Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 19

Guide to deletion

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Youth movement "Uprising"

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Youth movement "Uprising"
• Articles for deletion/Youth movement "Uprising" 2

Youth movement "Uprising" (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)

delete --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No rationale for deletion given so I had better add one. Fail WP:ORG. This stub of an article has been unsourced since it was created in 2007. The previous AfD resulted in a merge but the merge target has been deleted so here we are. My searches finds no significant coverage of this organisation though I’m not able to search in Bosnian. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete 2006 article with No sources. tagged since 2010. an old AfD decided to merge it to Nedim Jahic, an article deleted as "unambiguous advertising". This one could have been PRODded, but should certainly be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG because it lacks sources demonstrating sustained WP:SIGCOV of this organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Jim Fonteno

Jim Fonteno (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:NPOL. Most of the sources are now dead links, although to start with they appear to have either been routine local political coverage or his obituaries in local news media. Also appears to have been created by a family member so most likely a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well. GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is shown by the attention he was shown by the U.S. Congress, which enacted a special law just to name a post office building after him. This is a case of a local official earning a national reputation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Because Post Offices are federal buildings, any change in name must be done via act of Congress. Generally speaking dozens of these bills are submitted at a given time by Members of Congress who represent the districts in which said Post Offices reside, interns and low-level staffers check to make sure that the subject isn't controversial, and then they are approved en masse without any real thought by the other members when voting. There are over 30,000 post offices in the United States and a good number are named after somebody. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Nearly all the current references are dead, but I did turn up this article from the Houston Chronicle that might pass WP:ROUTINE/WP:SIGCOV. Will do some more digging when I have time. —Rutebega (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The existence of a local obituary in the local media, where obituaries of local figures are very routinely expected to exist, is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie for a county councillor. If a county councillor in the Houston area was so prominent that he had gotten his obituary into the Chicago Sun-Times or the New York Times or the Washington Post, then the obituary would count for something — but an obituary in the local media doesn't clinch anything by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Having a public building named after him is not an instant inclusion freebie that would exempt a local political figure from having to demonstrate his notability in the same way as any other local political figure: receiving significant coverage that expands beyond the local media market where such coverage is merely expected to always exist. At a guess, a very large percentage everybody who's ever served on a municipal or county council anywhere at all has had something in their town or city (a street, a building, a park, a new housing subdivision, etc.) named after them. And since the naming of post offices in the United States always has to be handled by an act of Congress, the fact that such an act was passed does not speak to Fonteno having achieved more nationalized notability than everybody else Congress has ever named a post office after. So we can only evaluate this in terms of whether he gets over WP:NPOL #2 on the sourcing or not — but by far the majority of them are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the few that are actually reliable sources are merely the expected level of local coverage, which means the answer to that question is no. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bearcat. Only Congress can change the names of post offices in the United States and many are changed every year, so no special notability is gained from that. He was just a local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL politician and fails WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Mike Heiligenstein

Mike Heiligenstein (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was created by an SPA account so most likely a WP:PROMO of some sort. GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Abundant news coverage at the Austin Chronicle and at Google News. but primarily about the agency he is executive director of rather than of him. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No independent, reliable sources with significant coverage, and nothing else to imply notability. CTRMA is notable; this guy isn't. —Rutebega (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Serving on a local public transit board is not a guaranteed Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself, but this is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the five references are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, one is an unrecoverable dead link in a community hyperlocal, the other two are just short employment announcement blurbs in the local media, and exactly zero of them represent substantive coverage about him doing anything relevant to whether he would clear a notability standard or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bearcat. He clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOL despite being part of a notable organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. bd2412 T 23:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

John Henry Baker

John Henry Baker (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)

Never held office higher than the Franklin Parish (Current population: around 20,000) commission so fails WP:NPOL. The sources - which are mostly either unlinked local news articles, obituaries (most of which aren't even for him), and election results- do not support a WP:GNG pass. GPL93 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (Incidentally, the motivation for creating this article puzzles me.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. As always with Billy Hathorn content, the motivation was "every local politician in Louisiana automatically passes NPOL #2 if I can find an obituary" — but as always, Billy was and is wrong. The notability test for people at this level of prominence is the reception of a significant volume of journalism, expanding beyond the purely local and thus marking him out as significantly more notable than most of his peers. But literally none of the references here show that at all: as usual, it's referenced to a mix of Find-a-Grave directory entries, raw tables of election results, incompletely cited newspaper stuff that's impossible to verify what it even was, and purely tangential verification of stray facts about other people that completely fails to even mention Baker at all. This is not how you make a county commissioner notable enough, and never has been. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bearcat. The article is about a clearly unnotable individual. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WiRED International

WiRED International (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)

Unsourced, and the sources I can see don’t support notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Per nom. This is just cringe. Seeing the manually resurrected 'mission statement' infobox parameter almost gave me an heart attack. The creator Fogcellist and major contributor Cspirito seemed to be single-purpose on promoting the subject with no other edits. Maybe indef those as well? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. The page seems to be an SPA pet project. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nominator. I agree that this page seems to be an SPA pet project. It was created and built up almost entirely by two single-purpose accounts, but I'm not sure it is worth sanctioning those editors as Fogcellist hasn't edited in 10 years and Cspirito in four. I guess it is up to the closing admin to decide whether to pursue indefing them, as I don't really know anything about SPA sanctions. but it probably would be good to deal with them now just in case they ever decide to return. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. The consensus that I am seeing in this discussion is a certainly a keep, and I'm not seeing a consensus to merge the article. The nomination was withdrawn and any further discussion about merging the article can be done on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 09:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of recipients of the Order of Industrial Heroism

List of recipients of the Order of Industrial Heroism (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 basically a list of errors. All of the subjects on the list are either red links, mostly for non-notable people for whom articles will never be made, or links to disambiguation pages for which there will never be a solution for the aforementioned reason, or just plain wrong links. For example, this list of people purportedly living between 1923 and 1964 contains links to Irish naturalist James Grimshaw (died 1857), pioneer Morgan Morgan (died 1766), colonial lawyer Thomas Hopkinson (died 1751), Scottish businessman Robert Jardine (died 1905), Harold Godwin (died 1066 at the Battle of Hastings), Robert Butterworth (not born until 1942), and James Tatton (not born until 1978). The list is unfixable garbage. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The people on the list are notable because they did something notable as recognized by the Daily Herald, and secondarily because they received the order. The presence of James Grimshaw (died 1857) on the list is not a claim that an Irish naturalist was a recipient of the order, but rather that someone else with that name did something heroic. Newspapers published during that time (not just the Daily Herald) would have covered the actions which were subsequently labelled as heroism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact that someone did something heroic enough to gain recognition from one local newspaper does not qualify them for a Wikipedia article, so it remains likely that almost all of the links on this page will be permanent red links. How about we merge this into Order of Industrial Heroism until such time as enough independently sourced articles have actually been made to sustain a separate list? bd2412 T 00:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The Daily Herald (United Kingdom) was a national newspaper, not a local one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That still does not qualify the recipients of this honor for individual Wikipedia articles, which renders virtually all of this list a red link dump. bd2412 T 01:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge The main article is quite short and can certainly absorb the list of recipients. The red links should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This nomination seems to be an act of petty revenge after I reverted the nominator's inappropriate move of the article to the wasteland that is the "Draft":" namespace (note that WP:DRAFTS says "Editors may instead choose to create [...] new articles directly in mainspace after the user has become autoconfirmed or confirmed."). The claim that "All of the subjects on the list are either red links... or links to disambiguation pages... or just plain wrong links" is false; as is the claim that the red links are for people who are mostly non-notable. And, as any seasoned editor - and especially one trusted with the admin role - should know, "deletion is not cleanup". Work is already in hand to resolve the remaining dab links. No in-policy reason for deletion has been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have already fixed all of the dab links, and all of the links pointing to clearly incorrect targets - a number of them were even pointing to fictional characters! What is left is a sea of permanent red links for people who will never meet the minimum standards of notability, plus four legitimate entries (for which I did the work of finding citations that were not the primary source cited in the article). For example, there is a listing for an "L. Thompson", for whom no information at all can be found. This is basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At the very least, there is no reason for this list to be separate from the Order of Industrial Heroism article. bd2412 T 11:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Still not a reason to delete. However, I'm surprised that, when you checked the relevant copy of the Herald, you found no explanation of why Thompson received his award. As for "no information at all can be found", Thompson was presented with his award on 16 September 1944 at National Union of Mineworkers' Office, Barnsley, Yorkshire; as the Durham Mining Museum source I recently added to the article states. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you can tell us, then, what was his first name? When and where was he born? When and where did he die? The fact that his name is on the list is not in dispute. However, this is a non-notable subject, and should not have a link pointing to an article that can not be made. bd2412 T 13:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Just as soon as you point me to a policy requiring every biography to include first names, and date and place of birth and death. I look forward to you nominating Beethoven's biography, which lacks his birth date, for deletion. Also: Still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
          • The policy at issue here is WP:GNG. The source you provide states "[Hall] led a party of four men who crawled through a tunnel of barely 18 inches wide to rescue 13 men... he and the four men — Messrs. T. H. Barker, W. Rawson, L. Thompson and J. Cruise will receive the Daily Herald Order of Industrial Heroism". That appears to be the entirety of the information available in the world about this Thompson, as well as about Barker and Cruise. Your defense of this article now seems to be dependent on a determination that this single mention constitutes "significant coverage". bd2412 T 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Poppycock. You seem to be confusing the nominated list with an article about one person. Still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
              • It is a reason to eliminate the red links on the list, which would bring it down to five entries, which would be fine for a section on the main article, but does not require an article of its own. I will grant, however, that I am impressed with the degree to which you have been able to improve sourcing for even a smattering of the list, even if a few of the sources are questionable. bd2412 T 15:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Wrong again, even if receiving the OIH were not sufficient to demonstrate notability, as several of the people who are currently red-linked have notability beyond that - as you'd know if you'd done WP:BEFORE. And still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • It's easy to claim that "several" of the 400+ red links on the page are notable beyond the mere mention of their receipt of this medal. No one is stopping you from demonstrating this by finding proof of notability and creating these articles, so please go ahead. bd2412 T 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • It's easy for me to claim it, because I have done the research. Wilfred Beasley and Bert Tanner, for example, are among several OIH recipients who also received the Edward Medal - now the George Cross. As for writing the articles: I intend to write some, but WP:NODEADLINE applies. Still no reason to delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                      • It is possible that I underestimated the potential of this list as an article based on its original state, but why don't we merge it into the Order of Industrial Heroism, and then break it out into a new article again if the list does actually develop a reasonable number of blue links? bd2412 T 18:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with the main topic article and leave this one as a redirect. If the main article ever becomes long enough, it can easily be split. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as first choice. The list looks notable enough, and there's plenty of scope to expand it. If need be, then my second choice would be merge, but that would overwhelm the rest of the content currently there, and if the list continues to be expanded then it won't be long before it would need to be split out again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The list can't expand beyond the 440 names of people who received this award over the course of its existence. It is possible that notability may be determined for some handful beyond the four who currently have articles, and the one name which redirects to an article where the person is mentioned. bd2412 T 20:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It can expand to contain more summary info on those people. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. We shall see if that happens. bd2412 T 21:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - The award is notable, and to have a list of recipients therefore seems reasonable to me, even if the present list has an excessive number of red links. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am withdrawing this proposal for deletion, based on the substantial improvements that I was able to make to this article. bd2412 T 13:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Great work BD2412! I stand by a merge though, which you can do without the AFD. The main article is not not nearly long enough to need a split and its contents would make an excellent lead section for the list of names, and even perhaps an WP:FL if you're interested in doing more. Reywas92^Talk 15:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You are suggesting, basically a reverse merge, then? I tend to agree that we still do not need two separate articles. However, I would not want to attempt that step without obtaining consensus for it. bd2412 T 16:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Either way works. A "List of X" is not required to have an "X" article, or "X" is allowed to be primarily a list. No one here has opposed the merge and the keeps were in opposition to deleting the content. There is no simply issue with the size of the table "overwhelming" the lead section, that's why it's at the top or under separate headers. Whether you're actually interested in taking it that far or not, WP:FLCR 3c discourages duplication (which would occur if a separate list had an appropriate lead). Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I certainly won't oppose anyone else who wants to take that step. bd2412 T 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
        • "No one here has opposed the merge" I have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I think that the article is good enough being on its own. Although the lead is rather sparse, the amount of people in the table is very numerous. INeedSupport ^:3 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

