no longer exists (and there is no evidence of WP:COI, and WP:PAID). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussions seems to be narrowing down to a pure notability consideration, with a seeming agreement that NARTIST isn't met but GNG may (or may not) be
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the Article. It's only need more citation and expansion. Deleting the Article will perish some useful data.Forest90 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Article. It needs more credible citations as her work is not even cataloged in any of the art galleries in the world. Neither there is any information about her actual contribution to the concept of natural dye in the scholarly domain. She exists in media, agreed but that doesn't make her the artist what the article claims her to be in the first place. Nowadays, any Tom, Dick, and Harry does an art show and calls up a few media people... "voila! let's get a wiki". Khasanjim 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as same reason and agree pr RebeccaGreen. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. It is being forced to meet general notability criteria (WP:GNG) by using secondary media sources, none of which address her to be an authority on the subject but more or less promoting her as a subject (agree with Khasanjim). Besides that, I have the impression that the author of this article has an undeclared conflict of interest with the subject. ArchiWiki1987 02:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP article is sourced and shows the subject meets GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 15:16, 30 April 2019 (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. Per the arguments involving the presence of third-party sources provided later. This discussion was a bit confusing because early on we had a lot of "keep, it exists and is important" with little evidence cited thereof and sources that are connected to the subject (which per WP:GNG do not establish notability), but the later arguments are well supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Records

