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) 00:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Divine's[edit]

Opal Divine's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The entire article reads like an advertisement yet says nothing remotely notable. A WP:MILL restaurant. MB 23:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRITE or WP:ORGDEPTH - only local mention - has had no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning KEEP, just ran a news archive search and the sheer number of articles, looking to see if any are from outside the region. It is part of the Austin music scene, and of South by Southwest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a local institution, however, coverage appears to be entirely local, making it hard to argue for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brien McMahon High School. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Global Studies at Brien McMahon High School[edit]

Center for Global Studies at Brien McMahon High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has six major issues, fails WP:GNG, and is highly promotional. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article on Brien McMahon High School, which is something of a mess in need of cleaning up. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge - Not notable on its own account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Brien McMahon High School. Specifically do not merge, unless the editor undertaking that task feels like providing reliable secondary sources for everything they merge. John from Idegon (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• An obvious Redirect since subject lacks independent notability. This will take care of the highly promotional text, too, in one step. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Brien McMahon High School because it lacks independent notability. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Cutz[edit]

Fernando Cutz (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 of an organizational founder and former White House staffer, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article just because he exists, so the inclusion test hinges on how much media coverage he can be shown to have received -- but the sources here are a press release from a university where he spoke once and an alumni profile on the website of his own alma mater, not notability-supporting journalism. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two semi-PR sources from a couple of Universities. Minimal new coverage and no notable achievements, works, or awards. PhobosIkaros ✉ 21:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a creator I understand that maybe he is not as notable as it seems, but I did saw and heard him talk on BBC. That alone should be enough for RS, but unfortunately, I cannot find that BBC source.:( Maybe people here focus on helping me here, rather then delete it?--Biografer (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in which he's the speaker don't help to make him notable. He has to be the thing that other people are speaking or writing about. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG based on the sources, a before search shows he's been quoted a few times but no coverage on him specifically, reads like a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, I did a search and couldn't find any reliable 3rd party sources that helped establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon. Any usable content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American Economist[edit]

The American Economist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (only some non-selective ones are listed on its website), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason (on talk page): "it more than satisfies the "notability" criteria for academic journals. 23 different Nobel Prize winners have published 29 articles in the journal over the years. The list includes very famous economists such as Milden Friedman and Paul Samuelson. Furthermore, the journal is indexed and archived by JSTORE, the premier and highly selective repository of leading journal backfiles across all major academic fields. The journal is also indexed and cataloged through many readily available bibliographic services including EBSCO, and more importantly for an economics journal, ECONLIT. I will make edits to the page indicating these facts and providing proper references." However, notability is not inherited and the databases listed are not selective in the sense of NJournals. ECONLIT strives to be all-inclusive. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• From the JSTOR website itself: "JSTOR is a highly selective digital library of academic content in many formats and disciplines. The collections include top peer-reviewed scholarly journals as well as respected literary journals, academic monographs, research reports from trusted institutes, and primary sources." (https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yep, they sure put in an effort to sell their access platform. Unfortunately, as far as I know, we have never accepted inclusion in JSTOR as evidence of notability in these kind of discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the City University of New York Graduate Center Library: "Not every journal will be in JSTOR, and most never will be." https://gclibrary.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2013/10/28/jstor-not-the-only-game-in-town/

From the New York Public Library: "JSTOR A searchable, digitized archive -- from the first date of publication to the last three to five years -- of major scholarly journals in many academic fields." https://www.nypl.org/collections/articles-databases/jstor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Cambridge University: "JSTOR is a high-quality, interdisciplinary archive of scholarship that includes leading academic journals across the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences." https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/benefits/journals-and-online-resources/jstor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The CUNY Library page is saying that JSTOR is incomplete, not that it is necessarily selective. The others say that JSTOR includes "major" or "leading" journals, which is true, but they are not evidence that it is limited to them. I can't recall inclusion in JSTOR ever being accepted as evidence of notability, and I don't think we should start. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon, the publisher, where it is already mentioned. I can't see the case for a stand-alone article, but it is worthwhile discussing along with the society's other activities. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete. Could be a merge to Omicron Delta Epsilon however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll join Headbomb's not delete with merge to Omicron Delta at minimum. There does appear to be some referencing for it, but it's a weak case so merge/redirect isn't an awful idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because subject distinctly lacks independent notability, as it does not meet WP:NJOURNALS, and replace with a Redirect to the journal's publisher at Omicron Delta Epsilon. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Omicron Delta Epsilon.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apical Group[edit]

Apical Group (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:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's a pretty bad article as it stands. They should be notable ... have they, in fact, been noted though? - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to see an administrator join the discussion so early. I will comment at the day when I arrive back, but it is more than this article. It seems to be a whole bunch of paid editors pushing this man Sukanto Tanoto companies i.e. Royal Golden Eagle who seems from the evidence from WWF and Greenpeace to be one of the worst deforestation companies in Indonesia, and due to that every article related to that main company seems to be full of promotion. And this included forestry action groups that seem to single it out. I have also sent this to Afd on a separate page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri which seems to be in a similar situation. Also it seems these group of companies on Wikipedia seem to have a whole bunch of paid editor coming to add to the promotion on a regular basis, I think to counter the bad press they are getting elsewhere. So we seem to be used as platform for promotion and I am looking for a discussion around this. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also sent this to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracell Limited. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would respectfully disagree with "promotional" material, as edits are based on reported facts. The language has also been objective. I believe the contention here is the objectivity of "promotion". There's also no greenwashing/whitewashing, as no other contrarian facts were edited or deleted; neither were your deletions disputed. Perhaps we can look at each article more objectively and build up the citation-supported facts. I agree primary references should be removed, and that promotional language be taken out. Issues raised by WWF and Greenpeace have been long addressed and actions have documented in the media, unless the intent here is to keep a particular presentation of facts that is locked in time on Wikipedia, but I hope that is not the intent. Disclosures have been made, and I hope that will not prejudice how we ground our discussion in the merits and material facts of each page. A "whole bunch of paid editors" is very flattering, but I wish there was. Thanks HawkEggz (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice as it stands - there are no good sources for this article. Perhaps it can be recreated if anyone shows up with any - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Spencer (ice hockey)[edit]

Tim Spencer (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Fails criteria #2 by 84 games (116 games in AHL inc. playoffs, 200 needed). Tay87 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage of usual transactions does not meet the GNG and he fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:GNG and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. None of the six qualifiers applies. -The Gnome (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as there is consensus that the article meets WP:NHOCKEY. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romano (ice hockey)[edit]