University Pastoral Center

University Pastoral Center (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)

Unsourced, and the sources I can find don’t suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - No references and does not meet WP:GNG. No equivalent article on the Slovakian Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it was adequately sourced, it would be of similar significance to a local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and is just the equivalent of a local church. How has this lasted on Wikipedia for 15 years? Newshunter12 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Deleted by Fastily under Speedy Deletion criterion G7 (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sai Ye Htet Kaung

Sai Ye Htet Kaung (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)

There is very promotional. Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are primary or are mainly about his controversy and doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No chart placings, no official signings, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as the subject fails to WP:MUSICBIO. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is not wp:musician and check yourself in which wp: and here it is Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. You should check insted of delete. Don't use wiki on your personality. Alexxeos (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means ("on your personality"?), but as I mention here, you should not be closing this AfD, and the nomination certainly wasn't withdrawn. El_C 03:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that i didn't know that it need to do other step because I am new here. After editing i do that because nobody responding. Alexxeos (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "other step"? This AfD is still new. I'm sure more people will turn up to it in the coming days. El_C 04:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete of the Two sources that appear to be third party RS none mention this artist as far as I can tell.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete subject is non-notable and references are mostly primary. To User:Alexxeos, I do not understand what you are saying, but you cannot close AFDs like this, especially if you have a COI Rockstonetalk to me! 17:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:COI, per WP:NOT. ——SerialNumber54129 17:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Feminist views on transgender topics. There are a lot of non policy based arguments given little weight here. The argument comes down to this being 1E or a FORK as covered elsewhere or both. The sourcing has been discussed in detail and a reasonable.case for failing N has been out forward bearing in mind we don't aggregate minor reports in lieu of a couple of really good sources. If there wasn't already coverage and context elsewhere then this would be NC but since this is already covered and the argument that this should be covered in context then the deletes have this per FORK. The redirect after deletion is an obvious editorial decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Get the L Out

Get the L Out (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)

Brazenly anti-trans POV fork that deserves to be nuked from the orbit. Fringe WP:1E organization that was universally condemned by mainstream LGBT rights groups for its disruption of 2018 London Pride parade. As the parent page Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) states that the group of lesbians are a fringe, transphobic minority backed by Christian conservative groups that sought to wrongly portray trans rights as in opposition to feminism, the "blanket initialism", "lesbian erasure" and "influence of gender-identity politics" bits in lead are overtly promotional and factually horseshit. The article itself prominently features large chunks from primary and questionable sources (Medium posts and TERF publications), as well as opinions from other feminists holding this fringe view, with an obligatory "survey report" written as fact from the fringe org itself which is certainly far from a reliable source. Recommend delete and salt, as the parent article already feature this organization's primary event at length. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Cautious keep This organisation may be controversial but that does not mean that it isn't notable. If it was widely condemned then that does in a way contribute to its notablity. PatGallacher (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep - while the WP:1E is a concern, infamy contributes to notability. Also, this nomination doesn't seem particularly neutral to me, so that also increases my apprehension to deletion. However, the sources do need some improvement, but secondary sources shouldn't be hard to come by. And if the article itself isn't written neutrally, make it neutral yourself, deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• My concern is that, after removing all the primary, weak and non-neutral bits (including 2 change.org petitions supported by no secondary sources), the only content worthy to keep was the orgainzation's 2018 disruption and its reactions - which is already fully covered by the parent article as a paragraph. This fails both WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. With no other content, the existence of this article would be an endorsement to the WP:FRINGE organization. My position merely reflects mainstream feminism, which find anti-trans feminists appalling. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The sourcing is pretty abysmal, and cutting out the unreliable stuff would leave nothing left. Flashes in the pan don't merit articles. The parent page covers everything that needs to be said, and does it better. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a fringe extremist group that fails GNG. Troubling weakly related sourcing, and very troubling non-neutral rhetoric that tries to reframe a fringe extremist group as a "campaign" or "movement", when there is no evidence that it is any such thing. Fails to meet WP:CLUB, Wikipedia does not exist to promote any society of extremists that give themselves inflated labels based on behaving badly in public. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The article is sourced and the content of the article is supported by the sources. The "Get the L Out" movement started in 2015, perhaps not enough time as yet to be included in academic writing, but it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources used in the article such as The Independent, New Statesman, Patheos, BBC News, The Sunday Times, The Spectator, AfterEllen. GtLO has also received coverage, and has been acknowledged, in sources not used as references, for example: Heritage Foundation, The Western Journal, The Guardian, The Federalist, The Resurgent, Iona Institute, Reuters, The Article, Wales Online. What it stands for has drawn the attention of observers within and outside the LGBT community.
  The rationale given for deletion,  "Brazenly anti-trans POV fork that deserves to be nuked from the orbit.,"  reveals that the decision to nominate the article for deletion was based on emotions -- and those emotions obviously clouded the nominee's judgement. POV fork states: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first." The claim that it is a "POV fork" of  "the parent page Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs)"  is unfounded. I created the Get the L Out article and I have not edited the so-called "parent" article. I have neither disagreed nor agreed with an editor of that article. You don't need to waste the time it takes to search for my name in its 8-year edit history, all you simply need to do is go to Wikipedia Page History Statistics >  project en.wikipedia >  page Feminist views on transgender topics >  search ... and scroll down to User statistics. "Pyxis Solitary" is not found because I have never edited that article. To accuse Get the L Out as being a POV fork of any other article is both absurd and a false statement.
  "Get the L Out" is a social movement within the LGBT community. The article about it is as suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as the Incite! article was when it was created (and that one contains only 9 sources). This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia provides information some people may not like, but that doesn't make the information unworthy of inclusion in it. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources you list undermine your argument. The sources show that newsworthy-ness was all about one event. It is not a campaign, it is not a grassroots movement, it is not representative of something called "Sapphic Community", that's all rhetorical nonsense. Notably, your list does not include the BBC, despite you mentioning it, presumably because you are making claims about notability that are in no way supported by the sources. A handful of extremists trying to disrupt a Pride march and then endlessly blogging about it and claiming to represent lesbians or feminists more widely, does not make their society of friends encyclopaedically notable. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article effectively is a POV fork as it wraps already-covered content with extremely weak, POV, and promotional sourcing to pad its existence. While your willingness to write flowery languages for the fringe extremist org and write its self-victimizations as objective facts in wikivoice is already quite appalling. AfterEllen and FeministCurrent are renowned TERF (fringe anti-trans extremist) publications that certainly aren't reliable sources of any stripe on trans topics. While anti-LBGT conservative lobbyists and sources like Heritage Foundation and The Federalist are, flattering speaking, garbage-tier sources. Other than the primary event was already covered by RS, all the passing mentions and other horseshittery that's left can go to the incinerator. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As I have already commented on the article's talk page before this AfD: Of those independent reliable sources that mention "Get the L Out", the BBC and The Independent have only a passing mention, and New Statesman has slightly more than a passing mention. The Reuters article is written by a primary source so is not a valid source. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Questionable edits are now being made to the article that are based on POV. A Heritage Foundation article was removed from the further reading section as a "pointless article from the right wing lobby site". An Uncommon Ground (https://uncommongroundmedia.com/) citation was removed as "an alt-right unreliable site" -- an alt-right website does not include AfterEllen, Vicitim Focus, and Feminist Current as one of its "Friends and Associates". A website that called for GtLO protests was deleted as "a vanity site". Activist edits diminish the purpose of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

¶ Comment, Part II. Re Biased or opinionated sources:  "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Re Bias in sources:  "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone". Pyxis Solitary yak 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

¶ Once again, a source has been deleted based on a personal POV that it's "an alt-right website" -- which it isn't. And I'm not aware of a policy that requires a source to exist for a particular length of time before it can be used in an article. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

¶ And if a POV editor can't get his way -- the next step is exercising scare tactics by slapping a discretionary sanctions warning on an editor's talk page 5 minutes (@ 11:18) after adding one to the article (@ 11:13). Pyxis Solitary yak 12:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC) ; edited 21:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

NOTE The following comments that follow which have been posted by me, pre-date the above indented comments. Consequently the responses are not made against the later comments above, even though they may read that way. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

How would https://www.mayday4women.com be a reliable source? Heritage Foundation is by its mission a right wing lobbying website, their blog added nothing not covered by other sources. By the way, with regard to "karma being an astonishingly real bitch", it would avoid general astonishment at you continuing to load the article with right wing and unreliable sources, if you could make some effort to find a balance in sources rather than pre-loading it with obvious bias. It might also help to work collegiately with others if you did not deride those who disagree with you as all being "activists". Thanks so much!. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you refrain from lurking my talk page. And if you have it on your watchlist, I advise that you remove it. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice. How does any of that make mayday4women.com a reliable source? --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: (reply to comment dated UK time 11:41, 21 May 2019) This is an AfD, please stop screwing around with the standard talk page indentation as a grandstanding tactic, especially for comments made by others. It is deliberate disruption making your comments, complaints and misunderstandings of process appear more important than replies which actually do follow standard talk page guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

DS in relation to gender and transgender issues apply to this article. You have never been previous alerted to the fact that DS apply to this topic. If you have a rationale as to why this article should be an exception to the DS, especially considering Arbcom's motion earlier this year which clarified applicability, then make a proposal on the article talk page, preferably one that consists of more than claiming it is "scare tactics bullshit". Thanks so much for your understanding and patient consideration! --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Just so everyone who read that  ^  understands the what/when: If a Ds/talk notice didn't exist before you pushed the WP:EDITWAR envelope by deleting the same citation 3 times ... you don't have a leg to stand on for posting a Ds/alert on my talk page. You can add a Ds/talk notice, sure, but then rushing to an editor's talk page to post a Ds/alert is absolutely "scare tactics bullshit". Pyxis Solitary yak 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit war, but claiming to be so and calling editors removing your truly abysmal and inappropriate sourcing to be POV is an useful tactic. Fae, as much as any other editor, have every right in leaving alert notices as a courtesy when they see you haven't been alerted in the past 6 months, while you have every right to remove it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to help everyone understand the wider pattern here, @Pyxis Solitary:, have you blogged or posted about this deletion discussion anywhere? Thanks so much for any clarification. I am sure you understand why canvassing is taken seriously, especially when they include targeted harassment against Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