[edit]
Eric Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant third party coverage of this label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying there is no information for this record label is not true. Eric Records is an established music release company in business since 1969. They are a smaller, specialized release company that does most of their business via direct sales on their official website (http://www.ericrecords.com/index.html), but also has their product available for sale on Amazon. They have an official Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/ericrecords/. They can be reached there or on their site.
The original base of this page came from the converted German Wiki page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records), as there was no English equivalent. I've included multiple reference websites for them at the bottom of the page, and I've made all the citations I can think of. I am only a novice Wikipedia editor so I am asking for assistance with fixing things that need to get corrected. GodzFire (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC) GodzFire (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you and I have both looked for significant third-party coverage and there simply isn't any. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've included multiple reference websites to confirm this place does exist and is what this page states it to be:
GodzFire (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GodzFire: Existence doesn't mean notable. None of those pages you've linked to indicate significant independent coverage of the topic. I have looked as much as you, and I just haven't found that those sources exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP this new Eric page. Lots of releases by this company, but never a proper English page for Wiki readers to research more about their highly praised (DES) Digital Extraction Stereo creations or high quality mono-to-Stereo new mixes. With modern powerful audio software/hardware and careful sound mastering nowadays, it can finally take off and provide listeners newer stereo experiences with yesterdays mono oldies. Every new Eric releases have received lots of praising in different music forums. It's worth to have a page introducing this new trends and possibilities that many people once thought to be impossible in the past. This new page has just been created for 3 days only, it needs time to grow, more and more fans will certainly come in and improve the contents in future(we just don't have such page/chance to gather together and start it up before). Attached two newspaper source articles today here as a support.
[1]
[2]
Chiu.0606 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it incredibly troubling and disturbing that it's come to the point where sharing and WANTING to share knowledge is now seemingly determined by an elite group of people ("experts") interpreting things for everyone else and IF they deem it 'famous' enough to exist, instead of it existing simply because it DOES exist!
Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, described the essence of the Wiki concept as the following:
1- A wiki invites all users—not just experts—to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a standard "plain-vanilla" Web browser without any extra add-ons.
2- Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
3- A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers, and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape.
If this page is removed, it would be violating 2 of those basic principles. Eric Records does exist, and there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have items it's created. Just because they might not post on Wikipedia (or know HOW to for that matter), doesn't negate the fact that they could attest to it if you asked them.
GodzFire (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GodzFire: Your hostility and expressed knowledge of all us potentially bad apples is amazing. I take offense at your lack of civility. I am going to go right now and get all my other bad apple cronies to !vote this down just to spite you. Crap!, it seems my list of cabal friends is empty. I am impressed with your many years of editing experience and multitude of contributions that allows you to make such a mistaken hypothesis --IF THE PAGE WERE TO BE REMOVED. I would suggest during your next illustrious 178 edits you might consider reading the various notability and sourcing policies and guidelines and possibly wait until you have twice my small number of edits before becoming so cynical and bitter. As it happens, I have been aware of this label for many years and am also surprised it was nominated. Don't tell anyone though as I am still looking for my cabal friends list. Double crap! I thought I was in stealth mode. Otr500 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Eric Records has existed and does exist. It has been mentioned several times in Billboard over the years -- a couple of examples:
Billboard citation from 1981
Billboard ERIC advertisement 1968
Cited in the footnotes of a Google book Frank Zappa and the And Google Book "Frank Zappa and the And" footnotes
It's the same company that has been in continuous operation for 51 years.
Eric Records has been an early utilizer of techniques (Spectral Editing/De-Mix) extracting elements from monophonic recordings to create or enhance stereo recording. Discussion here:
De-mix/DES and recently utilized by Abbey Road Studios in the UK for recent releases here: Abbey Road De-mix These aren't conceptual ideas but real, consumer products that need documentation. The EMI page will inform you about the process and technique, which after many years of hard work is finally producing marketable results.
PaulBigelow (talk) 03:01, 01 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible meatpuppetry. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the largest re-issuer of music "oldies" in the United States, at least in the 1980s and 1990s. They are still highly important for owners of juke boxes. I will look for independent sources (for instance, the audio quality of the 45s is not universally admired among record collectors....) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls allow me to add back a magazine source found today: 1975 Feb 22 vol 30 Record World - Tribute to Paul Anka section [3] (pdf page: 39, 56, 79, 83). Paul talked about how he met Bill Buster (Eric records) and ended up having his 8 reissues on Eric. Chiu.0606 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to discuss the notability all you want, and bringing independent, reliable sources which demonstrate notability is to be encouraged, but you are not allowed to !vote more than once. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in addition to all the links I posted above, we have:
Wikipedia says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Eric Records's peak and prime decades were the late 60s, 70s, and 80s. If Wikipedia was a thing back in that time, there would be no issue confirming it's significance with all sorts of newspaper and magazine publications available to be used as references. The problem is, just like so much other published content from that time, the vast majority hasn't been digitized and not online to utilize. This doesn't mean it's not an important part of history, and should be remembered. Please, see that we are trying here. GodzFire (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Does the fact that Eric Records is on Amazon and has it's products there help at all? Just do a search for "Hard To Find 45s On" or "Hard To Find Jukebox Classics" There's countless examples there. Here are just four notable ones:
GodzFire (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GodzFire (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's even more mentions of Bill Buster and Eric Records:
GodzFire (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further mentions:
In addition, the Eric Records product is sold by reputed bookselling company Barnes & Noble. Search for :Hard To Find 45s On" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Hard+to+Find+45s+on?_requestid=1994760) or "Hard To Find Jukebox Classics" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/hard+to+find+jukebox+classics?_requestid=1995161)
GodzFire (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Honestly, it seems quite preposterous to see the article on Epic Records, a legendary label, up for deletion. There are myriads of sources, some of which were cited above, about this historic house of recorded music. If we'd pile on more we will have a case of overkill. The only comment I can add to the discussion is a humble and sincere suggestion that we all follow WP:BEFORE. -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Neutral with apologies. I cannot participate any more in this AfD after mistaking the name of the label. The extreme notability of what I thought this was about made me rush to a suggestion. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Gnome: Eric, not EPIC. And FYI, I did. And I did as a HUGE fan of the label, owning many of the compilations and having met Bill Buster. I actually wanted to create the article years ago but the only sources I found were the same ones GodzFire did. As you can see, it took some deeper dedicated research by a few others to find more reliable sources, so I commend them. Now, if kept, I can clean the mess up.
Above comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's shown there's clearly a not a consensus for deletion, and there's been plenty of significant third party coverage of this label found, can we please remove the deletion prompt on the page and the deletion discussion links?
GodzFire (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments I was surprised this was nominated in the first place, and then I was more surprised it was a recent creation. Eric and Collectibles dominate the oldies reissues. As nominated, the article looks highly promotional, not supported by sources independent of the topic. Adding "sources" such as Amazon is actually the opposite of helpful, because it makes it look like we're advertising, and not providing dispassionate narrative. A reissue label such as this achieves notability differently than a "normal" label, in my opinion, in that you can't claim it has had a significant impact on musical culture by the roster of notable artists. If the artists weren't already notable, they wouldn't be reissuing the material. However, the high market share, the frequency with which one runs across their records (if you're into 45s), and the place this company has had in retaining cultural recognition for artist make this a topic that is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Although I love discographies, I'm not sure it is appropriate in this context because it looks spammy since many of these are still available for sale. It is not time to close this as a "speedy keep" as there is not overwhelming consensus that this should in fact be kept, if I were to close this discussion this instant I would close as "no consensus" myself. It is concerning when several new accounts all pop up at the same article, and it is concerning when and editor says "we are trying here". That could be concerning, but it could also indicate that several people are using a single account. It is ok if more than one editor says "hey, look, there's no Eric Records article, let's make one!" and then register, but it would be far better if they disclosed their relationship to each other. I understand that finding sources for this can be difficult, because a google search pulls up mostly hits on an education database, and various sports accomplishment. I hope that helps some of the newer editors who have participated here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to sources such as this one and this one. However, this discussion has some completely irrelevant reasoning and dozens of unhelpful sources, which has been identified by !voters on both sides. I'm well aware this participation is from two editors involved in their first or second AfD, which is even harder than usual when somewhat forced to participate early on. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To provide some background and explanation: This whole thing stemmed from the a single post I made on a stereo oldies board I frequent. I had been researching all the Eric Records releases since I had wanted to track down releases which had songs I wanted to get. Due to the sheer amount, I created a spreadsheet listing all the releases and other information categories.
Since it took me such a long time to create, and the information could be helpful to others, I created a post on the oldies board sharing it (https://bsnpubs.websitetoolbox.com/post/eric-records-complete-listing-10110999 if you have an account). The feedback was very positive with someone then stating there was no Eric Records page on Wikipedia, and it definitely deserved to have one started. Another member pointed out there was already a pre-created one on the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records). Since I had worked on a Wikipedia page in the past and somewhat familiar with the process, I went ahead and converted the German page to English, cleaned some things up, and added the listings I created to it. I never assumed there was going to be an issue since the German page already existed and that it was a simply an oversight that the English page was missing. What started as a simple helping hand to create the page (since {respectfully} the majority of users there weren't knowledgeable how to do it on Wikipedia themselves or even have an account) then turned into the craziness that we're at now.
I do not have multiple accounts; the other users are truly separate, unique people; I believe most from the same board, who came over to help when I requested assistance with locating and producing references that would satisfy the claims of the topic not having enough third party significance or notoriety (or whatever it's called). I'll be honest, this whole thing wasn't anything I planned or signed up for. I have no idea about any of these processes and guidelines and such. I'm really just a novice user. I only wanted just share the information so it would be available to others, and frustrated when it seemed like a few select people were deciding what they felt was "important enough" to be information that's allowed on here. I really just kind of want to wash my hands and be done with it all now, as this whole experience has really disillusioned me on wanting to/trying to contribute on here.
GodzFire (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Godzfire: - picking up our guideline to edit can take a bit of time (if you don't mind some cliches, take a look at our interactive tutorial. Deletion is so complicated usually it's picked up a bit of a time, rather than having to handle it at the start all at once. One good initial point - we don't judge importance, we judge a thing called notability (which, in rough terms, means how much reliable coverage it has in secondary sources). Nosebagbear (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per User:78.26. This is certainly notable even if some of us confuse it with Epic records. I did a Google search as a refresher and it automatically redirected me to Epic so I was confounded for a moment. Actually I am !voting keep to spite all those phantom cabal friends I surely must have, that I could not find, because I am quick to disagree when warranted. @GodzFire: I would suggest that if you have high blood pressure you might want to keep an eye on it. If you decide to hang around you might want to consider not dealing with anything where you take things personally. Passion is a good thing so maybe you can channel into that. If you are naturally hot-headed, explosive, or take offense at anyone that disagrees with you these might be warning signs to just chill because that could create future issues. You have gotten "worked up" over a more than likely non-issue. There is an old saying "You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar". Even in disagreement it is better to remain civil and in the future be careful mixing outside (off-Wikipedia) things with Wikipedia stuff. I have seen these types of "postings" bring several single purpose accounts into AFD's that just does not actually help. Technically that could be considered an actual cabal issue when the "we's" from "somewhere else" group together. Aside from my advice, that you can toss in the trash if you desire, I am glad you created the article and happy from your point of view that I must now be excluded from any possible Wikipedia cabal list since we are in agreement. I was afraid you would blow my cover. There is another old saying "It ain't over until the lady wearing the big dress sings (or something like that). At any rate, good luck and hopefully happy(er) future editing. Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thesuburban.com/arts_and_entertainment/joel-goldenberg-the-sound-breakthrough-has-finally-happened/article_7bbca08e-7052-5b59-9eb6-9cb57f7e643a.html
  2. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/two-new-cds-reignite-stereo-vs-mono-debate_b_58ac61cde4b0417c4066c2ee
  3. ^ http://www.qrzcq.com/mirrors/www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Record-World/70s/75/RW-1975-02-22.pdf
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) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Duckmark