Tony Romano (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Fails criteria #2 by 50 games (150 AHL games inc. playoffs, 200 required) and no awards worthy of passing #3 or #4. Tay87 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Just noticed, and it teaches me to search in future, that the subject was previously nominated for deletion back in 2016 and was passed to keep. Whether he still passes now or not I am now unsure and would like clarification. I also was not aware that combined games of separate leagues counted towards 200 unless it did then and does not now. Reading clearly reads 'or' rather than 'and' regarding the list of leagues. If I am wrong with this nomination, thump me and I'll learn. Tay87 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #2. Played 148 games in the American Hockey League and 93 games in HockeyAllsvenskan, both of which qualify for WP:NHOCKEY #2. 148+93=241, well over the 200 games played required for a WP:NHOCKEY #2 pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NHOCKEY. You missed his other games in the HockeyAllsvenskan. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now we know it is cumulative across leagues. That should be clarified in the guideline.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest this is the first time its been confused in 10 years or so that I can recall, seems pretty obvious to me that it is including any of those leagues but yeah we can always improve. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep May not technically meet the letter of WP:NHOCKEY depending on how one interprets it, but clearly meets the spirit of it, which per WP:NOTBURO, WP:IAR, and WP:WL is what we should be focusing on. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I learned a long time a ago that there is nothing that can't be misunderstood. I agree that he meets WP:NHOCKEY, but I don't see that he meets WP:GNG (not that he has to). Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since subject meets WP:NHOCKEY. No need to meet WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja M.Schuster[edit]

Tanja Schuster (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)

Don't think this justifies WP:NSCIENTIST. Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears she's the creator of the genus Duma (plant) 9H48F (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, when this is kept (oh really coola?:)), article name will at least need to be amended from "Tanja M.Schuster" to "Tanja M. Schuster" or maybe remove middle letter altogether ie. "Tanja Schuster"? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Duma (plant). Otherwise this article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like 3 things are going on at once. Trillfendi (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Duma (plant) -- agree with Trillfendi's suggestion. I can't find any usable references via Pro Quest a search that would make the subject notable in their own right, but a mention on the Duma (plant) page would be appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong retain She is the author or co-author of 63 plant names listed in the International Plant Names Index (link added to the article) and is the co-author of several highly significant papers on the phylogeny and classification of the Polygonaceae. Because of her authorship of plant names, there will be many articles requiring a link from her botanical abbreviation "T.M.Schust." She is clearly a notable botanist. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without much effort, I've increased the number of wikilinks to her page to about 20. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the link generating templates were using the nonsense string "Tanja M.Schuster" rather than "Tanja Schuster" or "Tanja M. Schuster", searches such as Google Scholar weren't working properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peter coxhead:
• Stuck between Keep and Merge - I'm struggling to get at most of these papers, and I don't have the full SCOPUS access needed for a full h-index check. However google usually overestimates h-indexes for those articles it has (but may be missing some), and it gives a low h-index (7/8) for the author. WP:NACADEMIC also specifically clarifies "Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.". Countering that, does having lots of objects help? In a more guideline-supported query, NACADEMIC also states does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? - I can well imagine that these niche botanists all have low h-indexes, and so a low one by absolute standards might indicate a good standing comparatively. Finally, NPROF does note that it's particularly likely to have articles that aren't covered by its specific criteria, so that must be considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: one issue to be considered is that we want to wikilink the first occurrence of the otherwise mysterious author abbreviations that appear after botanical names. So it's of some importance to have somewhere to direct "T.M.Schust." If she had named only a dozen or so taxa, then I'd agree to deletion, but with 63 already, and obviously still active, without an article there will be a lot of red links. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Peter coxhead that deleting this page would leave an unseemly hole in Wikipedia, I’m not convinced by the argument to merge with Duma. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is clearly a notable subject. Better sourcing would help. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That she is botanical author (or jointly so) for so many taxa makes her highly notable. As she is or will be listed as botanical authority in Wikipedia articles for these taxa, no link leaves a dead end for the reader and a redirect to Duma would WP:ASTONISH. Declangi (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the argument of @Peter coxhead above and the point @Declangi made that a redirect would be suboptimal. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter, and fix the name per Coola. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:15, 04 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NACADEMIC as the author of a number of well-cited (220), peer-reviewed articles and redirecting would be inappropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 00:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Paris[edit]

Drew Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has played on 29 AHL so falls well short of passing criteria #2 and ECHL All-Rookie Team is not enough to pass #3, per research of delete nominations for past members. Tay87 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Not close to meeting any standard of WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage is mainly the typical reporting of transactions and is not close to meeting the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He does meet NHOCKEY. @Tay87: don't forget the AHL isn't the only league to meet #2. He also played over 100 games in HockeyAllsvenskan and close to 100 in the Deutsche Eishockey Liga. So 29+125+94 = 248 games. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that I mentioned that in another nomination of mine for clarification as it was a 2nd nomination (unbeknownst at the time). It was kept for that reason but that was in 2016 I am aware the criteria for notability is different now than it was before. I figured it was in one league rather than all as it reads 'or' rather than 'and' so I assumed it was only one league that counts rather than combined, but and there is my answer and my lesson. Tay87 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its more about playing at the level those leagues are for 200 games rather than a specific league. Especially in Europe where players hop around a bit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Djsasso. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is another hockey biography that meets WP:NHOCKEY, but not WP:GNG--at least in my opinion. It makes me wonder if NHOCKEY is too lenient (as I believe NFOOTY is). Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Cannabis in China and redirect title to MA. This will be accomplished with a two-step process, first moving the edit history specific to the current topic to a separate title, and then restoring the previous edit history of the redirect. bd2412 T 15:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ma[edit]

Ma (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)