LoL! Pyxis Solitary yak 09:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep but restrict - it is a movement that seems notable, but there are definitely editors involved that appear to have a conflict of interest and lack a neutral point of view.
  Orville1974 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject has adequate notability and uniqueness. A145 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Note this AfD was opened by the same user at roughly the same time as another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop the T A145 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

All the sourcing undermines "adequate notability" and "uniqueness" is as empty as it sounds. As for the note: This is absolutely fine. I saw both articles at roughly the same time and thought they're valid AfD candidates. What is it that you're insinuating? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• • I think I know why that is. I created the Drop the T article some days ago and Pyxis Solitary saw it and spotted a screw up on it, they removed it but I think the situation upset them and they created this article as a kind of response. Honestly, I think this subject is even less notable than the article I made, and people have made decent arguments for why that should be deleted/merged.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that I have nothing to do with your article being nominated for deletion, perhaps you should find out why another editor did it. As for my being "upset" over your including an allegation about one (and no other) living person in your article by using a source that specifically states "reportedly", and if you follow the crumbs you discover that what that claim is based on is inaccurate ... well, let's just say that I take my role as a Wikipedia editor seriously because I know that Wikipedia has become the go-to source for information by the general public, students, and many professional writers. So if your conclusion for my providing an explanation of why the living person should not have been singled-out in your article is that I was "upset" -- golly, gee, what other synonym will you go for when another editor bursts your bubble. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary I never once implied that you nominated my article for AFD. Improve your reading comprehension and overreactionary behaviour. I only said that it's clear that your article was created very fast because you saw mine and didn't like it, this lead to this one very logically being nominated for deletion after mine was.★Trekker (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We create articles if and when we want to, and for whatever reason. Mine was indeed "created very fast" -- because it was constructed long before I finally decided to turn it into an article. It was biding its time. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete:All the RS seem to be about the pride parade event, so this would fail WP:1E. The other sources are things like opinion pieces, dictionary entries, blogs and positions from organizations. Rab V (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Re "opinion pieces": if that is considered 'below the bar' for sources used in this article, then Wikipedia has a huge problem because it's not the only article that includes "opinion pieces" (aka opinion articles) as reliable sources -- which include "opinion pieces" in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Advocate, et al. In fact, here's a bunch of them that The Guardian considers the "60 most-read opinion pieces" of 2015, and there's the "12 most-read" in 2017 according to Wired, etc. etc. etc. When you stop to think about it, other than news reports, academic writing, and research reports, almost every published source used in a Wikipedia article is an "opinion". A film article, for example, includes a "Critical response" section, and film reviews are the opinions of the critics; ergo, "opinion pieces". Suffice it to say that if an "opinion piece" is not good enough for this article ... it's not good enough for any article in Wikipedia.
P.S. This is the article before it got hit with multiple edits after landing here. This is the article right now. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There is wikipedia policy that opinion pieces are generally not RS, WP:NEWSORG. There are exceptions on if the author is an expert in the field but not met here. Using non-RS sources also sometimes is OK but they are not helpful for proving notability, which is what matters here. Rab V (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Subject isn't notable, it has little to no coverage in actually reliable sources. The fact that so much coverage from mainstream sources is missing also makes it impossible to have a balanced page honestly, it's just a few POV articles who say the same thing over and over.★Trekker (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Add Honestly, this subject has even less coverage than Drop the T, and that is likely to just be merged to Feminist views on transgender topics, maybe that is the way to go for this page too if people find there is anything worth merging.★Trekker (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, the only thing notable about this group is a single event which is already covered by Feminist views on transgender topics. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, or Merge – I've gone through all of the references (from a slightly earlier version when there were 21 of them) and they break down into a few categories: a small number of legitimate articles about a single LGBT demonstration on Saturday, July 7, 2018 that was disrupted by a small group (a 2nd one got passing mention), a lot of opinion articles by the "usual suspects" on both sides (which are fine for indicating what their own opinion is, but not for conferring notability), and a lot of padding (references to dictionary lookups of related words, claims of related events or demonstrations where the relationship does not come from the sources, but from editor assumptions, and others). If need be, I'll add the list of references and comment, but perhaps that won't be necessary. As far as a WP:MERGE, I wouldn't be opposed in theory, but it would have to be carried out in conformance with policy, notably WP:DUEWEIGHT. In an article such as Feminist views on transgender topics, in my opinion, this group would be a tiny minority of world opinion on this topic, and per the policy, mentioning a distinct (and minuscule) minority... would give undue weight to it. Note also, that with regard to the legitimate sources now there, Note 3 of the GNG says, Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. The point being, such reliable references as the article does contain that are not opinion articles, all cover the same story and count as one reliable reference about the topic. The main notability I can see, is a highly effective public relations coup by a very small group, that if they could keep it up, might become notable. ACT UP would not have been notable enough after their first demonstration with 250 people in March 1987 and dozens of arrests, but they became notable in time. Get the L Out might in time become notable; they are certainly not notable now. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: What do you think of LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term as a merge target? Do you suppose they're notable enough to merge to / mention there? (If Drop the T were also be merged there, together they could perhaps form a paragraph on 'calls to remove letters' or something.) -sche (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: They don't have to be notable to be merged there (or anywhere) because notability is a property of a topic, not of article content. Content is governed by other policies, and they likely wouldn't pass the bar for WP:DUEWEIGHT in that section of the article, as currently consituted. If added there, it would be the first allusion to an intractable divide between certain lesbian and trans individuals or groups, and even if it contained such content already, this group would not be the most important instance of it. A possibly better target would be Radical feminism#Views on transgender topics, but I think it would face the same due weight issue there. The problem is to find an article topic of sufficiently narrow scope, that the group would meet the due weight threshold. The likeliest topic, imho would be at "Lesbian erasure", but that article hasn't been written yet. (And this group would still have to be DUE there, if/when it is.) But see Talk:Lesbian erasure. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - In the face of this (redacted link to off-wiki canvassing and harassment, refer to explanation below) targeting Fae and me, the consensus for deletion should be clear. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, or perhaps merge: I started looking through the references when I saw this AfD yesterday (when I saw the article being added to the see-alsos of articles I watch), and I see Mathglot has already said what I was about to - that they just don't demonstrate enough notability to merit an article. They might be sufficient to merit a mention in some other article, but where? This group/'movement' is accorded too little weight in sources about lesbianism to be WP:DUE much mention in e.g. Lesbian. Perhaps it has enough sourcing to merit a brief mention in the article on feminist stances on trans topics? Or perhaps to [[LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term]]? Tip o' the hat to WanderingWanda for mentioning that article/section in another AfD. If others like that last idea, I don't oppose merging to there in lieu of deleting. (And iff the content is merged to that page or some other page, then IMO obviously the current page should be a redirect to there rather than entirely deleted.) -sche (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and as usual I have a lot to say. I know I am disagreeing here with many editors with whom I usually agree on these issues, and I hope maybe this post will prompt some to change their !votes to keep.
  1. I'm here because I read about this on GenderDesk. Editors can decide if that makes my opinion less valuable.
  2. WP:1E is about biographies of people, which this is not. Even if it were, this would meet 1E, because it's a high-profile group of people, not a low-profile person, and also because the event (the protest) was significant, and the group of people that put it on had a substantial role in it. But 1E isn't really applicable, so let's put that aside. (Also, just a side-note, 1E doesn't mean we delete an article just because it's based on one event. Many article subjects are notable for one event, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. Editors often forget the high-profile/low-profile distinction and the significant event/substantial role exception.)
  3. The protest, as an event, meets WP:NEVENT. The coverage that satisfies GNG also satisfies NEVENT.
  4. Although the article says it's about a protest, "Get the L Out" isn't just one protest that happened last summer, it's now an ongoing advocacy group and has continued beyond the one protest, as documented by the RSes.
  5. The group/movement "Get the L Out" meets GNG by a mile, with WP:SUSTAINED, international WP:SIGCOV. We're well past WP:THREE: The Independent 7 Jul 2018, BBC 8 Jul 2018, BBC 9 Jul 2018, BBC 21 Jul 2018, The Spectator's blog 31 Jul 2018, NBC 14 Jan 2019, Reuters 15 March 2019, dueling opinion pieces published by Thomson Reuters Foundation News on 12 Apr 2019 (pro) and 15 Apr 2019 (con), and Wales Online 5 May 2019.
  6. Fringe? Reprehensible? So is Ku Klux Klan. We don't delete articles for this reason. In fact, quite the opposite, we document a whole bunch of notable fringe groups, specifically so people will know that they're fringe. It would be an oversight for us not to have an article about this group. Yes, the article has to be neutral, it has to be based on RSes (and not fringe sources), etc., but those are all reason to edit the article, not delete it.
  7. In this case, I think we have enough content from the sources that if we said everything we have to say about this group over at LGBT, it would be WP:UNDUE, making it seem like they're the major "countermovement" to "the LGBT movement". See WP:PAGEDECIDE for an explanation of this. An accurate stand-alone article would be better.
  8. Finally, because it's a recent (less than a year old) and ongoing (most recent source is from this month) advocacy group, I think it's quite likely that there will be more sources published in the future, and thus the article could expand. This is another reason for a stand-alone article (again see PAGEDECIDE). It's notable, there's enough sourced content for a full article, and good possibility of future expansion because it's ongoing, so keep. – Levivich 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Per RS, There really aren't anything else that worth mentioning other than the initial disruption and its consequences, which our parent article already documents in detail. I agree that other than the parent article, this content isn't suitable anywhere else on this project as it would constitute WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. But I'm also more convinced by Mathglot's quotes and reasoning above. Futurism is not a determinator at all. If the group has made more publicity stunts or other reprehensible stuff, people can recreate the article and have this discussion again. But until then, the dumpster is in order. Also, Lev, I think you owe all of us an explanation on why the fuck would you read a terf blog this timely. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Tsumi, just to be clear, because it doesn't translate in text, "I read about this" was past tense, as in I saw the post, not present tense, as in I am on ongoing reader. And "read" wasn't really accurate, more like "skimmed". I didn't really notice whatever it was they said about you and Fae, and I'm not going to go back to look now, but I can gather from the comments here that whatever it was was pretty awful, so I wanted to say I'm sorry you both were subjected to that. I just wanted to be up front that I came here from a link on that website, since there are canvassing concerns. – Levivich 00:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I can't imagine how you see it as meeting WP:NEVENT. Where are the lasting effects on society and law? Where's the in-depth analysis in books, the feature-length articles in major magazines, the TV coverage on 60 Minutes and Newsnight? Where's the continuing coverage outside of spikes of news reporting shortly after an event?