[edit]
Annika Duckmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT). No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV does not trump guidelines and WP:GNG and WP:ENENT is met. Your drive-by !votes must have substance. Seems like you did not care to read neither the article nor the references. Guidelines are used to guide us to what is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the references are enough to establish notability. Your attempts to create walled gardens to protect your pet projects from broad editorial inquiry is what has led to Wikipedia having an overabundance of articles on people who are not at all notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 25 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Valley Country Club

[edit]
Brook Valley Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable country club PR-piece with nothing more than WP:MILL coverage and hyper local mentions. Being on land once owned by someone famous isn't in itself notable, as I'm pretty sure everything in existence would be if we used that as a measure. Praxidicae (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 25 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Paranormal Expeditions (DPX)

[edit]
Detroit Paranormal Expeditions (DPX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, coverage is trivial and confined to local news outlets and unreliable tabloids like the Daily Mail. The article was previously rejected at AFC with a recommendation of merging to Eloise Psychiatric Hospital, only for the initial editor to ignore the suggestion and move the article to mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 25 April 2019 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tosi | he/him | t/c 19:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Kawamoto

[edit]
Shunsuke Kawamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not edited since Sept. 2018, not even an award winner in the Olympics in which he competed. Single source in the article is simply a results list. Article also fails WP:GNG, as it does not have any reliable sources about him, and I could not personally find any. Tosi | he/him | t/c 18:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm new to this; didn't know WP:NOLY existed until I filed this. Learn something new every day. Tosi | he/him | t/c 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Based on the above, and your comments on my talkpage, you can withdraw this nomination if you wish. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cold World (GZA song)

[edit]
Cold World (GZA song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested on basis of alternative of redirection. Original rationale was Does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS. I don't think Cold World (GZA song) is a plausible search term. Perhaps Cold World, but that's a disambiguation page. Therefore no redirect to the artist is needed. SITH (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 25 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution (2007 film)

[edit]
Absolution (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable stub, with a notice to add more information from a corresponding German article, which itself no longer exists. ZarosFlok (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 25 April 2019 (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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smartwings destinations

[edit]
List of Smartwings destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list looks like WP:PROMO. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 25 April 2019 (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 as withdrawn. No deletion opinions were expressed by anyone else. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kornigou

[edit]
Advanced search for: 
"kornik"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr


Kornigou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a supposed type of traditional Celtic cake that, quite frankly, I'm having trouble finding anything to prove actually exists. Regular web searches came up with nothing but a few message boards where people say they heard of the word but could not find any details on it. With a more extensive search, I found a couple of books on cakes that mention it, such as here and here. However, I noticed that all of these books were published after the creation of this Wikipedia article, and contain, almost word for word, the exact same information present here. This makes me suspect that the information for these books was cribbed directly from Wikipedia. I admit that this is a particularly obscure topic, which makes finding sources difficult, but even if this is a real thing, I can't see this having enough reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - I think enough has been brought forth to show there's something here, and as no one supports deletion, I see no reason to have this AFD extended further. As I commented below, we may still need to do some rewrites to avoid potential copyvio, but there's no longer a clear case for deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there’s this from 1997 and this from 1982, this from 1988, and this from 1989 so if it’s a hoax, it’s an old one. Mccapra (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Great finds there. It seems that the articles you linked to from "Viltis" and the one from "Bro Nevez" are actually the exact same article, that was just printed in two different publications, and is actually the origin of this Wikipedia article - the text about the Kornigou here was copied and pasted directly from that. So, at the very least, the article needs to be rewritten to avoid any WP:COPYVIO issues. That first source, from Imbas, seems to be from a defunct neo-pagan group, and I am not convinced it should be considered a reliable source, but the article from Viltis/Bro Nevez, and the French books all appear to be legitimate information. I will leave this discussion up for the time being to give other editors time to weigh in if these short mentions of the Kornigou in these sources is enough to pass the WP:GNG, and if it looks like there is no strong proponents for deletion, I will withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, whether these sources are reliable or not and whether they’d provide sufficient basis for an article is an open question. For that reason I’m not !voting for now. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singular in Breton is kornik (it means a small pastry horn) and you will find that older French sources (from the 19th century) tell one that they are triangular brioche made from wheat flour, nothing to do with antlers or Celtic gods. However, those sources are somewhat offhand and unreliable. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Le Gonidec, Jean-François-Marie-Maurice-Agatha (1847). "Cornet". Dictionnaire Français-Breton de Le Gonidec, enrichi d'additions et d'un essai sur l'histoire de la langue bretonne. Vol. 1. Saint Brieuc: L. Prud'Homme. p. 166.
  • Comment I added the refs in, the first into the article as I could read it. The others I added in for additional reading, hoping someone will come along who can read them. I used the harv-formatted citation posted here for the third, which means I've got a broken harv-ref message, I'll try to figure out how to fix that but if someone here knows how off the top of your head, it would be appreciated. NM, found it on google books --valereee (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now we know it’s not a hoax and sources have been found. Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I am not sure how the deletion happened, this is clearly a keep. Tone 07:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rods

[edit]
The Rods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources (thereby not verafiable), fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG due to no claim of notability in article. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If nothing was found during a WP:BEFORE search, that was either a very quick search or it was complicated by the band's bland name. A search in conjunction with the name of frontman David Feinstein leads to better results. In any case, the article certainly needs help but per WP:NEXIST it can be improved rather than deleted. This is one of those bands that is well-known to insiders but never hit it big with the public, but their influence is verifiable. They have a robust biography at AllMusic [1] (though there is an Iron Maiden illustration for some reason), and here are some additional articles: [2], [3], [4], [5]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are also reviews of the reformed band's most recent album: [6], [7], [8]. Given the big-name acts they opened for in the past, and the lead singer's family connection with one of the most famous hard rock singers ever, it seems inconceivable that the rock magazines didn't give them some coverage in print back in the 1980s. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique De Kock