Still just another word for marijuana. Nothing substantive in the article. Should be a redirect to the main article, but a couple of editors insist on recreating. WP is not a dictionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or merge: The suitable place to put this material in my opinion would be Cannabis in China. The word "ma" in English has a number of meanings, and cannabis is nowhere near the top of that list. Furthermore, because of tonal variants, "ma" can refer to at least four different Mandarin words. --Slashme (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: per WP:NOTDIC. No reason for this to be a separate article. Also, "hemp" is only one of the many meanings of "麻". Esiymbro (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIC, and restore redirect to MA. -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An initial stub for encyclopedic article about important name with a 5,000-plus year history. There is plenty of room for expansion in several areas, including migration of the term into other parts of the world, as alluded to in Abel. It would be inappropriate to merge into Cannabis in China because the article is about the etymology of the word ma and its history of use worldwide, including 500-plus years of English use. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retitle and redirect This is the English language Wikipedia but the title of the page in question is currently a Chinese word. The English sources for this topic have titles such as Cannabis in China and such a title would be more meaningful and helpful for our English language readership. The primary topic for the word "Ma" in English is mother and directing readers to an article about an illegal drug instead is an improper Easter egg. Also, per WP:DICDEF, our content should be structured around the general meaning of a topic, rather than being based upon a particular word. So, the page should be retitled and the current title used as a redirect to Mother, replacing Ma (mom). Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the existing article be merged and redirected to Cannabis in China? Your suggested new title already exists. Agree to redirect "Ma" to Mother. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mother, this is the most common English meaning of the word.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert, this was a happy little redirect page for over 10 years until The Hammer of Thor, who appears to have some sort of obsession with canabis, changed it, there is nothing that shows that this "chinese canabis ma" should have priority over any other MA. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Debating content and/or how to "fix" articles isn't what we do here, sorry ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't a redirect page to a disambiguation page for so long show a certain amount of consensus about how a word is to be treated? looking at the talkpage, an editor raised their concern at the redirect being replaced and was ignored, then reverts occurred and now we are at afd, there may have been a more co-operative way of doing this. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it occurs to me that this debate has more than a little chauvinistic tone to it. Like East Asian topics are second-class citizens to "proper" English words. This is indeed the English Wikipedia, which guides the language we write in; it does not drive the articles we write about nor determine which has "priority". A strong argument can be made that in an encyclopedia, a many-thousands-year-old sociocultural entity takes priority over a slang word. Also, for precedent, note that Pa is a disambiguation page, not merely a redirect-as-slang to Father. See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (emphasis mine). I don't buy any of these arguments that when an English speaker utters "ma" she's probably referring to her mother, therefore delete. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, but i am confused, youre saying delete for this article? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not !voted. But I think the discussion here is largely way off base. WP:DICDEF defines a Wikipedia entry as "concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote" which I think the article under discussion does in fact do; it is a discussion of a multi-cultural (multi-continental in fact) sociological phenomenon as much as it is about a word. So that invalidates several of the !votes above. At least one other talking about reverting or otherwise making content changes are improper for this venue. The sole vote Retitle and redirect uses the ethnocentric argument that a Chinese term should not be an article topic. I don't see any good arguments here other than Keep. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks (its just that the last two words of your comment above was "therefore delete" so it appeared confusing). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Warning! humor to follow, proceed with extreme caution. Sorry everyone i can't resist, from above comment: "I don't buy any of these arguments that when an English speaker utters "ma" she's probably referring to her mother", you're probably right, when an English speaker infant utters "ma" they are more likely asking for cannabis ... hmmmmmm, i wonder if the South Park crowd would like to incorporate this into an episode involving Ike? anyway, i will now go back to munching all the chocolate eggs that Big Bunny has left me and will leave this afd to more sensible editors.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (Restating keep) The article is appropriately-written from a neutral worldview. [Note that ma (mother) is unlikely to become a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The slang words mama, momma, and mom are similarly unlikely, even though they're more commonly-used.] -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, to History of cannabis or [[cannabis]. This is an interesting footnote, but not notable enough for an entire page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mother and add a redirect hatnote there to Ma (disambiguation). This is the primary topic for English speakers. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to any of the options above, but maybe the Ma (disambiguation). If someone types in Ma they should not go to Mother or Master of Arts or Million years ago, this is why we have disambiguation pages. Have the Chinese Ma go to the 12? or so Chinese words spelt that way or History of cannabis. Just about everything has an older word in Chinese than there is in English, we don't need pages for each one. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
• (Restating keep) I don't think there's been any sort of strong argument made that the subject isn't important or interesting enough for a Wikipedia article, other than some derogatory name-calling (like "illegal drug." Note: I expect that if the subject were a porn celebrity working under the stage name of Ma that s/he might encounter similar bias.)

The infant stub for an article about an important subject, here, is already well on its way and is shaping up nicely.

A number of suggestions have been made which have been inappropriate places for the information to be merged into, because the suggested articles are about unrelated subjects. History of cannabis, for instance, is about the history of the cannabis plant. This article is about the history of the word ma. As such, it has more in common with articles like cannabis (word) and marijuana (word).

And that raises the question about moving the article to ma (word), however per Wikipedia guidelines the parenthetical clarification is unnecessary unless there is another subject of greater importance vying for the space. The obvious competition, ma (mother) is unlikely to become a stand alone article, as noted above. And obscurity is irrelevant to importance, anyway. For an example that's closely-related here, I'll point to the stand-alone article for Momma.

Some of what has been said is worth noting. And several criticisms over the past weeks have led to improvements being made to the article stub. My best suggestion is that the article Ma could be reverted to a redirect page, pointing to Má and the current contents of the article be moved there. I think this would meet Wikipedia guidelines, if others agree. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is about a distinct concept, which is the word and culture around the word of the Chinese term for "cannabis". There was a similar deletion discussion at Marijuana (word). I recognize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What brings this content outside the scope of a dictionary and into the scope of the encyclopedia is the information on the cultural connotation of the word, the third-party journalism remarking on the age of the word as thousands of years, and the etymological comparison of both the origins and the travels of this word. Having multiple publications discuss the word - not the concept behind it, but the word itself - in multiple contexts over years seems closer to keep than delete. I acknowledge that the sourcing is not solid and keep is not certain. We do not have a publication featuring this specific word as the subject, and instead have discussion of this word as subtopics of other publications. I say keep only because there is enough of that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After reading some of this discussion, I'm not sure if the article should be "removed" by redirection. However, I still believe that the article should be moved, and the title Ma redirected to either Mother or Ma (disambiguation). It seems confusing that "Ma" would be the topic of the Chinese word for marijuana. I don't believe that this Ma is the primary topic. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise thank you for the explanation. I suppose I just feel that there has to be a better way than Ma (word), Cannabis (plant), Cannabis (drug), History of cannabis and Marijuana (word). But I don’t know it, so I will take away my vote. That just leaves us with Ma meaning many things in Chinese and English (partially without the macron), a bridge to cross later. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Merge to Cannabis in China, History of cannabis, Marijuana (word), or some other appropriate place. Redirect title to MA, which is a dab page. Add an entry to that page for this meaning. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think there is no reason to be a separate article. -MA Javadi (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Slashme and RoySmith. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:19, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per WP:NOTDIC No reason to create a separate article. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cannabis in China - Ma should redirect to Ma (disambiguation) - Ma, Chinese word for marijuana, could be added to Ma (disambiguation) - Epinoia (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Redirect to the disambiguation page of Ma. This is

one of the most simple and common words in the English language. And it is also a word with many other important meanings. The relevant guideline is quite clear: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. Confining "ma" to a single meaning/article, whether it's Chinese marijuana or anything else, would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Restating keep) Multiple unique, robust scholarly sources, bolstered by several independent journalists writing over a large span of time about the subject, the word, not the plant or the drug, indicate a distinct notability of the topic. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bair[edit]

John Bair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. Haven't found any RS about him. Seems to have been a "stand-in" in some large films, and has lots of small bit parts from his IMDB page. Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - article states, "Bair completed work on The International," making it sound as if he had some major involvement in the film, when he did not appear in the film at all; his contribution was as a stand-in for a minor character - not notable, no significant achievement or contribution - Epinoia (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet WP:GNG.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwalk Collective[edit]

Soundwalk Collective (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 are two problems with this article. The first, which is not in itself a deletion reason, is a long history of sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F1F2F2/Archive with particular reference to User:Sonnenalle44, which simply means Soundwalk. See also Draft:Stephan Crasneanscki. The second is notability. The collective is simply not notable. A Google search finds many non-independent listings of Soundwalk Collective, especially of Amazon and YouTube, and listings of Patti Smith, who is notable but is not inherited. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - they have won awards, had some coverage and collaborated with well-known musicians - while none of this is major under WP:BAND, it is enough to establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The awards are under the umbrella of the International Awards Group, LLC, which is not notable; if anyone cares to dig deep past the hyperbole on their website [1] you'll see their purpose is primarily as a marketing and promotion service for members. The "coverage" can be deceptive when one sees the links to New York Times or Village Voice, but clicks on the links reveal the subject to merely be among the exhibiting vendors at various events. It is not significant coverage. The involvement of notable names with this collective, as pointed out, fails per WP:NOTINHERIT, as any coverage/and or recognition is due to the notable person and not specifically about the collective beyond perhaps a namecheck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fioralba Dizdari[edit]