Per WP:WHYN: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. The content in this article already contains things of such earth-shaking importance as the actual text of the individual placards carried by protesters, and the exact number of people signing up for online petitions. The article contains about one or two sentences worth of reliable content, padded with as much chaff as could be acquired.

It would be ironic indeed, if this group continues to have an article, and the event they disrupted, the 2018 Pride in London event, with 500 groups and one million in attendance, does not. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, I can't imagine how you're skipping over three stories in the BBC over multiple news cycles, plus NBC, Reuters, and others writing about it a year later. I posted 10 of the most-mainstream RSes I could find, and there are more posted by another editor up above. In addition, here are two more from this month: [1] [2]. The Wales Online story is about a separate protest that occurred this month. There is in-depth, international coverage of this lasting a full year after the first protest. We can argue WP:PAGEDECIDE, but I don't think there is any argument that this group hasn't received WP:SIGCOV meeting GNG. I think the most WP:DUE place for this content is in a stand-alone article, because it would be UNDUE or otherwise inappropriate (too high profile) in any other article, like LGBT, and it would be just a glaring omission if we omitted this entire group from the encyclopedia. (Especially if we omitted it because we disagree with their politics–that's a blatant violation of NPOV. We cover racists, we cover sexists, we cover transphobes, etc.). And, BTW, we do have an article about Pride in London, but it would be undue to include content about this group in the 2018 section of that article. – Levivich 00:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you are confusing a protest by the Lesbian Rights Alliance with the informal group "Get the L Out", who were not there.

Secondly The off-wiki rant you are mentioning, and were directed here from, is targeted harassment against Wikipedians. It is highly likely that a person writing on this AfD is also responsible for creating the off-wiki harassment in an attempt to manipulate this vote, they may also be responsible for anti-trans death threats a couple of days ago. I have removed the link to that site from this discussion and ask that everyone here respects its removal, it is in no way germane to the content of this AfD. If anyone has further information that could support sanctions being taken on Wikipedia, they can email me any evidence in confidence or email a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wales Online wrote, on 5 May 2019: Get the L Out are a group of lesbians opposing what they describes as "the increasingly anti-lesbian and misogynistic GBT movement and the erasure of lesbians". Members believe lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and they are encouraging lesbians everywhere to leave the GBT and form their own independent movement. They took part in the Swansea Pride march yesterday at around 11.15am, carrying banners which read "transactivism erases lesbians" and "lesbians don’t have penises". (bold mine) So they did a protest in London in 2018 and then they did a protest in Swansea in 2019. What am I confusing? – Levivich 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I was going by the Stonewall demonstration that you linked to above. I would avoid exaggerating the Swansey incident, this was in fact 2 people with a home made banner who did not actually manage to disrupt the Pride march. They jumped out and walked backwards for about 30 seconds, not actually delaying anything, before police politely walked them back to the pavement. Though the 2 women claim to be "Get the L Out", it is unclear whether they were in any way actually connected to the informal group apparently created by Angela Wild. The risk for Wikipedia is mistaking people effectively promoting a Twitter hash tag for a coordinated group. If the Wikipedia article is about how people use the phrase "get the L out" rather than the informal group, it's not an especially strong way to justify a separate article from the potential parent.

Let's keep a sense of proportion. Pride London this year has 585 registered groups, and there will in addition be a few people protesting or waiving banners in the streets alongside who are not registered. Our CLUB guideline means that 95% or more of those different groups will never have a Wikipedia article, even if they have hundreds of members or have been around protesting for decades. The only difference between those groups and "Get the L Out", is how popular the hashtag was, how "lesbian riots" and anti-trans quotes like "raping lesbians" are great fodder for lazy journalists who basically end up reprinting bizarre tweets rather than fact based journalism. --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The only reliable sources about the movement refer to one incident described adequately in the parent article. Also comment: the content of the canvassing is also a pretty vile personal attack on multiple editors here. Anyone brought over from there should be very, very careful to consider whether they are contributung in an unbiased fashion. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a news story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. One day, this group may have done enough to warrant an article, but at this point it seems to be borderline and the risk that it becomes a POV battleground puts it over the edge for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs) 20:28, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Weak delete - Thinking more about what Levivich said, I agree with much of it, but I still think that for now, it is not independently notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• merge/refactor Seems to have received a fair amount of publicity, but may not last. There seems to be a movement here (see Drop the T, but I suspect its not important enough for its own article. So merge the two (and any otther related articles) into one article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Monte Oz

Monte Oz (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)

Promotional and COI →Enock4seth ^(talk) 20:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 20:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Even the programs he is "best known for" appear to be non-notable (no article). The references provided are not from Reliable Sources and the prizes listed are not noteworthy. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV of his career and the obvious fluff nature of this article. There are more links to his own outside websites/accounts then there are listed references in the article, before even getting to the number of trivial awards listed, all from self-published sources, that basically are the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Velmas

The Velmas (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 provided, and what I can find suggests this is a non notable band, Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. The external links present in the article are not reliable sources that can establish notability. Further searches have turned up nothing substantial - the only thing I was able to find was a simple listing of local band performances in Albany that they were listed under. Rorshacma (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This band appeared on 2 notable compilation albums: The Blind Melon Tribute album and The Very Best Of "Restless Restless", which was featured on the Howard Stern Show. Msg6794 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that neither of those albums have a Wikipedia article or pass WP:NALBUM for notability, and being on an album does not automatically make the band notable, per WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Found additional information about The Velmas' song Clue being included in an Xbox LIVE game "NLL Lacrosse" and added to article. Msg6794 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment Msg6794 what you added was an external link into the main article text that points to a page about an Xbox LIVE game, but the page you linked to does not mention the Velmas. That doesn’t support your ‘keep’ vote because if the Velmas did indeed supply the music for that game, the source you provided did not consider it noteworthy enough to mention. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I second the point that this keep vote is fatally flawed in that its premise is undermined by its stated source not mentioning this band. I would also be very careful about accepting unfounded claims of inclusion without evidence as a keep rational considering Wikipedia's basic principal is verifiability. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Per the nom. I found no evidence this is a notable band in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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 close. This is the wrong venue for the draft namespace. But in any case, it is perfectly normal to retain redirects resulting from moving drafts to mainspace per WP:RDRAFT. SpinningSpark 23:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-close comment - I was in the process of deleting this as a WP:CSD#G7 while the discussion was being closed. The nominator is the same editor that moved it the draft to mainspace. ansh666 23:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Manchester City 2017-18 season

Draft:Manchester City 2017-18 season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is already an article about the season. KingSkyLord (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't this be at WP:Miscellany for deletion?--Auric talk 20:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ...or WP:RfD given that it's just a redirect. The page history (just one revision) was moved to Manchester City 2017-18 season prior to this nom. PC78 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Alana Zimmer

Alana Zimmer (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’m gonna be honest. There’s a lot of “model backstage” and “model off duty outfits” out there, even a sentence in “models go to NYU” but nothing rises to the level of actual notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete When something happening 4 years ago is written as if it is a future event, that is almost a 100% sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG Orville1974 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG .PRDM__9 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to LGBT#Criticism of the term. Seems like there are two points of contention here. The first is whether the topic is notable by virtue of having attracted substantial/sustained attention. The discussion is somewhat split, with the most detailed points by XOR'easter and Levivich giving the impression that most of the sources are inadequate (Spinningspark has contested this claim on one source) or don't offer enough material to write about this campaign/slogan. A number of other participants echo these lines of thought but also note that the minimal coverage under WP:PAGEDECIDE (or under WP:PRESERVE as cited by Spinningspark) should be put into another article - this is the second point. The LGBT appears to be the preferred topic, thus the preferred merge target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Drop the T