[edit]
Véronique De Kock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, simply because each individual needs to be assessed on their own merits. A number of the winners have gone on to make other achievements i.e. politicians, media personalities etc, which is why they are considered notable and not up for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources add up to passing GNG. We judge articles based on how notable the subject is, we do not presume notability because other articles on like winners of a non-notable award exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - competed in an international pageant, and went on to other career achievements e.g. presenter of nationally televised event. MurielMary (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While recent pageants and their winners get much less attention in Belgium, she is from a time when these things got lots of attention, and she carved a long career in popular magazines and TV shows out of it. She is the kind of person where every minor event of her life graces "popular" (tabloid-like) newspapers, resulting in more than 4,000 Google News results, often focused on her[9], and this continues until now, e.g. when she postpones her marriage[10] or opens her new clothing store[11], or she gives personal interviews when she is the central guest in a one-hour episode of a reality / human interest show[12]. In Belgium, especially Flanders, she is a household name, with few notable true achievements, but with lots of attention from reliable sources. And the latter is the only (or certainly the main) rule for inclusion here at enwiki. Fram (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 15:56, 25 April 2019 (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 Pete Buttigieg. We can always look at this again in the future if things change. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chasten Buttigieg

[edit]
Chasten Buttigieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Only being covered because of his husband, no significant coverage only fluff pieces. When it boils down to it, he is a mid-level educator married to the mayor of a relatively small city. Yes he has been mentioned a lot, but there is nothing substantive behind it, we don't have articles on celebrities' children or parents despite how much they may be in the news. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete Buttigieg. At the moment, he is not notable. If, however, Pete's presidential campaign gains traction and more media scrutiny will be focused on his spouse, Chasten would become notable and the article could be easily restored at that time. Banana Republic (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete. Notability is not inherited, so people do not clear the notability bar just because of who they happen to be married to — and that's true even if the marriage happens to generate a bit of human interest coverage because the person he's married to currently happens to be a candidate for political office, because it still isn't about Chasten doing anything noteworthy in his own right. Obviously if my dream of seeing a gay US president in my lifetime comes true next year, Chasten will qualify for an article at that time as the new First Gentleman, and if he accomplishes something else in the meantime that would get him over an SNG, such as publishing a best-selling book about his life as the husband of a presidential candidate and thus clearing WP:AUTHOR, then that will also change the equation. But GNG is not just a matter counting up the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to exceed two — we also take into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and this is not a context that clears the bar. And even with a couple of media hits in the mix, this as written is still parked about 70 per cent on primary sources, like YouTube videos and press releases and the self-published websites of his own employers, that do not count as support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete Buttigieg. Notability is not inherited. There is no office called "First Gentleman of South Bend." --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete Buttigieg, not independently notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is tremendous public interest in Chasten right now. Since the article on Wikipedia on him was created two weeks ago, it has been accessed over 100,000 times.[18] Over 300,000 people have followed him in the last few months on twitter to hear what he has to say [19]. With articles such as "Chasten Buttigieg emerges as Mayor Pete's secret weapon" regularly appearing in publications such as The Hill[20], there is a far greater interest in learning about Chasten than most political spouses. He also has started to speak at events as a surrogate, speaking recently at a Human Rights Campaign Gala and NYU. I could see a case to be made for deleting the article on him in the future if Pete Buttigieg is no longer a presidential candidate and the interest in Chasten wanes, but while there is such an interest the open knowledge effort would be better for including an article about him. Mackmo (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This just seems TOOSOON. Maybe he will have independed coverage one day, but as of now it's all just stuff related to his husband.★Trekker (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is huge amount information and publications about this person as obvious even from a simple Google search [21]. If anyone is notable, this is him. Not sure why anyone can vote "delete". There is something wrong about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added some more citations to the article using major publications in hopes that is helpful in demonstrating notability. Upon further reflection, I think one of the things about Chasten that makes him especially notable is that he's not just a politician's spouse - in addition to campaigning for his husband, he's also campaigning to be the first "First Gentleman" of the United States himself.[22]Mackmo (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO as shown in sources above and in the article. This should never have been brought to AfD. It might be a candidate for redirection, but definitely not deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see WP:SUSTAINED - prior to the presidential bid by his spouse, this BLP would have remained unknown and would not have passed GNG, and again...notability is not inherited. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Atsme Talk 📧 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No one has suggested that notability has or should be been inherited, so that argument is a straw man. WP:GNG applies, since sufficient source articles exist that focus specifically on the subject. This article is important because is documents a historical first.- MrX 🖋 00:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing historical about Chasten Buttigieg at this point in time to warrant a stand alone article. If Pete Buttigieg wins the Democratic nomination, then maybe it would be a historical first. Until then, this BLP is a delete or redirect - notability is not inherited and he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:N on his own merits without mention of Pete_Buttigieg. I suggest updating Pete_Buttigieg#Personal_life because it doesn't appear that Chasten was notable enough to have much of anything about him in that article, either. Atsme Talk 📧 01:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"At a time when campaigns are treading cautiously, and spouses are navigating a new set of gender minefields, Buttigieg seems relaxed, unscripted, free to be himself. And that freedom has turned this historic figure, the first same-sex husband of a major-party presidential candidate, into something surprising: the most traditional political spouse in the field."
— [33]

" Alongside husband Chasten, the most public-facing political spouse in the field, Buttigieg is courting those supporters in a way no other Democratic candidate can."
— [34]

"Chasten recently spoke about his newfound notoriety at an event hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and the significance of his husband’s historic candidacy."
— [35]

"That social media candor, unique among political spouses in the 2020 field, has made Chasten a Twitter darling. The campaign is receiving so many requests for interviews with him that it hasn’t sorted out how to handle them."
— [36]

"Meanwhile, Chasten Buttigieg has developed a following of his own on Twitter and the campaign trail."
— [37]

"In a highly-publicized speech, the two-term mayor called for a new era in politics and appeared on stage in a warm embrace with his husband as thousands cheered on. It was an image never before seen in American political history."
— [38]

"Buttigieg then joked about the historic nature of his position, drawing cheers: “I could be the first man in history to pick out the White House china.”"
— [39]

"His husband, Chasten, has already developed his own cult following on Twitter for his adoring tweets about Buttigieg."
— [40]

"But his biggest competition for rising star might be his husband and potential First Gentleman of the United States: Chasten Buttigieg."
— [41]