Fioralba Dizdari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), never competed at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - went on to career as tv presenter. Sources exist, need some Albanian research done as not all translation tools work with Albanian. MurielMary (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have no knowledge of the Albanian language, but from what I’ve surmised, very few sources exist that go in depth on her besides saying she is a model who lives in Albania. All that tvklan source says is she became a weather girl. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and search on subject yields nothing which could mark the subject notable. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been relisted for two times already (which is generally the maximum). There seems no particular consensus for deleting/relisting/keeping. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackelin Arias[edit]

Jackelin Arias (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 is only a winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) - failed to even place at international pageant, has no significant achievements since. Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - WP:BLP1E is NOT a delete rationale (or at least not primarily so). It is a rationale for re-direction to the event for which the person may be notable. In this case, if Arias is only famous for winning Miss Bolivia 2008 then we should redirect to that article. To avoid repetition - this applies to the numerous other beauty pageant winners you've nominated to day. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This "article" is 3 sentences and she didn’t win a notable beauty pageant. She didn’t even make the Top 15 of Miss World. Trillfendi (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." Miss Bolivia 2008 Lubbad85 (☎) 21:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Relisted for a third time without needing to, no further input since (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatophobe[edit]

Chromatophobe (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 inaccurate. By definition of the word, a chromatophobe would be any cell that does not take up color when stained. I was going to rewrite this article to describe this, but I can find a total of 1 result on Pubmed and 0 on clinicalkey and accessmedicine where this term is used. Google results include a few very old uses of this word. If anything, this could be a dictionary definition. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources exist - PubMed has Medvedev 1995 for instance, while Google Scholar has numerous mentions. It seems a bit DICDEF-ish to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nomination says, the article is inaccurate, and the only sources that exist are medical dictionaries (e.g. Stedman's and Mosby's) that report that "chromatophobe" is synonymous with "chromophobe", and is simply the antonym of "chromatophile"/"chromatophil". It means any cell that does not stain. And that's it. Other sources use it to mean that, and do not make it the name of a distinct subject. It is a pity that staining does not discuss resistance. But that is probably where the fact that not all cells stain should be explained to readers. chromatophobe, chromophobe, chromatophile, chromophile, chromatophil, and chromophil could all redirect there, if that were so. But for now redirect to chromophobe cell which this simply duplicates poorly. Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2006 Illinois's 8th congressional district election. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Party (Illinois)[edit]

Moderate Party (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Defunct party with no elected officers and no electoral success. Does not appear to have any significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2006 Illinois's 8th congressional district election, where this short-lived Party's sole candidate, Bill Scheurer, has already been redirected and a subhead on him and his party already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2006 Illinois's 8th congressional district election. The subject did not have Wikinotability then and it does not have now. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ComForCare Home Care[edit]

ComForCare Home Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this is anything more than a run of the mill company. No coverage, just press releases, announcements, minor local pieces and unrelated mentions (ie. xyz worked at ComForCare) Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORGCRIT sustained and in-depth requirements ☆ Bri (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - PR starting with the first ref. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. Jangid[edit]

S. R. Jangid (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)

Would have redirected to Operation Bawaria, but felt a community discussion was warranted. This appears to be a classic WP:BIO1E case, which is borne out by the fact that most of this article is about the operation, in which he is only briefly mentioned. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete - Someone ruined the article previously. So it was made into a draft, then is under construction. Previous records speaks that whenever i see article about S. R. Jangid was viewed by 30000-50000 viewers for 30 days.

Comment added by Wiki tamil 100. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while not doubting Jagid's bravery, does not meet WP:BASIC, the references seem to be mainly about the operation, not Jangid himself - only passing mention in the Operation Bawaria article - the Operation Bawaria article says the film "Theeran Adhigaaram Ondru, a Tamil film based on this case," but the Jangid article says, the "film Theeran Adhigaaram Ondru was based on Jangid's life history," so there may be an element of promotion or advocacy here WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:ADVOCACY - Epinoia (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - now I am being canvassed on my Talk page about this AfD WP:CANVAS - which leads me to believe there is an element of Promotion here WP:NOTPROMOTION - the editor in question has been warned previously about undisclosed paid editing - Epinoia (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Agree with nominator about a brief WP:BIO1E. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kan Jong-woo[edit]

Kan Jong-woo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a musician, which does not really demonstrate a clear WP:NMUSIC pass and is referenced to sources of uncertain reliability. This was created in draftspace and submitted to the AFC queue, but then the creator bypassed the actual AFC process by moving it to mainspace themselves before it actually got reviewed -- but their reasoning for doing so, that his name was already mentioned in other articles, is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from actually having to clear a normal inclusion standard like NMUSIC or GNG.
But after running the footnotes through Google Translate, I can confirm that two of them are routine primary source directory entries in IMDb-like databases, two are short blurbs on web portals that aren't real media outlets, and the only one that appears to be a genuinely reliable source is actually much more about his twin brother than it is about him -- so none of these sources cut it at all, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his sources from having to cut it.
I'm willing to reconsider this, and/or support returning it to draftspace, if there's legitimate reason to believe it's improvable -- as I can't personally read Korean, I'm not in a position to determine whether better sources exist or not: I can only google-translate the sources that are already present, and the sources that are already present are junk. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to AfC and see if anything productive arises. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:32, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - no notable achievement or significant impact - Epinoia (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Purge. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Bishop[edit]

Dwayne Bishop (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 fictional character. Article is entirely plot summary, which is something Wikipedia is WP:NOT. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Purge. Not enough real world notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references at all, just a retelling of the Purge film plots - does not meet WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Purge as it could be valid search term, though I would not be opposed to a deletion though either. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Day[edit]

Margot Day (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 indication in the article that the subject passes WP:NMUSIC. The only independent source in the article is a local news website review of a self-published album by a band she was in. Checked for better sources, and found several other people called Margot Day, but very little about this one subject, not enough to pass WP:GNG. See below - withdraw following substantial improvements using archived sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is monstrous. Advertising, unencyclopedic, and horrific abuse of sourcing. Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:MBIO and WP:GNG. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was able to find quite a bit of sourcing. Day was part of the underground music scene in the 80s and 90s. She still performs today. I've cleaned up article and added references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Withdraw nomination due to substantial improvements.