Drop the T (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 fringe petition slogan with a transphobic POV bent. Per parent article Feminist views on transgender topics, its supporters are a fringe minority backed by Christian conservatives, whom want to divide and conquer the LGBT community. Fails WP:GNG with relatively weak sourcing (2 of which are medium blog posts), and WP:SUSTAINED (most sources point to 2015). Should be properly deleted with content moved to parent article, if there's anything salvageable. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This seems more like a "merge and redirect" than a "delete"; the sourcing, though of variable quality, includes items in the acceptably-reliable range, and the phrase remains in use [3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Notable slogan for a movement within and outside the LGBT community that's been around for years now. This subject has recived a ton of coverage. Simple googeling gives several of reliable sources for it. Yeah its a sub right now but an article being in bad shape is no reason for deletion. At the very most is could be merged to another article, but that doesn't fix the fact that not everyone who supports this is a feminist, lesbian or even LGBT, so Feminist views on transgender topics wouldn't really make much sense. Right now there is not other page that focuses on the subject of transphobia withing the LGBT community.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If there's no particularly good merge target, I'd support a keep. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, all instances of usage have been by either these fringe feminists, or people describing them. The page's content is prefectly fit to be included as a paragraph on Transphobia. It's odd to give a fringe movement it's own page at this stage and this violate the spirit of WP:FRINGE by implicitly endorsing it. I see no reason of not deleting this one. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Whether giving a fringe group its own page acts as an implicit endorsement can be an awfully gray-area thing that, I think, has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That said, a paragraph in Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities seems to be the perfect spot for this. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a silly implication. Writing an article about a subject is not an endorcement of that subject. I do not support Transphobia in any form. I made the article because I think it is important to cover the existing transphobia that exists within LGBT communities.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities. The article isn't actually correct in saying that the phrase was coined in 2015; a 2013 column in The New Yorker uses it, for example (not as a call to action, but as a description of how many people behave). XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To say it another way, if this were currently a paragraph in Transphobia, there would be no rationale to split it into its own page. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a fringe campaign fails GNG, this never became an LGBTQ phrase. --Fæ (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, this may be fringe, but that is not a valid rationale for deletion. It is incredibly widely discussed [5][6][7][8]. SpinningSpark 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The metro.co.uk link appears to be an independent use of the phrase, in an opinion piece that predates the petition which is the subject of this article. I question the reliability of The Federalist on this topic. Overall, there was one petition that flashed in the pan, generated some opinions and mostly sank away; and there are a smattering of prior uses, quite possibly coined independently from one another (we're not exactly talking Algonquin Round Table level of wit here). So, while we have enough to write about, I can't make a case for doing so in a dedicated article, particularly when Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities is right there. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • (after ec) You didn't offer a rationale why they are not reliable, but there are plenty of others [9][10][11][12][13]. SpinningSpark 23:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • My rationale for why The Federalist is not reliable on this topic (or, probably, most any other) is aptly summarized by the Wikipedia article on The Federalist. The New Yorker link is one that I posted myself above. The Queerty link is just a commentary on the USA Today op-ed, which is just an op-ed and doesn't have anything to do with the petition that is the subject of this article. The Gay Star News link is a cursory report on a Twitter dust-up. Plenty of people have used the phrase, but this article is about a 2015 petition, and there's just not enough to say about that petition to merit a whole article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      • And, now that I think on it, trying to expand the article beyond perma-stub status by filling it with pre- and post-2015 instances of the phrase would be the sort of synthesis that lexicographers can do, but we can't. XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
        • You cannot argue at one and the same time for WP:SUSTAINED (as the nom did) and then reject all sources that are not concerned with the original campaign. Your argument re the Federalist does not make sense. The Wikipedia article does not touch on its reliablility, only the right-wingedness of its politics. A source can be POV and reliable at the same time, and this is written into our policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. Just because you don't like the politics of a source, does not mean you are entitled to label it unreliable. SpinningSpark 13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Sources that were published well after the original campaign and still discuss the original campaign in depth are evidence of sustained interest. Sources that were published well after the original campaign and make passing mention of it or use the phrase independently are not. And trying to make an article about the slogan rather than the event is WP:SYNTH. As for the reliability issue, I'm not labeling The Federalist unreliable because of its politics, but because its history begins with a founder fired for plagiarism and only continues from there. I'd object to a left-wing source or an avowedly centrist source for the same reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
            • The Wikipedia article does not say the founder was fired for plagiarism, or suggest in any way that The Federalist is unreliable (remember, you claimed that was where the information was). In any case, projecting one person's misdemeanour to reflect on a publication that was not involved in the plagiarism is your own synthesis, the very thing you are accusing me of (and I note that all the publications he is accused of plagiarising are themselves reliable sources). SpinningSpark 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
              • WP:SYNTH is about article content, not how we as editors come to judgments about whether a source is worth our time. The article on The Federalist prominently links to Ben Domenech, and it describes both their lack of transparency about their funding and their promotion of a conspiracy theory. I found that an adequate summary. I apologize for being more curt or elliptical about that than I most likely should have been; for more, see [14][15][16]. (As an academic, I inevitably take issue with the description of plagiarism as a "misdemeanour"; it is serious intellectual misconduct per any university's honor code, for example, and the then-editor of the Washington Post website considered it a firing offense. The fact that the victims of his intellectual-property theft were reliable sources does not somehow make his conduct ethical.) But even supposing them admissible sources, they don't add up to much. Of the two Federalist links, the first is an interview with the initiator of the Change.org petition, and so a WP:PRIMARY source that would be of borderline utility in evaluating notability no matter where it was published. The second is an opinion piece (by an author who appears to be a professional provocateur, but we'll set that aside) which only uses the phrase "drop the T" in the headline and does not mention the 2015 petition. If the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster or the OED wrote a blog post about "The history of dropping the T from LGBT", then we would at least have grounds to consider all these disparate examples together. As it is, we have one event, and a scattering of activist screeds that provide incidental phrase-drops. Nothing here substantiates a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                • We are clearly not going to agree, so I'm stopping responding here. SpinningSpark 19:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject has adequate notability and uniqueness. A145 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Note this AfD was opened by the same user at roughly the same time as another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get the L Out A145 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is perfectly fine, what is it that you're insinuating? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term. WP:WHYN: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term, per Wanda's reasoning. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with LGBT#Criticism of the term per Wanda. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term. I started looking through the sources in this article yesterday, when I saw it linked in "Get the L Out", and they just don't allow for much to be written about this (as evidenced by the article being only a few sentences). They seem better suited to supporting a mention of the concept in another article. (And iff the content is merged to that page or some other page, then IMO obviously the current page should be a redirect to there rather than entirely deleted.) -sche (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment'. I !voted "keep" above, but would also support a merge that WP:PRESERVEd the existing material. SpinningSpark 08:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability beyond the initial event, and due to source issues XOR'easter pointed out. Rab V (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT#Criticism of the term and I have a lot to say.
  1. I came here because I read about it on GenderDesk. My colleagues can decide if that makes my opinion less valid.
  2. This article meets GNG. It's been the subject of in-depth coverage, both left-leaning (MTV News 2015, Teen Vogue 2015) and right-leaning (The Federalist 2015, The Federalist 2016, Spectator 2017). A publication having political bias doesn't mean it's not an independent reliable source (all publications have political bias). Two years of coverage meets WP:SUSTAINED for me. Pop culture magazines and opinion pieces still count for notability IMO.
  3. Most of the coverage is criticism of the group/petition/idea. Some of the RSes report that it was all a conservative hit job. All of this is reason to edit an article, not delete it. We cover notable reprehensible groups like the Ku Klux Klan, we don't delete articles for this reason.
  4. So why redirect? Because WP:PAGEDECIDE. Notability isn't the only question–there's also the question of how to organize the content to best serve our reader. "Drop the T" is a useful search term, so we should have a redirect for it. Most of the coverage, though it establishes notability, is people giving opinions about it (mostly negative). Although there is plenty written, and the petition/phrase has received enough attention to make it notable, there isn't a lot of factual reporting in all those sources, meaning our article will likely remain a very small size. Coverage seems to have dried up after 2017, with most links I find after that using "drop the T" descriptively as a phrase, rather than in reference to a movement or petition. Because this is both a petition, and a phrase that represents an idea or a social/political goal–used both before and after the 2015 petition–we will best serve our readers by putting this content in context, which means taking the paragraph that is this article and putting it at LGBT#Criticism of the term. So redirect there, not because it's not notable, but because it's the best place for the content. – Levivich 16:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: You have said "redirect", but your reasoning is for "merge and redirect". Not entirely the same thing. SpinningSpark 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - this seems to essentially be a news story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• merge/refactor Seems to have received a fair amount of publicity, but may not last. There seems to be a movement here (see Get the L Out, but I suspect its not important enough for its own article. So merge the two (and any other related articles) into one article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

R. Ramachandran (Sanskrit scholar)

R. Ramachandran (Sanskrit scholar) (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 consists of three paragraphs of puffery, wading through which I can only find out that he works at a university, that he teaches Sanskrit and that he's received an award for contributing to the cultural life of his local neighbourhood. That's very far from meeting either the notability criteria for academics or the general notability criteria. I haven't looked for further sources though. – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Total lack of RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC).
• Delete Nominator said it all. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom and WP:PROMO. This local figure just isn't notable whether he has an interesting career or not. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Tony Fadil

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tony Fadil
• Articles for deletion/Tony Fadil (2nd nomination)

Tony Fadil (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:Actor and WP:GNG. Barely had a role of note. No significant coverage. Has been deleted in the past. COI article. Would be an orphan other than a bit part in the hatton garden film. Rayman60 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. He has a lot of film credits. But roles may not be notable. Does not meet WP:ENT. No significant secondary RS coverage whatsoever. No real notability established, may be a case of TOOSOON. • HM Wilburt (talk) 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete He's an actor, and he might meet our notability criteria someday, but he doesn't now. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. There is no real claim to notability in this article and while he has some film credits, they just aren't for significant roles. He is no more notable now then when this article was deleted the first time. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Eddy Shell

Eddy Shell (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)

Shell's elected office fails WP:NPOL and the sources used in this article do not establish WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete another Billy Hathorn special. I didn't know it was possible for so many articles on marginal people to have been created by one editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Every time I think I've made a dent I've been proven wrong. The craziest part about it is there are even more articles that he created using socks. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Another article from the Hathorn sock farm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Another Billy Hathorn classic, where the existence of an obituary in a local political figure's local media somehow constituted an automatic WP:GNG pass that exempted him from actually having to get the topic past WP:NPOL on significant and substantive and not just local press coverage. Not how it worked then, not how it works now. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete -- Merely a NN politician. The fact that his election involved under 2000 votes in his favour shows his position was that of a mere local politician. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ann Mallek

Ann Mallek (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:NPOL as a member of a council for a county of about 100,000 people. All sources are either routine local coverage or from primary sources such as town and campaign websites. GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete county board members are almost never notable, no reason to view Mallek as an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete though i'm usually not a deletionist, this is a non-notable living person whose ~only~ claim to fame is lucking into an unopposed local party political ticket. other life items like marrying a dentist and being from an old family just don't qualify. WP doesn't need to be a re-election ad for every middling county supervisors member in the US. Cramyourspam (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOL, but this is not referenced to anything like the depth or range of reliable source coverage it would take to get her over the bar as a special case. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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 Deleted (G4) by Athaenara, 00:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unhinged (2019 film)

Unhinged (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · ge=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unhinged_(2019_film) Stats)

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

Film has yet to be in production (source says in production in July 2019 [17]) - Fails WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as TOOSOON and lacking notability according to relevant notability guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 applied Already deleted once as Unhinged (film 2019); no improvement to previous copy, and as I said previously, this isn't getting a 2019 release and 2020 is more likely when it actually is released. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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 17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Bubbles (Trailer Park Boys)

Bubbles (Trailer Park Boys) (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 real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Should be a redirect to show, but some editors insist on recreating it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that Bubbles likes to steal shopping carts might find its way into the Shopping cart article. And his rather thick glasses might be mentioned in Eye disease or Glasses. In short, lots of real world notability. See also archetype. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Major character of a major show. (EDIT: Keep per User:Nfitz) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, as at several other recent AfD's, neither of the above is a valid reason to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

While "Major character of a major show" isn't itself a valid argument, one does find one's jaw dropping when seeing an article such a nationally well-known iconic character on such a big show listed, given what exists for much less well-known TV shows. It does make one wonder how much research was done looking for further sources before nominating. Where did you search and what did you find? Full disclosure, I haven't looked yet. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I'd hoped this was a May 24 joke, but it seems not. This seems to be a WP:BEFORE fail. I'm finding no end of significant coverage of the character "Bubbles" in the national media - particularly from the early 2000s when the show was at it's peak. I've added a few references from major publications to the article - though the media coverage seems endless to me. I can't fathom nominating such a major popular culture icon for deletion! Even if the character didn't meet GNG (and it easily does), it should redirect to Mike Smith (actor). Nfitz (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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 17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Precision Components

Mercury Precision Components (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)

Current sourcing includes three listings in on-line directories (not significant coverage), and one press release (not independent) - these don't meet the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP. I can't find any better sourcing on-line, so am assuming that the company fails WP:NCORP, unless a Malaysian speaker can find anything reliable on them in that language that I'm not seeing? (Also note that the article is fairly promotional in how it describes the company, and contained a significant chunk of COPYVIO to begin with - those issues could be fixed though if we could find decent sourcing.) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (article author). Dear GirthSummit _(blether), indeed you are right. I have missed out some very reliable and important source as I have accidentaly added to much information for the Memorandum Of Understandings section of my article.The company is a real company and It was right for you to remove that chunk of information. To be honest those information was not needed and I just added it to make the article more detailed. I have learned my mistakes not to write too much when there is not much citations. However, the sentence that you left out is well sourced. So I would like to nrequest you remove the deletion tag since the problem has been solved while I find more sources to add on to my article in the future.