  • From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  • From WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valid reasons for deletion as a standalone are included in the following PAGs: WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG. All mention of Chasten in the newsy articles relies entirely on his being the husband of a gay candidate, and we simply don't use that to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. We don't even use candidate coverage unless the person is notable in some other way. What has Chasten accomplished on his own that we can consider a notable achievement? Nothing that I could find. He is already included in the article of his spouse and that's where it belongs until he becomes notable on his own merits, regardless of how many news articles mention him in relation to being the spouse of a candidate. Atsme Talk 📧 13:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:GASLIGHTING arguments for deleting an article about a demonstrably notable subject lack validity. The numerous sources speak for themselves. When responding to a comment that has three indents, the convention is to use four indents, not :{{od}}.- MrX 🖋 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX - stop the aspersions now. I'll not let you do this to me again. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers but based on my experience as a NPP/AfC reviewer, I'm going strictly by our PAGs. This discussion is logged in my diffs. Atsme Talk 📧 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're not aspersions; they are valid rebuttals to your arguments. You wrote"There is nothing historical about Chasten Buttigieg at this point" which shows that you apparently haven't read the sources, several of which I cited above that obliterate your argument. You also wrote "he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG" (which seems like WP:GASLIGHTING, although it could be a misunderstanding of WP:GNG I suppose). It's an astounding assertion given that the subject is covered in considerable biographical depth in the more than a dozen sources that Coffeeandcrumbs and I cited. I also count at least 15 news sources that have specifically written about Chasten, as well as sustained news coverage as recently as two days ago.[42] Finally, you listed five PAG shortcuts without any explanation of how they apply, which is why I cited WP:VAGUEWAVE. - MrX 🖋 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My response to your following comment: Finally, you listed five PAG shortcuts without any explanation of how they apply, which is why I cited WP:VAGUEWAVE. MrX, I thought you were well-versed in our PAGs and didn't need an explanation, but I don't mind clarifying.

WP:POL: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. The latter has not been met.
WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. See GNG and NOTNEWS as it applies here.
WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See NOTNEWS
WP:NOTNEWS states: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Enduring notability - not yet met with this person. If his spouse is elected president, that's when he will meet the requirements but WP is not a CRYSTALBALL.
WP:BIOFAMILY is quite clear. His perceived "fame" rests entirely on his relationship with his spouse. Again, news coverage does not automatically qualify the spouse of a political figure for a stand alone article. I am also concerned over what appears to be excessive attention/publicity about his being gay because it comes across as the kind of sensationalism we see in tabloid journalism. It is identity politics, not encyclopedic notability.

As creator of this article, you will naturally disagree with the "deletes and redirects", but they are solidly based in WP:PAGs. People who are members of the LGBT community are not automatically notable, and neither is being the spouse of a candidate for public office. Atsme Talk 📧 10:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I created the redirect, not the article. - MrX 🖋 01:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete per Bearcat's strong argument.--MONGO (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to husband's article per... every relevant policy we have. His only notability – the only reason he is the subject of any media coverage – is from his relationship to someone notable. As such, any noteworthy information about him can be covered in that person's article. (Devin Nunes' cow also has a popular Twitter account, but that doesn't make it notable enough for a WP article.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's no evidence of individual notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pete Buttigieg since, despite the numerous sources cited in this disicussion, subject lacks independent notability. To provide some perspective, we have an article on Jane O'Meara Sanders, the wife of another presidential candidate, but she is verifiably and independently already notable as "provost and interim president of Goddard College and president of Burlington College." She'd have her own article, per WP:GNG, even if she had never met Bernie Sanders in her life.
Every single item cited in the article and this discussion relates to the Pete Buttigieg's presidential bid. There is no source that focuses on the subjet alone and ignores his hudband's campaign.
Forensics on sources:
  • The text in the Indy Star is tellingly titled "What we know about Mayor Pete's husband".
  • The April 17 article as well as the March 17 one in Marie Claire are about Chasten's "first ever interview and the qeustions mostly concern his husband ("[here's] a cameo from Mayor Pete himself talking about how much he loves Chasten", "some oh-so-adorable details on his first date with Pete", etc) and a detailed story about the couple.
  • The Guardian report is mostly about how the relationship affects the campaign and about the campaign's progress (e.g."Pete’s rapid rise from small-city mayor to a serious contender to be the next president probably seems a rapid change for the couple"); the other Guardian article reflects on how Chasten "boosted his husband’s campaign" and about "life on the [campaign] trail".
  • The Slate piece is exclusively about how they met and their relationship.
  • Business Insider relates info about the couple ("The Buttigiegs are in part campaigning on their identity as gay men") and Chasten's notable traits ("dog lover", "junior high school teacher", "comedian") which carry no Wikinotability whatsoever on their own.
  • The Daily Beast reports the effect of a gay couple in a presidential race, as well as on society, which is quite a positive contribution by the couple.
  • The Hill characterizes Chasten as "Pete's secret weapon" and offers a text about Chasten's contribution to the campaign, e.g. "having Chasten Buttigieg play such a big role brings youth and authenticity to his husband's campaign, providing an advantage in a Democratic party where some are hungering for a fresh alternative".
  • The CBS piece contains an interview with the couple ("CBS This Morning co-host John Dickerson spoke with Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten").
And so on and so forth. There is no independent notability. Pete is Wikinotable, Chasten is not. Notability in Wikipedia is not contagious. When Pete wins the presidential election, we might have a case. As things currently stand, we do not. We only have personal preferences. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and some others probably do not understand what "independent coverage" means. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, My very best wishes. You misunderstood my message. I was not referring to sources being independent but to the subject itself possessing independent notability. In my very humble assessment of the sources I examined (and presented in some detail above), whatever notability Chasten possesses is tied hands and feet to his husband's presidential campaign. However, I will take your advice and revisit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that are relevant to notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A person can be described in a large number of independent RS (and therefore satisfy WP:GNG) for a number of reasons. That could be because of his work achievments, crimes, books, wives, husbands, parents, children, whatever. That does not really matter. Obviously, these books/children/wives/whatever will also appear in the same publications. It does not mean such sources do not count. It is only important that the subject/person was discussed in some detail, not just briefly mentioned in these sources. One common exception is WP:One event, but he is not notable only for one specific incident. My very best wishes (talk)
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. Tone 19:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cohen (author)