Wow - you put a bit of work into that Megalibrarygirl, very impressive! I've reviewed the sources you were able to find. A couple of them (this and this) just give trivial passing mentions, and This doesn't seem to lead to the right page - I just get a menu screen when I go there. This looks as though it's a dead tree version of WP:UGC - a page of album reviews sent in by readers. However - the review that was in the article already, and this one that you added, are reasonably lengthy reviews of her work in local newspapers (The Burlington Free Press and Seven Days (newspaper)). I think this would now just about pass under the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO, since we have two independent secondary sources giving non-trivial coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thanks! I enjoy looking for people lost in history! I did screw up one of the archived pages. The review for Legends Magazine is archived here. Sorry for that. :( Not sure why the Flip Magazine link isn't showing for you. I found it on Internet Archive. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That new link works for me, thanks - I think that adds weight to the notability. I don't know what was up with the original link - there was no message to tell me why it didn't work, it just took me to a blue menu page. It might be something to do with my being in the UK? Lots of US publications block access to European IPs these days, but they usually tell us that they're doing it... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Girth Summit the bad link was my fault. >:P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Raich[edit]

Josep Raich (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)

Josep Raich doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. While the article includes some useful stats (in its infobox), it doesn't establish him as anything other than a run-of-the-mill player (per my admittedly limited understanding of European football). That said, geography articles of the same length are usually kept due to the inherent notability of their locations. Likewise, for such a stub (such as this) to last so long I feel that there may be a similar policy for non-living people, and thus have come for AfD to determine if there is such a policy, as well as decide if this article should be kept or deleted. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. passes NFOOTY by dint of playing in Barcelona FC (which I assume was in a FPL back in the 40s) and other clubs, as well as a national appearance (didn't verify that bit myself). Assessing GNG for this period with online sources is a bit tricky - so I am relying in part on NFOOTY's presumed notability, however the subject does appear in [2] and [3] for instance. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and I imagine meets GNG per few sources found above. GiantSnowman 08:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article about professional and international footballer who is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (did the nominator even look at the linked Mundo Deportivo article?). Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: First off, with respect to the comment "did the nominator even look at the linked Mundo Deportivo article?", this is the English Wikipedia, so forgive me for not being fluent enough in Spanish to understand them. Secondly, I would hardly quantify three articles as "significant coverage in reliable sources" worthy of inclusion in the English Language Wikipedia. As per the other comments, WP:NFOOTBALL is what actually saves this article from deletion, and thus I was correct in not boldly slapping a PROD on it. Lastly, I want to thank you for your contributions to the article itself, as they do help establish his significance to the (English speaking) readers. Warmest regards - ElectroChip123 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think an editor ought to at least review the references included in the article before nominating an article for deletion. I realize Mundo Deportivo is a Spanish-language source, but there are plenty of reasonably-useful online translators available and even without that, you can see a Spanish daily newspaper dedicated a full page tribute in the 1980s to this footballer from the 1930s/40s (which ought to suggest a level of notability beyond that of a run-of-the-mill player). Jogurney (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of editors would quantify WP:THREE as WP:SIGCOV. Leviv ich 03:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because an article lacks sources doesn't mean that topic is not noteworthy, Josep Raich clearly had a pretty good career from what I can see and you're looking for sources in all the wrong places, post computer age biographies should be reviewed differently and google, internet search, etc is not a suitable way to analyse GNG specifics. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as I concern Josep Raich had a good career so far, clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he appears to pass the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is (rough) consensus that the article is notable enough to be kept. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Progressive Party[edit]

Oregon Progressive Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Party that existed only to serve as a ballot access channel for Ralph Nader’s 2008 presidential campaign. Sources are almost exclusively to self-published party sources. Since 2008, the party has had barely any activity. It has no substantial, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded to the Ralph Nader campaign article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it is inaccurate to state that it "has had barely any activity". Just look at the Google News hits. The party's spokesperson is quoted heavily in this story about campaign contributions, for example.--TM 20:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is poorly sourced, yes, but enough reliable independent secondary coverage exists to get it past WP:GNG/WP:NCORP, though I admit it's a rather borderline article. [4] [5] SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep arguably enough gNews hits [6] for this tiny party to scrape past WP:GNG by the skin of it's teeth. But note that some of this news hits are for older "progressive" parties, some are trivial, and the sources now in the article consist of 1 dead link, links ot the govt agency that monitors elections, and to the party itself. Woefully inadequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There is enough sourcing to keep and improve rather than delete.--TM 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original Oregon Progressive Party was notable in its own right. See BLANKENSHIP, WARREN M. progressives and the Progressive Party in Oregon, 1906-1916, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1966.--TM 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've boldly removed that since it doesn't actually have any link to the current Progressive Party (which was founded as the Peace Party) and since it doesn't claim common heritage AFAIK. If that party is independently notable you can make a page for it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've boldly restored the information. Whether they have a common link or not, the party shares the name of a historic party with ample sourcing.--TM 00:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's take this to the talk page. It's not the same party (this party wasn't founded as the Oregon Progressive Party and doesn't claim a common history), so I don't see a reason it should share a page. In fact that party is actually part of the Progressive Party (United States, 1912), which is not related at all to this, so if it should be mentioned anywhere it goes there. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite logical that someone looking for the history of progressive parties in Oregon would be interested in both iterations of the same party. Whether it claims lineage or not (I don't think either of us know for certain) is irrelevant. It is senseless to ignore one Oregon Progressive Party when sources clearly exist. Arguably, that version of the OPP probably has a better claim to notability than the current version, though I think both are notable.--TM 01:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd highly suggest you self-revert since, according to process (where you added content and I reverted, my reversion of your content means you go to the talk page. You're actually the one edit warring here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating the page as a redirect if/when there is content about him in another article. RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Azula[edit]

Andy Azula (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. An ad executive who appeared in some TV commercials doesn't automatically meet any notability guidelines either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator of article back in 2007. Azula still seems to be a person of note in the advertising industry,[7] the two year long ad campaign he create for UPS was widely discussed using his name,[8][9] and actor Bill Hader portrayed Azula in a sketch in episode of Saturday Night Live.[10] I wouldn't necessarily object to merge of this bio into an article created about the UPS Whiteboard ad campaign itself, but I see no pressing reason to wipe the whole thing from history. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect name and Delete - not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Trivial, WP:NOTNEWS. With that said, it could be briefly mentioned on the UPS page. Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - esentially known for one thing, WP:BIO1E - could Redirect to the The Martin Agency, but Andy Azula is not mentioned there, and the UPS ads are not listed in their Notable campaigns - Epinoia (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed that this fails WP:GNG. As Kendrick7 states, there could be a short mention of his work in the UPS article. Edwardx (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jordan (DJ)[edit]

Charlie Jordan (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A presenter who has been on some national UK stations but not much evidence to go with it. Only source is a personal website. Potential for a decent article but I can't find much on Google to support this. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom Ceethekreator (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails (even) WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Youngan Records[edit]

Trap Youngan 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)