• Mathewanderson7232 Thanks for the note, but to be clear, that information was removed no because it was excessive, but because it was a copyright violation - it was a direct copy/paste of a press release. Whether the company is real is not in doubt, the question I have raised is about whether it is notable, according to our guidelines at WP:NCORP. I can't remove the deletion tag now that this discussion has started - the community will review the article and its sourcing, and discuss whether or not it should be deleted. If you want the article to be retained, the best thing you can do would be to remove the promotional language (e.g. 'It is one of the nations most advanced and precision manufacturing company'), and find reliable sources that give significant coverage - see my concerns about the current sources above, and take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH to find out more about the sort of sourcing we'd be looking for. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Dear GirthSummit _(blether), I have followed your advice and have removed the promotional language and have added new sources. Please do review my article again and I hope its Wiki worthy. Mathew Anderson (talk)

• The text is less promotional now, but the source you added is another entry in a business directory - the article now has four of them, plus a press release - please do read WP:NCORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH, which discusses the type of source that is needed in detail. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• DELETE - This really is a directory listing. In searching for English-language references, I could find none that weren't listings, and most of those seemed to be duplicates. I don't believe that it meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. ogenstein (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Understood Dear GirthSummit _(blether), I will follow as you adviced but I just need a little more time as I have some magazines to add as sources. Please do not delete the article as references are on its way. Mathew Anderson (talk)

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because it lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV demonstrating notability or importance. The sources and the article itself are basically just a series of directory listings. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Andavo Travel

Andavo Travel (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, WP:CORPDEPTH. Kleuske (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Only reliable sources are local coverage only. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above, also because this reads a bit like an advertisement. - Scarpy (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm tempted to leave a keep vote but i don't think references are quite satisfactory. Lapablo (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:PROMO, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has to repeat the same history twice to try to bulk itself up, which says it all about notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Christiann Imani

Christiann Imani (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)

Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now simply does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete we need good sourcing to create articles on people under age 18 and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as this is a case of WP:TOOSOON with the release of only one single and there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example she has no entry at all at AllMusic, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. The sustained WP:SIGCOV just isn't there to make this individual notable, as they are just starting their career. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel). Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Man Who Fell to Earth (1987 film)

The Man Who Fell to Earth (1987 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)

Can't find any references for this version of the film (not the 1970 version). May fail WP:NFILM. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's three hits from Google Books: [18], [19], [20]. Apparently it was an unsuccessful pilot for a TV series. PC78 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  PC78, the last source is for the 1976 film NOT the 1987 one. The reboot, the 1987 film, is up for deletion request. The 1976 one isn't. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Tyw7: Clearly you didn't actually look at those links, they are all for the 1987 version (the third one discusses both versions)... PC78 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Edit: The first two links aren't indepth coverage of the film. Certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. The second one might be considered a good source but usually one isn't enough. Perhaps merging the two films might be better?--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A few more mentions of the 1987 version: [21], [22]. Was merely providing some sources since you said you couldn't find any. :) FWIW I don't think it's unreasonable for this version to be covered somewhere, be it in the article for the novel or the Bowie film, even if there's not enough for a standalone article. PC78 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

PC78, OK. I was getting hits for the 1970 version but it might be because the older version is more famous. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. With a cast like that? Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, but there's not a lot of source for /this/ version of the film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  It existed. It's verifiable. It had a notable cast. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, but notability is not inherited. The film itself doesn't have enough references to stand on its own right. What you are arguing is WP:ITEXISTS --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  No. I'm arguing it exists and is clearly notable due to its well-known cast, as are almost all productions with notable casts. I believe that is common sense. Telling me that I'm wrong because you believe you're right is not going to change my opinion, so is ultimately fairly pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, well you are arguing that the cast is notable so the film is notable. Sounds like WP:INHERITED to me.

  Does not meet one of the listed criteria of WP:NFILM

  The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

  The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

  Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

  The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]

  The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

  The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

  The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]

  The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]

  The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  You clearly didn't read my second sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, "I believe that is common sense." That one? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Third sentence then. Don't be pedantic. Mind you, given you're quoting non-existent "rules" at me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Necrothesp, 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.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"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.[4]

"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.[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been here a very long time. There is absolutely no need to quote guidelines at me. Indeed, it could be seen as somewhat patronising. My opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Hardly any coverage, hence fails notability requirements for films. I'm somewhat baffled by Necrothesp's insistence that existence + cast member notability should suffice; they don't. If (to take a random example) a Tamil film with these characteristics popped up as a stub this minute, it would immediately evaporate at AfD. Including a note about this remake in The Man Who Fell to Earth should do fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The coverage in books such as this is ample to pass WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, how?!? It only lists the summary and does not discuss the film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to The Man Who Fell to Earth The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel)- The found sources are not enough to establish notability as a stand alone article - two of them are pretty much nothing but a cast list and brief synopsis, and provide no in-depth discussion, reviews, or analysis. The third source is slightly more substantial, but is still largely about the original, with only two paragraphs on the remake. I do agree with Elmidae, however, the the scant information on this one could and should be included on the The Man Who Fell to Earth article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with PC78 below - the original novel is the more appropriate Merge/Redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per my above comment, but unless there is a tangible link to the 1976 film I think this should be at The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel) which should include coverage of both adaptations. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Speedy deleted A10 as a cut-and-paste copy of an existing article. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election (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 crystal balling, we do not know she will resign, nor when the election will be held. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is a cut-and-paste move from the Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election article. It really needs to be restored. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This is a cut'n'past move from Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, done without consensus. It needs removing. It may well be appropriate very soon to move the article here, at which point this needs to be deleted to make way for the move. The move was done by an editor being discussed at ANI: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Okeeffemarc. Okeeffemarc is edit-warring and pushing edits earlier made by a permabanned sock in multiple incarnations. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. CSD A10. Archive pages should not be created in mainspace. If there is a valid reason for keeping this page I will restore on request, but it must be restored to another namespace, such as Talk SpinningSpark 22:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics/archive

List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics/archive (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)

Improper subpage, merged back into main page, so no longer referenced. I can't think of a speedy deletion category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Why not Speedy delete A10? I think it meets the criteria.--94rain ^Talk 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. The nomination doesn't make sense and the nominator didn't make a valid reason/argument for deletion. This nomination is being closed as a keep with no prejudice against a speedy renomination that is coherent and logically sound. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Jiho Lee

Jiho Lee (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)

Reason Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this person is notable, too short article, unsourced and unclear texts in this article. /the ref. that they're add like the ref. maybe it's fake links and not available.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. An earlier version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiho_Lee&oldid=894661914 is more complete and has more references, including some that had been rescued by User:InternetArchiveBot and that were subsequently removed by another editor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• he is notable if he is famous in Thailand or Asia he will still have his article on Thai wiki and they will not removed from Thai wiki. so his fans knows him only on his social media like FB page, not in entertainment or fashion industries.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the argument "his article on Thai wiki" is not compelling per WP:OTHERLANGS - Epinoia (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the nominator says this person is notable, by which I imagine they mean it he is not notable. There are references to th.wiki which make no sense as the subject of this article is Korean and doesn’t have an article in th.wiki. If anyone wants to mount a case that the sourcing is not adequate I’ll consider changing my vote, but I’m not happy with the encyclopaedia losing content as a result of such a confused nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comments and question. (i) The nomination makes no sense to me and I shall therefore ignore it. (ii) I note that the article says "He then modeled for some of the biggest names in fashion industry such as attitude, Kenneth Cole and ELLE Fashion Week", with no reference. (iii) If this claim were referenced, so what? Does being photographed for "biggest names" confer notability? (Being photographed to appear anywhere seems un-notable to me, but then fashion mystifies me.) (iv) Perhaps this AFD attempt should be tossed out for having an incomprehensible nomination, without prejudicing the fate of any later, coherent nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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. The nomination doesn't make sense and the nominator didn't make a valid reason/argument for deletion. This nomination is being closed as a keep with no prejudice against a speedy renomination that is coherent and logically sound. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Haruehun Airry

Haruehun Airry (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)

Reason Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) this person is notable, too short article, unsourced and unclear texts in this article. /the ref. that they're add like the ref. maybe it's fake links and not available.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. An earlier version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haruehun_Airry&oldid=838057241 is more complete and has more references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• all the ref. that they added in the article maybe it's fake because it's all dead links and some link it's Thai Red Cross Org. website and news didnt talked about Haruehun on website/news. so we dont have his article in Thai too because he is notable, he just was viral on Thai social by his work about sexy male model pics.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't remove links for being dead. Instead, we ask User:InternetArchiveBot to look for and add a ink to an archived copy of the dead link on a site like Internet Archive, or we do it ourselves. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• he is notable if he is famous in Thailand or Asia he will still have his article on Thai wiki and they will not removed from Thai wiki. so his fans knows him only on his social media like FB and IG.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: The above comment probably misunderstood the meaning of the word notable, and meant the opposite. I've removed extra bold text. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment He seems to be moderately notable, with some amount of online coverage. However the most of references cited in the article are of poor quality, like [23] which only described a project but failed to show his involvement in the project. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The cited BK magazine interview is rather brief. Lots of mention on the web, but the only in-depth Thai sources I could find are this article from Adam's Love[24] (which isn't independent of the subject), and this one from Post Today[25]. Has appeared on some talk shows with Bright TV[26][27] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The amount of recent coverage of his field alone is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Incoherent nomination and sufficient sources identified. Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems to be a notable person, but to complete passes notability needs to add some reliable sources.--MA Javadi (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Fin (band). Sandstein 09:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Artisan Records

Artisan 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)

Adequate sourcing does not exist to pass NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Fin (band). This is rather an obvious solution - why is this at AfD? Chubbles (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Almost no coverage. Possibly a selective merge and redirect to Fin (band)--94rain ^Talk 12:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sascha Vogt

Sascha Vogt (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)

WP:BLP, referenced solely to a primary source profile on the self-published website of his own political party rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in real media, of a person notable only as a former chairperson of a political party's youth chapter. This is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because he exists, but would require him to pass WP:GNG on depth of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - initial issues have since been resolved. ^{19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)} Delete - DRAFTIFY and let it incubate ^{20:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)} fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The biography is a stub, but the claim that the only notability notability comes through his chairmanship of the youth chapter isn't true. He's still today a member of the board of the SPD (Parteivorstand) on the national level, which happens to be one of the ruling parties federal level in Germany.

Additionally, there are plenty of news articles that talk about him. I added six links to mainstream media sources but it would be easy to add more. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You have to use references to support content, not just factoids in the infobox, before they actually constitute support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: What existing Wikipedia policy rules that what's in the infobox isn't content?