[edit]
Aaron Cohen (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page had a lot of traffic and fighting over it by fans of the author until it was slashed down to the bare minimum. That leaves us with a LA Weekly article and a online author website. No one has shown that this author is no more notable than any other author. So he specializes in human trafficking ... and? We need to prove he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, provide the citations to back this up or it needs to go. Sgerbic (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Delete . There doesn't seem to be reliable 3rd party info on this person. A lot of what is claimed about him is unsubstantiated. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant 3rd party coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some basic searches find this part-profile/part-interview originally published in The Observer in 2009: [43], and a short bit in the Orange County Register about an award he received ("Human rights activist honored" by Scott Martindale, Feb 3 2008, front page). He's also one of the main subjects of the academic paper "Slave Hunters, Brothel Busters, and Feminist Interventions: Investigative Journalists as Anti-Sex-Trafficking Humanitarians" by Roxana Galusca, published in Feminist Formations 24:2 (Summer 2012), pp. 1-24. Bakazaka (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are at least three different authors with the same name, so need to double-check each source to be sure it is the right person. See here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use keywords, such as book titles, along with name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found the same sources Bakazaka found. It is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, despite the hot topic of the second book. The article in Feminist Formations is a solid source and supports notability; it is critical of Cohen. The award he won was given by a local humanitarian group, in Long Beach, California, near his home. I cannot find that either of his books was reviewed. This is puzzling for a 2009 book about the adventures of a self-proclaimed human rights activist who says he freed sex slaves from brothels in sundry countries with great daring-do. The answer may lie in a book interview /feature story about Cohen in The Observer by investigative reporter Carole Cadwalladr (Observer Woman Magazine: THE SLAVE HUNTER: 'Most women have a hard time accepting that I spend my life in brothels looking for underage sex slaves': Aaron Cohen travels the world, rescuing girls sold into prostitution. He tells Carole Cadwalladr why he does it - and how a suburban kid turned heroin addict became a human rights campaigner Cadwalladr, Carole. The Observer; London (UK) [London (UK)]22 Nov 2009: 40.) She writes: "There are moments reading the book when I wonder if he's not a bit of a fantasist: the facts of his life seem so incredible. The rock-band antics, the years of Kabbalah study, the infiltration of criminal gangs and consorting with drug smugglers and human traffickers. He's larger than life, and when I meet him this turns out to be literally true: he's 6ft 5in, 44 and has the most unnerving gaze of almost anyone I've ever met. I keep going to the loo just to be able to stare at a blank wall and have five minutes' respite. There's an almost messianic passion that Cohen brings to bear on the subject of human trafficking: it is his life's work and, he believes, part of a divine plan." i.e., he's a tad strange and Cadwalladr and the author of the article in Feminist Formations both feel that there is something a little over-the-top about his stories. This may explain why we have only 3 sources. Why the book drew so little attention despite the topic. And why he has not been in the news in the decade since Slave Hunter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn E.M.Gregory, that summary gave me chills when reading it. It is interesting that there is so little on this person who says he led such a life. Sgerbic (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2019 (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. Tone 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Falangist Party

[edit]
American Falangist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct party with no elected officers and no electoral success. Does not appear to have any significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first source is not about the American Falangist Party, but is talking about the unaffiliated Christian Falangist Party of America. The one relevant sentence states "The party is also not affiliated with the American Falangist Party in California".
  • Your second source is from a self-published book (through Lulu.com).
  • Your third source appears to be primary documents from an author that may not be independent from the subject of the article.
  • Your fourth source is the same link as the third, so the same concern applies.
  • Your fifth source doesn't discuss the American Falangist Party at all, only mentioning their website in a reference the author consulted. The book is also self-published.
  • I am unable to tell if your sixth source mentioned the American Falangist Party at all, and if it did, it was only once.
MarkZusab (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the inadequate sources found by User:AlessandroTiandelli333, I see this parted listed in a list of parties that have never fielded or endorsed a candidate [50], and discussed [51] in the context of its use of the Roman salute in books published by university presses. A piddling 3 hits in a Proquest news search, the best of which is a mention by a columnist: Democracy shines in a nation that loves a good party, or many, Newton, Ken. St. Joseph News - Press; St. Joseph, Mo. [St. Joseph, Mo]13 Oct 2002: n/a.] "Some parties you expect to have as part of the American political picture, with names like the American Liberal Party, the American Nazi Party, the American Reform Party and the American Falangist Party, the latter giving itself to fascist dogma and the hatred of Muslims and gays." this last is as close as I can find to anything resembline SIGCOV. It's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph H. Vicari

[edit]
Joseph H. Vicari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local News coverage, not something that establishes notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Politicians at the county level of office are not automatically deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2 just because some local news coverage happens to exist — news coverage always exists for all county or municipal councillors in their local media, so there would never be any such thing as a non-notable local politician anymore. To be considered notable at this level of office, rather, he would need to show nationalizing coverage indicating that his notability extended beyond just his own county, and/or have preexisting notability for other reasons (such as having served in the state or federal legislatures, or being notable in another field.) But nothing here passes that test — and as far as I can tell, the article seems to exist more as an attack piece over his pay package and a civil lawsuit, rather than to actually demonstrate his notability as a politician. Using a Wikipedia article to attack a county councillor on his personal ethics is a WP:PERP violation, because he was never declared guilty of a crime, so that is not valid grounds on which to deem him significantly more notable than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neesa Hart

[edit]
Neesa Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources covering this writer. Tacyarg (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks to be promotional, and fails WP:GNG (no notability claim with a reliable source). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kirbanzo; no actual articles or reliable sources covering this article. Tosi | t/c 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neesa Hart published romances under the pseudonym Mandalyn Kaye (as I discovered from announcements of book signings). I have searched under both names, and found very little. The only reviews I have found are two in Publishers Weekly [52], [53] (actually of romance novels!), plus 2 short sentences in a review of a book she co-authored with 3 others, which says her contribution was the weakest. [54] I found some articles about the publisher of the Left Behind books mentioning that she was writing the political series [55], but the only review I have found is in a Muncie, Indiana newspaper, written by a customer of the bookstore there. [56] Apart from that, there are articles about forthcoming events run by Hart and her partner Lanier, such as a summer music camp [57], and about Lanier's conviction for child sexual abuse and listing in a sex offenders registry. [58] Hart certainly doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR as there aren't "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (let alone whether she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"). She does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC either, as the only sources about her are those reviews and mentions in articles about her partner's conviction. If she had been notable, the article would have to be edited to remove the inline external link to her partner and the external links to the entities they own, as their inclusion appears to be simply promotional, and inappropriate given his conviction. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mindless promotion with absolutely no evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this shouldn't have even been created. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although she does turn up in searches: "Author Neesa Hart started a political series ("End of State") based on "Left Behind;" (Authors not left behind ; Jenkins, LaHaye end popular series PAUL ASAY THE GAZETTE. The Gazette; Colorado Springs, Colo. [Colorado Springs, Colo]20 Mar 2004: LIFE 4. ,) " there is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Wearing Smith