Prod removed by creator on the basis that "we're verified on google" however I can find no evidence that this is a notable label. There are no independent sources which would contribute to notability and afaict, no accomplishments that would satisfy any of the variants of nmusic/ncorp. Praxidicae (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no demonstrated notability. I had placed the original proposed deletion tag with the reason "No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Google search for name comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which discuss the label in any significant way." ... discospinster _talk 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Disco. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response for: ”Delete per nom and Disco.” How can you say something should be deleted just cause one person said it. You’re not playing by the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.129.197.17 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) — 107.129.197.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Trap Youngan Records was the first record labels in it’s area, TYR was the first music distribution company in it’s area, TYR was lots of publicity on Instagram, they preform throughout the United States, and they’re verified on Google. They were the first at some of everything in their area. How could you consider them to not be notable? They’ve literally reached thousands of people, when their city barely has a thousand people. If that’s not notable, I don’t know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.211.246 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC) — 207.29.211.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Trap Youngan is a upcoming label and the owners of Trap Youngan are very well known locally. Trap Youngan is already and has been for awhile Google certified. This label has music on all the main platforms including google play, apple music, dezzers,ect. Their artists @lahnookbadazz & @richest_jayy have two upcoming shows go look on their social medias to find more about that. Find the owners by googling @lahmaury and @richest_jayy they are under the same name on all social media. They both have over 15k and elevating everyday. They also have their own website https://trapyrecords.wixsite.com/trap . They even have their own clothes brand for sell find out more by googling trap youngan designer. TRAP YOUNGAN RECORDS IS WIKIPEDIA WORTHY AND ITS NOT HARD TO TELL. If anyone disagree then they probably never had to come up out the mud with something and turn nothing into something. The Members even have bios in magazines to tell you about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.211.246 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – A big red flag is that their website is on Wix.com, which is a free website builder that anyone can use to make a website. No indication that this label has received any attention at a level that would make them notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. It doesn't look like their artists have been reviewed by any major (e.g. national readership) publication. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Anybody can create a website, no matter who they use to do it. Yeah, we’re not on Sony Records’ level, but we’re still notable. Wikipedia doesn’t require that you be reviewed major publicist. It seems like you’re trying to find a problem that doesn’t exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahmaury (talk • contribs) — Lahmaury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lahmaury and 207.29.211.246: "Wikipedia doesn’t require that you be reviewed by a major publicist"... yes, unfortunately it does... or rather, notability on Wikipedia is determined by the amount of coverage you have received from reliable sources that are not related to the subject (so your own social media and blogs don't count, articles in newspapers or established online websites do). You have to show that the subject passes the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT to justify a Wikipedia article. Just existing as a brand and having a website and social media is not enough. Richard3120 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete - perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON - right now does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGCRITE, which requires that "it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - publicity on Instagram, having a website and clothing line is not a basis for notability - if the company does achieve notability it can be refunded - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, you can't choose a "soft" delete... that only happens when nobody has taken part in the discussion, which is not the case here, and is a decision made by the closing admin. So either you think it should be kept or deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I misunderstood the guideline - Epinoia (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:CORP. If we had notability criteria specifically for record companies (we don't; see here) we could perhaps have kept the article. As things stand, we cannot. -The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even if we had specific guidelines for record labels, this would still not meet it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notability guidelines for record labels wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but I would imagine at a minimum they would require coverage in multiple, independent sources, and a roster of at least two notable acts, neither of which are met here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Wharton Brown[edit]

Spencer Wharton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability as far as I can tell. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep h-index of 25 according to Google Scholar [11] meets WP:PROF#C1, and Guggenheim Fellowship [12] meets PROF C3 as well. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Citation record (7 pubs with over 100 cites in Google Scholar) is enough for WP:PROF#C1 and the "in memoriam" piece provides enough detail on his life to fill out a short article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Guggenheim Fellowship is a monetary award that was awarded to over 300 people in 1956 [13], and is not a "Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor" so PROF C3 is not met. NPROF also explicitly says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." The obituary is written by his friends and does not meet the GNG criterion that RSes be independent; existence of detail is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF as David Eppstein and IntoThinAir explain above. Additionally, his murder was covered in newspapers accessible on Newspapers.com. There is a lot of biographic info that can be added to this article. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per multiple WP:INDEPENDENT sources that exist that recognize him as a president of the IGF, which satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#C6. Some sources[14] even use the phrase "internationally renowned" which goes to #C1 - a far better indication of notability than arbitrary citation h-index. -- Netoholic @ 17:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Netohlic comment on presidency of IGF. Contrary to comment that Guggenheim Fellowship is merely a monetary award, it is highly competitive and prestigious. ch (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Sorry I am just joining the discussion now, I was away for a few days. I am sorry when I put the article up I did not thoroughly research this man, but it seemed obvious to me he was an important scientist in his field, and the fact that he was murdered seemed to add to the interest people might have about him, but I just didnt have time when I put the article up to do the needed research. I will try and add some information and hope that helps keep the article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Melissastevens (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi88iisc (talk • contribs) 13:24, May 6, 2019 (UTC)
• Keep notable academic, notable crime.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like the sources offered by the keep camp have been mostly uncontested and valid counterarguments were offered on the WP:BLP1E concerns as well. I see the canvassing concerns but even discounting the head-count completely the keep camp appears to have the stronger, better supported arguments. A page move or merge discussion can be initiated if people feel that the topic is better covered under another subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nina West[edit]

Nina West (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 outside of being a contestant on a reality show. --woodensuperman 12:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Also, nominating editor should know the page should be redirected, not deleted, if the subject is not independently notable. But I believe there's sufficient secondary coverage. They were notable even before appearing on RPDR. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what? Winning a non-notable award? Hosting a non-notable competition? --woodensuperman 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has been profiled in multiple reliable sources, plain and simple, and will only receive more coverage as the result of their appearance on RPDR. Not to mention, there are other articles to incorporate, such as this Out profile, another Out article, another, etc. Easy keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are on the back of appearances on RPDR. Not notable outside of this context. Easy delete. --woodensuperman 14:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, subject had a Wikipedia article before appearing on RPDR. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About one month before. That you created. Not-notable then or now. --woodensuperman 14:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, ok, agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. I'm a little concerned by this edit. I know it's not exactly WP:CANVASSING, but notifying a small group of fans of the show could certainly lead to WP:VOTESTACKING and skew the discussion. --woodensuperman 13:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Simply hasn’t risen to Wikipedia’s level of notability... yet. Trillfendi (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person already had notability even before the show (And no, the other things were not non-notable.) This is not OK, these pages deserve to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect noticed this through sexuality related AfD. "He has two dogs, named Edgar and Felicity" Wikipedia is not a social media page to show trivial matters of that nature and not every contestant that appears in a show are inherently notable. The page should be deleted, then redirected into show or the season's page where the person can be a line item in the season. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Clarify: not addressed to anyone in particular. Just reading through the article, I'm getting the impression that this subject is known only for their appearance in a season and I'm not finding them to surpass WP:BIO notability and the inclusion of trivial information like her pets in my opinion is an indication of struggling notability and padding it up with anything verifiable via secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC) (note to closing admin: my vote casted precedes ANI closure ) Graywalls (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to reduce Graywalls' opinion or vote, but I feel obligated to note this editor's recent participation at AfD and elsewhere at Wikipedia has been problematic in some ways, and their comment above says nothing about secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know protocol here, or if this even matters, but this editor has been banned from interacting with me. I will let admins determine whether or not this vote is valid. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely keep this article. Aside from being on Drag Race, Nina West heads up a significant charity foundation. She also became widely recognized for inspiring Sia's outfit for her Coachella performance and has been in the touring cast of multiple Broadway musicals, all prior to RuPaul's Drag Race. Not to mention she was in a music video with The Regrettes, a well known punk band who are signed with Warner Brothers and performed at Riot Fest and Summerfest. NotALovelyLady (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous citations of this drag queen pre-Drag Race, for her shows, for her fashion, for her charity work, etc. I'll update the article to reflect this, as that should help make the case. Bouncehoper (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are enough sources to pass GNG, not only for RPDR, but also for gay rights activism. In addition, I'd argue that the National Entertainer of the Year is a notable award and an important one in the drag community. The article for Drag pageantry needs serious work, but there's a lot of sources out there on the various drag pageants. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, person is notable outside of drag race, as stated above. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject has raised over $2 million from their charity, which is thought to be the only "drag-queen-supported fund of its kind"; won an Entertainer of the Year award; won a Create Columbus Commission Visionary Award from the Columbus City Council; won an equality award from the Human Rights Campaign; and was included in Columbus Business Firsts "40 Under 40" list in 2018... all before appearing on RPDR. The recent RPDR coverage has only increased their profile, but that's not all they're known for. --Kbabej (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This subject, though made viral by a reality show, was a person of prominence in the LGBT+ community for many years, and had one of the most significant and well-funded non-national LGBT+ charities. The widespread influence of this subject cannot be denied. --vvayside (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject of the article certainly rose to prominence due to his participation in RuPaul's Drag Race, but he was a notable before this, which is especially demonstrated in the "Personal life and philanthropy" section of the article. Ditto the comments provided by Kbabej above. Several reliable sources are referenced. This article should be kept. Yompi20 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and failure to meet WP:NACTOR, then recreate as redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11) - GretLomborg (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The person passes 2/3 of the points in NACTOR, so she is notable. - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605