The policy says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The election of a new JUSO chairperson is an event that receives "significant coverage in reliable sources". The sources I linked indicate so. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A single statement that the person exists, paired with an infobox but no substantive body text, is not a proper Wikipedia article. Articles need to be substantive to have any encyclopedic value. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat - perhaps a move to DRAFT would work? That will give the article creator time to actually make it a WP article with proper sourcing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. at this point, there are 4 major articles from 4 major german news sources,. That's enough. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this refbombed blurb of triviality. Refund when actual notability happens. Trillfendi (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Move to draft - if there are other noteworthy facts about him that can be properly sourced, let's see them and then we can reconsider. greenrd (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - issues have since been fixed. Subject meets GNG based on the updates and the German WIKI. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Move to draft space per suggestiong by User:Atsme Subject may be notable but the article is a stub and I cannot be bothered to work on it. The references should be formatted properly and the article developed. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Subject has a page on the German Wiki (which has a high bar for inclusion). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  comment perhaps Stefka Bulgaria you can use the Herman wiki to improve this article. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I moved some information from the German wiki to the article. You can all decide if that's enough or it needs more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Well sourced NOW. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov No longer the article it was when the AFD was floated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Austin Vaday

Austin Vaday (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:GNG requirements for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see that this article was written by RotcVG for a classroom assignment, and I would advise RotcVG to save a copy of this article if they would like to refer to it in the future. If the article is deleted before they have a chance to save it, they can request a copy by contacting an administrator listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable software engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Magicrete

Magicrete (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. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. NOT KEEP -- Alice McBanff 07:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Note This nomination was missing its template and not listed at AFD. I have fixed both. Please consider this comment as the time of initial listing when closing. Monty₈₄₅ 03:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The Forbes article referenced in the article is probably the strongest towards demonstrating notability; the other references are routine coverage, including the interview with the company founder. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • With respect, it is a common mistake to say that articles such as the Forbes one you mention meet the criteria for establishing notability. They don't. WP:ORGIND explains in great detail what is required in terms of independence and states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes article is a classic example of churnalism where it "profiles" a company. It has all the traits including market size, founding details/founder profile, the "problem" being addressed, funding, and an future-looking note to finish. The issue is that it is all based exclusively on an interview with company executives. It fails WP:ORGIND as there is zero "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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 Chairlift (band). Or elsewhere. Sandstein 09:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Bruises (Chairlift song)

Bruises (Chairlift 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)

Very little information and it really only indicates chart positions that are already on Charlift's article. This should be a redirect to Chairlift (band). JE98 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I should note that this song is by far Chairlift's best known, having been featured in a 2008 iPod nano commercial. For this alone it has received a fair bit of media coverage, e.g. here and here. In March 2009, NPR's Tamara Vallejos even stated, "Brooklyn-based electro-pop trio Chairlift may not seem familiar to you at first, but no doubt you've heard its ridiculously catchy single, "Bruises," while flipping through TV channels." [28] In fact this song's appearance in this commercial is credited with making Chairlift itself become famous: "By 2009, though, they had become the reluctant poster kids for a popular wave of twee indie thanks to a ubiquitous Apple iPod Nano advert, which featured the cutesy bounce of their breakout song Bruises." [29] The song has also been remixed by Passion Pit. [30] Further coverage of the song: [31] [32] [33]. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep: this is indeed the band's best-known, and best-selling, single – the article already notes that the song charted in the UK, Canada and Australia, and it charted in Germany too [34]. Charting in four different countries might be enough to demonstrate that it is notable, and the fact that IntoThinAir has demonstrated that there is some coverage of the song in reliable sources as well which could be turned into prose. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chairlift (band) - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Does You Inspire You. Doesn't seem to be enough here to warrant a full article. All the stuff that's here, apart from the chart positions, can be found on the album's page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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 Adam Watson (scientist)#The Place Names of Upper Deeside. And possibly merge content from history. I believe this compromise outcome is most reflective of this discussion. Sandstein 09:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've completed the merger in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Place Names of Upper Deeside

The Place Names of Upper Deeside (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 Cairngorms (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)

Completely unreferenced articles about local interest history books by a non-notable author, offering no reason why either of them could be considered to pass WP:NBOOK. Both articles, further, make unreferenced claims about translation or pronunciation errors in the author's research -- but as always, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own original research criticism of other people's work: if reliable sources could be shown that have already criticized the work's accuracy on the record, then we could quote short passages of criticism from those sources so long as they were attributed to those sources and not just stated as facts, but in the absence of such sources it's not our role to criticize so much as one misplaced comma of anybody's writing in our own editorial voice. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and NBOOK. Not too big a surprise that this tome didn't get reviewed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete As per WP:NBOOK Angryskies (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Neither of these articles suggest that they are covering a notable book and I can see nothing to indicate either has the significance that would be needed to justify them have an article of their own. Dunarc (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Germcrow (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The Place Names of Upper Deeside, now cleaned-up, expanded and sourced. The nomination is deeply flawed, it does not even find the correct author, Adam Watson (scientist), where the book already had its own section! This AFD is a textbook example of lack of due dilligence. There's simply no way to miss the search results with a string like The Place Names of Upper Deeside if one does any searching. As for The Cairngorms that had an incoming link from Adam Watson (scientist) at the time of nomination, I do not have the time to source it now, but the title is a perfectly valid {{R from book}}, so for now that's a Redirect to Adam Watson (scientist). Sam Sailor 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• KEEP per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Adam Watson (scientist) where the book is already covered - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's a bit unclear so far how each article should be dealt with - there are claims of notability, but it's not so clear what they are based of.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, a richly-sourced little article, and certainly an important sidelight on Watson's life. No problem with notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect The book does not seem notable in its own right, so redirect to the author's page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yolki-palki

Yolki-palki (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)

• The film is popular in Russia actor and director Sergei Nikonenko, but there are no links, awards, reviews.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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 the article, no consensus on the author. Consensus for keeping the documentary is clear, while most of the opinions on the author appear to favour redirection or deletion or don't state an opinion on the author specifically. The category needs to be discussed at WP:CFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems like I didn't notice that there is a deletion discussion up on the author as well; vacating any action here on the author article for that discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Up to Snuff

Up to Snuff (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 documentary. At best, WP:TOOSOON, but certainly heavy WP:NPOV issues – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, all created by Vajayhawk for promotional purposes:

Mark Maxey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Category:Films directed by Mark Maxey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep This article does seem promotional, but the subject has won multiple festival awards. Although most are small time and the category nominations are all over the place, at least 3 are significant. Among references provided there is indeed some clutter, but at least 2 examples in RS--combined with the awards--should be enough to barely pass muster. As for the the other nominations, I agree Mark Maxey having his own article probably is WP:TOO SOON and should redirect here. Category:Films directed by Mark Maxey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and his entry in Category:People from Brambleton, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are a hard delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

struck my "weak" above to a solid keep, based on references added since nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep PROMO tone needs clean-up. However, in addition to the awards, there has been feature story coverage, some of which I just added to the page. meets WP:NFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Up to Snuff as the article has been significantly improved as per WP:HEY and it's notability has been established. No vote! on Mark Macey but he needs at least one more notable production (having a Wikipedia article) if not more to pass WP:CREATIVE, while the categories need to go to WP:CFD thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per E.M.Gregory remarks and per Atlantic306 Lubbad85 (☎) 23:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Loch Beag

Loch Beag (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)

Over a year no sources, vague definition and nebulous name, etc. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Prior to this May 4th edit the article was about a specific place, albeit vague. It was probably the location in the Sound of Arisaig vicinity which was covered by this CEFAS report in 2015. For context see the map on PDF p23 and this description on p7: "Loch Beag is located within the Lochaber district of Highland Council on the west coast of Scotland. The loch comprises a small inlet at the head of Loch nan Uamh, which itself opens at the western end to the Sound of Arisaig. The Ardnish peninsula boarders the loch to the south. Loch Beag is 1.2 km in length, has a width of approximately 500 m and a maximum recorded depth of 21 m." and maybe the location for the Commons bird recording on the Common eider page. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Also see this May 2018 news story and the photo in the corresponding BBC News item. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• If the location can be positively determined, revert to an article about a specific loch. The current article is WP:NOT#DICT. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Scottish toponymy, but may be too fine a detail for that article. The information that Loch Beag is a common name and means small can still be included in a specific article. SpinningSpark 14:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In fact, we may as well make the article about the loch identified by AllyD (located at 56°53′10N 5°44'10W) since we have a source for that. It will probably be impossible to determine for sure what the original intention was unless the author comes forward, which seems unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Usually, I avoid substantial repurposing of an article during AfD discussion. In this case, however, as recent edits had created the circumstance of the AfD rationale, I have in this edit restored, extended and referenced the previous version. I had previously been considering whether to propose a redirect to Sound of Arisaig as a possible option, but I think the news and scientific report sources now in the article are sufficient for WP:GEOLAND. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Current state & sources are fine, possible subject shift notwhithstanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Re to the point made by Epinoia below - the referenced "Scottish Sanitary Survey Report: Loch Beag" [1] is practically a monograph on the region, including sections on agriculture, wildlife, hydrography, meteorology... this is about as good as it gets for non/thinly-populated locations. There can be no question that "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (the actual requirement set out at WP:GEOLAND) exists in spades here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• Delete - WP:GEOLAND demands "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - two of the references cited are about contaminated shellfish, not about the geography or geology or history of Loch Beag itself - does not meet WP:NGEO which requires meeting WP:GNG (and even meeting GNG does not guarantee notability for places) - Epinoia (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Arguing that in-depth coverage about shellfish fishing in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag is a weasel rationalisation of a conclusion already reached. Likewise for the Argument that in-depth coverage of sewage contamination in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag. I also note that, contrary to your claim, the source referred to by Elmidae above devotes several pages to the geography and hydrography of the loch. SpinningSpark 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep A finial on one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we incorporate a gazetteer. Per WP:GEOLAND this article should not be deleted. If it is deficient in detail it should be merged with a more general article on local geography. I certainly wouldn't object to a merge but I think a stand-alone article is just fine. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND and Thincat's argument. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• There are indeed many[35] but the Gazetteer for Scotland only has an article on 2, one at Loch Glencoul and one at Bracadale but neither articles contain anything other than location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Aleksei Maklakov

Aleksei Maklakov (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 notable Russian actor of episodic roles.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - hard to judge the notability of a foreign (to me) personality, but the total lack of references does not meet WP:BASIC, showing no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - Epinoia (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • See WP:NEXIST you are supposed to look for sources not just run a quick perusal of the article. See the Russian wikipedia article that has more references and try google translate, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as has many prominent roles and the Russian wikipedia article linked in this article shows more evidence of significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Large amount of articles about him (and his personal life), and his views on politics and sports get coverage. He's described as a "well-known actor."[36][37][38] His interviews[39] get reported on by secondary sources.[40] —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. It seems like the discussion here is in part about a redirect target, in part about whether WP:NAUTHOR is met. Some people are arguing that he and/or his publications have received wide enough attention to satisfy the NAUTHOR guideline, others that the attention is too insufficient. This is a point on which people can reasonably disagree and I don't see an overwhelming argument on either side, thus no consensus. Regarding the redirect target, it seems like there are two or three separate targets, with Connaught Marshner being the most commonly cited one, but the arguments for pointing to the book (primarily known for the book) or the institution (primarily known through the institution) are also fair. So that would be a no consensus here as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