[edit]
James Wearing Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable actor. See previous deletion discussion - WP:Articles for deletion/James With. While the article is very long, it contains large amounts of irrelevant information and lots of references that do not mention him or where he plays a bit part. An apparent autobiography, there is nothing to establish meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. noq (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • /* James Wearing Smith */ Keep - Notable with verified film credits for multiple films as a producer and actor in notable films. There are many pages of living people on Wikipedia with less content than this. It is strange that this is being targeted by a nondescript person who appears to troll, looking at the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withepedia (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this statement "While the article is very long, it contains large amounts of irrelevant information and lots of references that do not mention him or where he plays a bit part. An apparent autobiography, there is nothing to establish meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. noq (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)" there is actually a lot of information about James Wearing Smith on the Internet, a little research shows that most of the information on the page is verifiable online. It is clearly about the person and whilst some information might have been sourced through direct meetings and discussions, the page doesn't appear to be autobiographical. Withepedia (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Withepedia: Are you claiming that you are not James With/Wearing-Smith. Your user name does seem to imply it. If not, have you read WP:PAID? Your contributions to wikipedia are almost entirely promoting Wearing-Smith over many years. noq (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Noq and Noq: No and there's no paid work to promote at all. All contributions to Wikipedia are unpaid and not to be construed as being for promotional reasons in any form. The account may be a few years old and initial entries were made long ago about the same person, and despite not using this interface for a very long time. The user name is no connection to be confused with the material that is addressed by this user and therefore please respect the work being done. No one likes trolling, or their work manipulated, and I am sure you would appreciate that point of view too in relation to your own efforts.
Worth noting that Wearing-Smith is using twitter to try to get people to Keep !VOTE here. [59] noq (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe and Aoziwe: found some further links to material, which appears to support a Keep vote, based on this, perhaps you would consider changing your vote for the listing?Withepedia (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you have got rid of all the unreliable references, and got rid of all the spammy links, and found independent reliable references for any remaining material, I will be able to reconsider. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe and Aoziwe: I did some more research and found some more information online, added these as reference links. Whatever you think is spammy, please remove or let me know? Thank you. Withepedia (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which additional links do you think show he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and why? noq (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you give a reason according to Wikipedia guidelines for keeping the article, it is likely that your comment will not be taken into account. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable time in the last couple of days has been spent searching for more credible reference sources in answer to some of the statements made on this discussion page; there are new references, published documents referencing musical composition of Wearing Smith, as well as other credible references to newspapers publishing interviews of the actor, etc. These references have been added to the page. Grammar, syntax and other clean ups have also been done. These new additions when taken into consideration should be sufficient for meeting WP:NACTOR and/or WP:GNG. Withepedia (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.66.61 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — 171.99.66.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Simply no independent reliable sources other the reports about his court case. Take out the iMDb refspam, the blogs, and the primary sources where Mr. With discusses Sylvester Stallone, his TEDex talks and his car, and there is nothing of substantial value. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched, I couldn't source him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of the Australia & New Zealand Newsstream database (all Australasian newspapers), via Pro Quest, which is a much broader and deeper search tool than Google, found zero results, which was a first for me. That, coupled with the clearly suspicious circumstances of the page's creator's user name ie WP:COI; the arguments he presents above, including that there is a social media campaign to keep this page; the highly suspicious 'keep' votes that provide no reasons made by IP address accounts; and the denial that he is not the subject in the face of the overwhelming evidence is persuasive. The page does not appear justified.Cabrils (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (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. Tone 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vavuniya Saivapragasa Primary School

[edit]
Vavuniya Saivapragasa Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this primary school, no obvious target to redirect it to. Fram (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:08, 25 April 2019 (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 / speedy keep. No policy based reasons for deletion and consensus that the film passes WP:NFILM (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stowaway on Board

[edit]
Stowaway on Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing about the cast is in this page. This page is too short to be called an article. The page has only one references which doesn't verify the director's, producers etc. names. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 09:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 25 April 2019 (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) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Tickets

[edit]
Atom Tickets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article currently relies on three references to the company's website, and three articles that are basically interviews with the CEO or with investors - these aren't independent, so don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I've looked for better sources, and I'm finding lots of similar stuff - articles based around interviews with directors of the company or with investors, and I'm seeing trivial coverage in business directories and listicles, but I haven't found anything with significant, independent coverage that would satisfy the requirements of CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit (blether) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look to me like rehashed press releases, mostly with a few choice words from the Ceo or an investor. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage called for at WP:NCORP, or any independent reviews of the app. GirthSummit (blether) 11:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Unenthusiatic keep. There's a certain type of technology news article that basically consists of close paraphrasing a press release, plus throwing in a few enthusiasms. Most of the above seem to fit that bill. That's not great coverage. However, if enough reliable sources feel the need to run these things, I think it is an indication of sufficient notability, and gets the subject into WP:NCORP territory in the aggregate. (But I don't have to like it :/) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, so I'm getting the feeling that I'm out of step with the community here. At risk of being accused of bludgeoning the process, I'll just draw attention to a couple of points made in WP:CORPDEPTH. The section on 'Dependent coverage', which lists coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability', starts with: press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials and any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism). It also notes that quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. I'd argue that what we are seeing with the coverage linked to above is a great deal of churnalism, generated by an active marketing effort on behalf of the company and its investors, aimed at getting their PR into reliable sources, but nothing that I've seen that would actually meet the bar of being significant, independent, secondary and reliable. If this app takes off, it will doubtless be written about independently, and we will see independent reviews and in-depth coverage appearing in sources - once that has happened, it would be time to write an article, but from what I can see we're not there yet. I know WP:TOOSOON generally covers biographies and movies rather than companies, but in my view that's what we're looking at here. GirthSummit (blether) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. On rereading that, you have a point; I may have drifted somewhat from the letter of the law there recently. Clearly it's a good idea to go back to the guidelines as written, every so often... striking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Pichpich and DannyS712. These sources provide significant coverage of the subject beyond what is provided by press releases. The existence of sustained coverage over a few years means this meets WP:SUSTAINED. feminist (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: you're an editor I've got a huge respect for, so I'm asking this to improve my understanding, not to nitpick - which of the links above do you think offers content which is genuinely independent of the company? I'm looking, but I'm not seeing it - am I missing something, or does my mental spam filter need recalibrating? GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this Variety article compared Atom's service to those from MoviePass and Sinemia. This means there is at least some commentary beyond a rehash of a press release. It's not much, but I think there is potential for this article to be rewritten into at least a Start-class article which provides a fair, non-promotional overview of this company. I may be wrong though, I'm not someone who frequently contributes to AfD. feminist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that article does discuss other services - but as soon as it gets into discussing the subject of the article, it starts quoting the CEO. It seems to me that there's nothing there about the company and its ambitions that isn't coming out of the mouth of the CEO. This is what I'm talking about - lots of coverage, as you'd expect from a well-funded start-up with an active PR push, but nothing truly independent. I'd rather we wait until there's proper CORPDEPTH coverage available. GirthSummit (blether) 20:18, 1 May 2019 (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 or speedy keep. The nom meets WP:SK1 and subsequent discussion shows consensus that the film meets both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Unloved Woman (1940 film)