William Marshner

William Marshner (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. While Marshner was chair of an academic department at one time, I don't believe that Christendom College (total enrollment was 560 students in 2017-18) qualifies as a "major institution of higher education and research" and therefore doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Beyard508 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and there are no references. Syndicater (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. Searching Google Books turns up a few references. He seems to have been quite influential in the New Right, mostly through his work with the FCF. His wife, Connaught (Connie) Marshner is better known than he is - it's a shame she doesn't have a page as a redirect there would probably annoy him on biblical grounds. They both turn up in Susan Faludi's Backlash, where Connie Marshner is profiled at length (pp 272ff) [41] Polyharrisson (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I made a page for Connaught Marshner, his wife - I think his page should be redirected to hers as she is much better known as a conservative political activist, author and influential figure in the New Right of the 1970s and 1980s. Polyharrisson (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Connaught Marshner, as per Polyharrisson - good call - Epinoia (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep For this one you can't just look at what's in the existing Wikipedia article (not least because it is copyvio). At minimum, Marshner is notable under WP:AUTHOR. Even ignoring all the other things he wrote, Cultural Conservatism was one of the most influential books within right-wing American politics from the late 1980s forward. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Connaught Marshner as a WP:ATD where he is mentioned (and can be expanded to reflect on his work) per WP:PRESERVE which is a policy. Seems that his book Cultural Conservatism: A New National Agenda could be notable per WP:NBOOK because it was reviewed in notable publications. But that does not make him notable because notability is not inherited, and he would be only known for one event (co-creating one notable book). WP:AUTHOR argument can be made, but I don't see that the book itself is mentioned widely as "significant" (and cannot be verified as such per another policy at WP:V even if WP:OFFLINE arguments stands) or that it recieved awards and "won significant critical attention". If an article about the book was made, I would propose redirecting to that article, but since it was not, this will suffice. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as easily passes WP:NAUTHOR as very significant in his field as shown by reliable sources such as The Wall St Journal, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion on the WP:AUTHOR point raised late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete/merge I read the WSJ review of the book but it doesn't remotely call him "very significant in his field"; it's a standard book review by an ideological ally that says "the final product is commonly referred to as 'Weyrich's book'" due to its association with Paul Weyrich without detail on Marshner. It doesn't substantiate notability for him. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep A scholarly book published by a significant university press refers to him as "a prominent New Right leader and one of the architects of cultural conservatism": Carol Mason, Reading Appalachia from Left to Right: Conservatives and the 1974 Kanawha County Textbook Controversy Cornell University Press, 2011, p113.Wmdiem (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, worth noting, a publication of the SPLC describes Marshner's book "Cultural Conservatism" as "the script for what has become known as the 'culture wars'" And the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Liturature discusses the same book under the heading "Key Books and Periodicals of 20th-Century Conservative Thought" (see 10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.34)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- The article only talks of one book, which I would have argued was not enough, but the fact that the book is the subject of much later criticism suggest that it is significant; if so we ought to have an article on it or its author. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure Valley, Indiana

Pleasure Valley, Indiana (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)

There is a "Pleasure Valley Road" at these coordinates but a dozen houses on a private street is not a notable place. No substantive sources, search results are auto-generated. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Valid article per WP:GEOLAND nominated as part of an apparent vendetta by user against places in Indiana. Smartyllama (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am from Indiana - my vendetta is against mass-produced sub-stubs without actual sources. "Presumed notability" means that substantive sources are expected to be available, but none are to be found here so notability is not actually established. Where is the evidence that this "subdivision or housing development" has non-trivial coverage by reliable sources? GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". Where are the substantive sources still required under "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."? Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Listed in the Board of Geographic Names' National Gazetteer [42] which is the minimal threshold required per community consensus. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a neighborhood on a short street, even smaller than Knighthood Village, not a town or village. Whats the difference? Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The difference is it's recognized by a legally constituted body of a sovereign state, demonstrable through RS, which is the only requirement of GEOLAND. Chetsford (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - the guidelines say nothing about a "minimal threshold" - if there is a "minimal threshold required per community consensus" then the guidelines need to be updated to reflect this consensus, but as it stands we must follow the guidelines as written - WP:NGEO says that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" - meeting GNG means having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - this place lacks significant coverage (mentioned in a list or appearing on a map is a passing reference, not significant coverage) - WP:GEOLAND says that places without legal recognition (like this unincorporated community) can be considered notable "given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - WP:GEOLAND also says that places may be notable "because notability encompasses their entire history", but this place has no notable history - just existing does not establish notability - the article does not meet WP:GNG, therefore delete - also, "Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make," and "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted." per WP:2S - Epinoia (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Pleasure Valley is one of several settlements in Indian nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, which closed as "keep"). Pleasure Valley is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
  • The US Department of the Interior identifies Pleasure Valley as a populated place.
  • The State of Indiana identifies Pleasure Valley on a list of municipalities.
  • Shelby County identifies Pleasure Valley on its GIS map, and calls it a "neighborhood" on tax records.
  • Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Pleasure Valley. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I have expanded the article's history. As well:
  • The county shariff identifies Pleasure Valley on this legal document.
  • This State of Indiana watershed plan identifies Pleasure Valley as one of the towns located along the Flatrock River.
  • This document from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources identifies Pleasure Valley as a place.
  • This fishing blog has a fellow writing "I use to live in Pleasure Valley near Geneva on the Flatrock River". Magnolia677 (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Magnolia677. SpinningSpark 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GEOLAND, simple as that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Amiel Gladstone

Amiel Gladstone (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:DIRECTOR, doesn't cover any notability guidelines for creative professionals. Article lacks any citations additionally. None of his works are well known either. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 03:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 03:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC / GNG without significant secondary RS coverage. His plays are online but no deep significant coverage. I don't find any evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Subject may be WP:TOOSOON. • HM Wilburt (talk) 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do a significantly better job. As always, the notability test for creative professionals does not automatically guarantee an article to every playwright or theatre director who exists — we measure the depth of reliable source coverage that he and his plays have received in media, and primary source verification that he and his plays exist is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Horan

Daniel Horan (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 appear to pass WP:GNG as few sources in this article are independent and those that are don't appear to be particularly significant. Article was created by an SPA account so it could be a case of WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO. GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• delete I made a good faith effort to source this plausible-looking page, despite the fact that, as Nom says, it appears to be either WP:AUTOBIO or the work of an admirer of Horan, a Catholic priest who is active on the Retreat (spiritual) circuit and is a columnist in a major Catholic newspaper. Fails WP:AUTHOR, I can find him quoted in news articles as "author of" one or another book, but could not find reviews or other SIGCOV of his books. Nor could I find profiles or other in depth coverage of Horan. It may very well be WP:TOOSOON; he's early career for a theologian, priest, scholar. There should be no prejudice against an article on him if in future his work draws more attention, as often happens with writers and academics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  I was originally torn over whether or not to AfD because, as you point out, it is a plausible-looking page. I agree that the subject may someday meet notability standards. The fact that his professional headshot was uploaded as an own work by someone who states that they are a Franciscan Friar makes me lean towards this being an autobiography. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The article does include some interviews and coverage of the person [43][44] and there are other mentions [45], and he seems to have written a lot [46], also found some reviews of his books [47][48][49][50][51]. His notability is marginal I think, although most of the reviews of his book are not particularly noteworthy, one or two might possibly count towards passing WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding that review of the Duns Scotus book in The Anglican Review'. One of my hesitations has been that he published in the same Catholic magaznes that write about his activities and books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as the sources above found by HzH are enough for a close pass of WP:GNG and worldcat shows that he has 795 library holdings which is an indicator that there should be more reviews of his works offline if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per book reviews, articles found by User:Hzh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Found a few more book reviews in addition to the ones listed above, [52][53][54], and I expect there might be more as I haven't checked all the books. He should therefore qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ed Welch

Ed Welch (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)

Unref blp - after more than a decade, no clear evidence of notability and I couldn't find it. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I am finding a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers. The article does not seem to cover all his work very well, or clearly - it doesn't mention his albums, or songs he composed which were recorded by artists such as Shirley Bassey and Cilla Black. However, even with what is in the article, it seems clear that he will meet WP:MUSICBIO #10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc", and probably #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", and definitely WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" (The Snow Goose, apart from any others), and probably meets WP:GNG too. The article could use a lot of improvement, but he is definitely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. His composing credits for notable works, and album releases, show sufficient significance for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. François Robere (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination was due to lack of available referencing, which appears to remain unaddressed. Arguments which directly show source availability would be of help in determining if the article should be retained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have now added some sources, and reorganised the article to some extent. It could be further improved, with more information and references, and more emphasis given to his work other than TV theme tunes. Per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." As I said, it is clear from the article that he meets notability guidelines (and over 50 articles link to his article). Hopefully now that it has been shown that references do actually exist, the article can be kept and further improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. There are quite a few articles found in the British Newspaper Archive, e.g. "Ed's Good Number", Daily Mirror, 1 Feb 1972 - confirms an appearance on The Old Grey Whistle Test and a live radio broadcast from Paris, songs recorded by Shirley Bassey, Cilla Black, and Davy Jones, "Going Live", The Stage, 23 November 1973, confirms degree from Trinity College of Music, his songs recorded by multiple major artists, "How to Score a Television Hit", The Stage, 8 August 1991, confirms he conducted a two and a half-hour New Year's Eve show for TVS, "On the Record", The Stage, 18 November 1976, article about Welch's composing and conducting the music to the Spike Milligan-narrated album of The Snow Goose, various articles confirming his contributions to Milligan's Q series and other work with him, and Welch's BBC Radio 2 show. And that's just from the first page of results. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Michig, I thought I had seen some more extensive coverage in the BNA, but somehow didn't (or forgot to look in the BNA??!) when I was adding references - I'll find the ones you mentioned again and add them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per RebeccaGreen and Michig Lubbad85 (☎) 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEYMANN sourcing by User:RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Little George Coc'nuts

Little George Coc'nuts (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've been looking for almost an hour now and I can't find any reliable, independent, in-depth sources that verify a) that this place exists and b) where the hell it actually is. It doesn't come up on a search of the NGA GEOnet server, which is usually quite complete. There's no official gazetteer for the Pitcairns that I can see, but it isn't mentioned as a place of interest on the official Pitcairns website. It doesn't appear on any official maps that I can find.

It gets name-dropped in this research paper, these two personal sites[55], and this Telegraph article, so it probably is an actual local name for something on the island (although that Telegraph article looks ripped-from-Wikipedia and should be treated with caution), but in the absence of anything in-depth, we have no idea where it is or what if any official name it has, so there's not even a suitable merge or redirect target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sources have been provided. I don't know if the Telegraph article cited above was actually ripped from Wikipedia, but it was written several years after the content of this article (and basically duplicates it). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Existence of a place is not automatic notability, no substantive sources shown. Reywas92^Talk 07:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:GEOFEAT - does get mentioned [56] and while [57] isn't a reliable source, that definitely looks like a Lonely Planet map (and it's mentioned in an Italian [58] Lonely Planet.) Sourceable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I concur with Reywas92 - even if there are a few mentions that show this valley exists, proving it exists does not necessarily establish any sort of notability. And the sources that have been discovered so far have been either very brief, from unreliable sources, or a combination of both. Perhaps a Redirect to Pitcairn Islands could work, but I honestly don't see this as a feasible search term due to its obscurity. Rorshacma (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Except Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, so features don't have to be "notable" in the traditional sense, and I think it's clearly verifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 03:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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.