[edit]
The Unloved Woman (1940 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page only has one citation. No source is given to verify the cast either. Further more doesn't have enough content. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 09:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:43, 25 April 2019 (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. Closing early per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenichi Osada

[edit]
Kenichi Osada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference is one PDF. It has no sections at all. Lead is made of only one sentence. It doesn't seem like the person is enough popular to has an article on Wikipedia. This is not an article. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 09:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:27, 25 April 2019 (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 WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Moreno (boxer)

[edit]
Pedro Moreno (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a boxer. He has not won any major titles and has only fought in regional competition. Fails WP:NBOX CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (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. My apologies, I deleted this as A9 without seeing there was an active AFD on it as well. However, it's unanimous and clearly fails at least one CSD criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha (song)

[edit]
Ha Ha (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have any secondary sources. I googled an uncited review that was quoted [65] and only got hits to this article and something called revolvy[66]. I don't think it is a hoax, but seems a little suspicious. Most of the references are to songs on itunes or other sites that apparently share similar artwork (WP:OR). AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's not a hoax as such, because the song does exist on YouTube, but it clearly fails WP:NSONG. Not a single one of the references refers to the song itself, they are either references to The Simpsons or to songs by other artists whose single artworks were allegedly "inspired" by this song (with no proof of the allegations). The certifications are all fake: it's easy enough to search for the Austrian and Canadian certifications on the official databases of the certifying bodies, and in any case the certifying levels stated in the article are incorrect... for example, platinum certification in Canada is 40,000 equivalent sales units, and according to Music Canada's website 150 streams equals one sale, which would be equivalent to six million streams, not 10,000 as stated in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you can find a video on YouTube doesn't mean this isn't a hoax. There are a lot of stupid, completely made up things on YouTube (just look at any random LTA case.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2019 (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 Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences. Tone 19:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tufts Historical Review

[edit]
Tufts Historical Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal (tagged for notability since 2013). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2019 (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. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raees ul Ahrar College

[edit]
Raees ul Ahrar College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non notable college. Wikipedia article claims affiliation with the University of the Punjab but the UP site does not list it as an affiliate. Even the collegeks own page does not claim any accreditation that I can find. Looks like a degree mill. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't been touched except for the templates in well over a year (about June 5th, 2018), no actual content, seems very promotional. No reliable sources. Tosi | t/c 16:23, 25 April 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Babbi

[edit]
Lorenzo Babbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:10, 25 April 2019 (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. Tone 19:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lu

[edit]
Christine Lu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being quoted in various places is is not notability . Being included in 100.... is not notability . The Forbes item is an interview where she says whatever she pleases, to promote her enterprises. That's the purpose of this WP article also--but here, it's a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (full disclosure: I vaguely know Christine from Twitter/Facebook/blogs and have occasionally interacted with her, albeit probably not in ~10 years AFAIK). The sources do not sustain notability. They either quote her about something else, are Forbes.com (not independent RS), are interviews (and thus not independent, since she is the source) or are otherwise not significant coverage in a independent RS (i.e., Linkedin, company websites). Inclusion in a HuffPost listicle is not WP:SIGCOV since it doesn't tell you anything about her, and anyway Huffington Post Contributor articles (which this appears to be) are not an RS. Finally there's a very obvious WP:PROMO issue with this page and its creator has been blocked as a sock-puppet. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2019 (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) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Soltau

[edit]
Jill Soltau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Article needs serious work but she is the CEO of major retail outlets. Other CEOs, of much smaller organizations, have articles. According to Forbes, it is a Fortune 500 company. So should she. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added information, new sources, and rewrote portions to support her work as a CEO of a major retailer. I don't think this article should have been nominated AfD. 9H48F (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (after edit conflict). The CEO of such a large company is obviously notable, as has been confirmed by the sources added to this article. There seems to be something wrong with our general concept of what should be covered in an encyclopedia when all the ins and outs of minor people working in the popular music, sports or TV industries get covered but the CEO of a company that has far more impact on consumers gets questioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep The article, without question, needs additional citations for verification but what is there passes the bare minimum (for me at least). Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. Mosaicberry (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2019 (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) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trendon Watford

[edit]
Trendon Watford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated for WP:A7. I think the career highlights section of the infobox scrapes it over the bar for CCS but nonetheless this person is not notable. GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 25 April 2019 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Torres (disambiguation)

[edit]
Sandra Torres (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made redundant per Talk:Sandra Torres#Requested move 17 April 2019, which determined that the politician is the primary topic. Note that the third entry, Alessandra Torre, should not be there as there is no evidence that she has ever gone by the name "Sandra Torres", so there are only WP:TWODABS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree that the politician is the primary topic (*shudder* wish it was the other way round, though...). This can be resolved by a hatnote rather than a dab page. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I initially closed this on the grounds that it wasn't necessary for AFD to authorize the disambiguation page's deletion before the article designated as primary topic could be removed, and thus somebody had already performed the requested move — but I now see that the page mover didn't just replace the disambiguation page with the article, but moved it so that it's still in place at a disambiguated title. This isn't necessary in a straight WP:TWODABS situation, however: a simple hatnote is all that's required here, not a separate disambiguated disambiguation page. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:2DABS). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2019 (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 Nelson Mandela. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thembekile Mandela

[edit]
Thembekile Mandela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person's only claim to notability appears to be that his parents are notable (Nelson Mandela and his first wife, Evelyn Mase). But nothing about he himself comes close to meeting the GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_25&oldid=1142614810"