Sorry, I have to disagree. Also are you User:Ratherbe2000, 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605? - GretLomborg (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real notability outside the show. Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That is incorrect, she passes both of them. - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605

• Keep Not a fan of the show nor anything else. The charity work definitely puts the subject over the edge in regards to beating out WP:BLP1E. Otherwise, I would say Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11) per WP:WOOD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat Willy[edit]

Top Hat Willy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Top Hat Willy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Seemingly minor self-published freeware videogame from the 1990s. As was the case during the 2008 AfD, the article still lacks any secondary sources or suggestion of why the game was significant. All I can find online is some forum fan chat. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references to reliable sources, no media coverage - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NVIDEOGAMES, which requires significant commentary from independent published sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NVIDEOGAMES LibStar (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus in favour of a G4 speedy deletion (which appears to be invalid in this context, anyhow) and the deletion camp has not raised concerns about notability. I see the concerns about votestacking but it doesn't appear like it has swayed the deletion discussion. If there are concerns about the quality of the article content (and I am not seeing a consensus on that, either) they can be handled through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch Game[edit]

Snatch Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was already deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Game, as this article about a recurring segment of a TV series is WP:FANCRUFT and the minutiae described here is not notable outside of the context of the show and is not a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. These issues were not and cannot be addressed, and the article should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4. This was successfully instigated yesterday, but due to WP:CANVASSING and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk page, this was restored in a bizarre turn of events. Article needs to be deleted per the outcome of the previous AFD, which still stands. --woodensuperman 09:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Speedy - None of the criteria for speedy deletion are present here. The previous delete discussion did not concern substantially the same page (compare 1 2 ). Previous AFD no longer stands as it concerned a different page. I am neutral as to whether this deserves a stand-alone article, though I note (even keeping in mind WP:WAX) that it is not totally unknown for a segment of a TV show to warrant coverage in an article separate to that of the main article covering the show as a whole (thinking particularly of Top Gear (2002 TV series) and [[15]]). Local Consensus is still consensus, AFD is just another talk forum and may actually have less accurate analysis applied by editors. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is essentially no difference between the content of the two versions. Therefore, they are substantially identical, and the reason for the previous deletion does still apply, so the criteria for WP:CSD#G4 are still present. Even if they weren't, it's just a list of who played who in the segment, nothing more than WP:FANCRUFT which might belong at https://rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com/wiki/RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_Wiki, but there's no place for it here. --woodensuperman 10:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the basics: size then - 20,391 bytes, size now - 41,935 bytes. Sources then - 10, sources now - 23. Content then - short lede followed by tables, content now - extensive lede followed by tables and then a section on its reception. There's just no way that the substance of the articles can be described as the same, particularly given the number of edits by different editors which indicates that the process of page-creation was not a cut/paste of the old page. Hence they are not "substantially the same" as required by WP:CSD#G4. Like I said, I'm neutral about whether this should exist as a stand alone article because I haven't had a chance to check the referencing, but the Speedy criteria you've raised here just don't apply to this case. FOARP (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's been padded out a bit, so what? Its substance is still the same WP:FANCRUFT. Anything important can be mentioned in a small section on the main series article. --woodensuperman 10:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"So what?" - so it's not substantially the same, and therefore doesn't meet speedy criteria. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's just padding, the substance is still the same. Just because some "facts" have been referenced doesn't imply independent notability. --woodensuperman 11:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you're wrong. Content which adds an explanation of the topic's context, which was absent from the first version but is present here, is a significant change in substance. Significant improvement in the sourcing, with over three times as many footnotes and more like four or five times as many footnotes to reliable rather than junk sources, is a significant change in substance. Had I been the administrator who came across the article in the speedy deletion queue, I would have looked at the original deleted version to compare it to the current version, and immediately declined the speedy as the article was not substantively identical at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the opinion of the admin who did deal with it, per this comment. --woodensuperman 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, they were wrong too: there's significant context in this version that was absent from the first, and there's five times as much reliable sourcing in this version as there was in the first. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bearcat here. Article was clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, but I don't expect us to convince Woodensuperman otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This should have gone through DRV rather than being restored/recreated. It's still just an excessively detailed, undersourced wad of fancruft. As to whether G4 applies, that is one speedy criterion that needs to be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. That is because of the cynical habit of certain article creators to remake their cruft with a handful of cosmetic changes but without doing anything to address the original reason for deleting. And then expecting it to be immune against G4. I'd be OK with a G4 if it was just the addition of a couple of unsourced entries, or fidgeting with templates, but that would be a huge stretch in this case. Reyk _YO! 12:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:TVSHOW this is a segment of a long-running, nationally-broadcast show with apparent stand-alone notability and therefore notable. Sourcing as to the notability of this section of the show includes multiple, reliable, independent sources ( 1 2 3 4 ). Please note that each of these sources is (as shown by the titles) about the Snatch Game section of the show specifically, and not about the show in general, and thus is WP:SIGCOV for Snatch Game. Particularly, each of these sources points out that this section of the show is a "fan favourite" or similar and thus has notability of its own.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for the proposals to merge with RuPaul's Drag Race in the previous AFD, at 83,187 bytes RuPaul's Drag Race is already clearly WP:TOOLONG and therefore it makes sense to have a WP:SPINOFF page. I think without that I might have voted to merge/delete instead. As to the excessive detail and WP:CRUFT in the article - I think this is a fair point, but without that you'd still have a spin-off article and the parent article would still be too long to accommodate its content. I also agree that brigading and WP:CANVASS shouldn't be used to influence decision-making. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are only really about two good paragraphs here worth saving, which wouldn't really amount to much of an article. If you're concerned about the main RuPaul's Drag Race being WP:TOOLONG, then I think the whole of the WP:CRUFTy "Music" section could easily be sacrificed! Or maybe the "Seasons" section could be trimmed/split to the episodes or individual seasons pages? Whichever, we really shouldn't be entertaining this as a standalone article. --woodensuperman 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per GNG and Talk:Snatch_Game#Contested_deletion. There's plenty of secondary coverage about the subject, which is a recurring challenge spanning multiple series and has notable people impersonating other notable people. Multiple editors have already expressed a desire to keep and improve the existing entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Snatch_Game#Contested_deletion is exactly the WP:CANVASSING and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS I mention in the nom. --woodensuperman 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way for a discussion to resolve at all if it's just between two people and doesn't get any outside input — and publicizing the discussion somehow is the only way any outside input can ever actually happen. Pinging people who might have something to contribute is not automatically canvassing — "come vote the way I direct you to" would be canvassing, "come offer your opinions, but I'm not directing you how to vote" is not. I, for example, have been perfectly happy to vote "merge/redirect" on Drag Race-related articles if the sources just weren't cutting it, such as contestant BLPs that were sourced to blogs and "meet all the queens" listicles rather than sources that were about the contestant per se — so pinging me is definitely not "stacking the vote", because I'm not a predictably reliable keep vote for all DR-related content and Another Believer knows that. He and I don't even always agree on everything, but we at least respect each other's opinions and input either way: he pinged me because he felt I would have something valuable to contribute to the discussion, not because he knew in advance whether I'd actually support or oppose the question. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A much more neutral place to direct this kind of notification would have been at WP:WikiProject Television don't you think, rather than at a group of superfans? --woodensuperman 15:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually a "superfan". I'm actually quite rarely involved in editing Drag Race-related articles at all except in a primarily administrative "cut out the fucking vandalism" capacity. Yeah, I've watched the show, but strictly in a "I can take it or leave it" sort of way: it can be entertaining, but I'm not obsessed and my life doesn't revolve around it. It's not normally very high on my list of editing priorities on here at all — my primary editing projects on here usually pertain to Canadian film, television, literature and politics, not reality shows of any stripe, and I had never actually edited a Drag Race-related article in my life until I had to step in as an administrator within the past month because of all the recent "this chart should reflect what I wanted the judges to say instead of what they really said" vandalism that's been hitting the season placement charts. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for lumping you in with the others, but everyone else that was pinged is a member of the WikiProject, which didn't seem very neutral. I'll sit back for a while now, I'm getting too invested in this, but I still think this is little more than WP:FANCRUFT, especially the charts. --woodensuperman 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good faith to preemptively assume that people who are more active members of the Drag Race Wikiproject are automatically suspect either: as has already been pointed out to you, even active wikiproject members have been perfectly happy to support merger or deletion of a Drag Race-related article if the sourcing simply wasn't cutting it. The project's actually doing a very creditable job at trying to improve the quality of the articles under their purview — far, far more than some wikiprojects I could name (*side-eyes WP:PORN and whistles*) — and is very much not resting on cruft or bad sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Thanks, glad you've noticed our work lately. I agree, please do not assume project members are fancruft types or automatic keep votes. That's untrue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Which I have now done here) --woodensuperman 15:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. I'm a little concerned by this edit. I know it's not exactly WP:CANVASSING, but notifying a small group of fans of the show could certainly lead to WP:VOTESTACKING and skew the discussion. --woodensuperman 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I explained on the talk page, an AFD deletion does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever being notable enough for a Wikipedia article — we have lots of topics that were deleted at one time, but were then allowed to be recreated later on because the basis for notability had changed: the topic had accomplished something new that constituted a stronger notability claim than it had at the time of the first version, better sourcing could be shown to bolster passage of WP:GNG, and on and so forth. So the fact that an article has been deleted in the past does not mean that any followup attempt to recreate it is always an automatic speedy — if an editor can do a better job than the first time, making a stronger notability claim and citing better sources, then they most certainly are allowed to try again. Certainly we still speedy if they haven't actually done better, but if they have done better we evaluate the new version on its own merits rather than speedying.
  The original version literally just stated that this exists, and then went straight to the results tables without actually doing anything to contextualize its existence at all, and cited just eight footnotes of which only four were actually reliable sources at all — while this version does a lot more to contextualize the topic's significance within Drag Race, and cites 23 footnotes of which only one is even questionable as to whether it's a reliable source or not. Which means there's a lot more content here, and five times as much reliable, notability-supporting media coverage, which means this is not "substantively the same as the deleted content" at all.
  Again, speedy does not automatically apply to every attempt to recreate a topic that's been deleted before, because sometimes the basis for notability and/or the quality of the sourcing have changed in the interim. This article is substantially better than the old version, and cites more than enough genuinely reliable sources to clear WP:GNG whether you personally care about the topic or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above, it seems there is a group of people hellbent on removing everything related to a certain subgenre of entertainment. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep As a participant in WP:RuPaul's Drag Race, I can't help but read above that there is an assumption by some that I am an automatic "keep" vote on AfD discussions for pages related to RuPaul's Drag Race or that I can depended upon to reply "Yeah, me too!" when pinged by another member of that WP. Neither of those is true, and I would like to think I am more impartial than that. However, in this case, I do agree that the page should be kept. The reasons for a speedy deletion simply do not hold up in my view as the current page is not a simple recreation of the deleted page, as described by Bearcat above. I might agree that there were elements of fancruft on the page (and, to be fair, some of it was added by me), but I believe this edit and this edit by Nikki311 did a good job of removing a lot of that as unsourced trivia, and rightly so. What remains now is solidly sourced and relevant Wiki page, and I don't agree that the topic is not notable outside the realm of RuPaul's Drag Race. I strongly believe this page should be kept. Yompi20 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Bearcat. The present version of this page more than passes muster for being "substantially different" from the previously deleted version, most notably due to the significant increase in breadth and quality of sources, additional context, and substantive expansion of the prose. It does not even come close to meeting WP:G4 or other speedy deletion criteria. The present article is sourced with reputable, well known WP:RS, including TV Guide, Mic, Vulture, The Atlantic, The Guardian, HuffPost and Gay Times. If there is still doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG, why not just expand the article with academic literature about Snatch Game? A superficial Google Scholar search turns up numerous mentions of the subject in peer-reviewed journals, including this article, which focuses specifically on Snatch Game—not even on Drag Race in general. Other such articles (e.g. this one) reference and contextualize the segment. I don't have time to do content work right now, but I'm happy to provide access to sources behind a paywall for anyone who would like to expand this article. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race. While the article is better referenced than before this is still just a segment on a game show and should be covered in the article about that game show. Giving it its own article seems to be overcoverage bordering on fancruft. The merged coverage should focus on describing the format, not on all the individual contestants in detail. Saying who won as part of the text would be OK but the tables should not be merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:TOOLONG problem? FOARP (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis of dedicated improvements. As I suggested during the previous AfD, if recurring segments from Saturday Night Live or The Simpsons can pass the inclusion test, then Snatch Game seems equally worthy. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 23:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As another user stated, this is a reoccurring segment on RPDR with "notable people impersonating other notable people." It has been covered in depth by RS, including academic literature. It's not just an episode on a show; it spans many seasons of RPDR and multiple seasons of All Stars and Drag Race Thailand. With RuPaul's Drag Race UK starting in 2019, it will presumably be a part of the competition there as well, bringing the show total to four. --Kbabej (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per users above. The article is clearly different from the previous version and has a greater number of sources and citations in addition to this (as stated above) the segment has appeared across the whole RPDR franchise. ECW03 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: One may personally despise pop culture stuff like this, but sources show it is a notable topic sufficient to merit an article. I would consider a merge discussion in 50 years when I would expect the topic will be of reduced interest. Also, if that discussion occurs in 2069, please notify me, if I'm still alive I'd love to comment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Retarget to Narcissistic personality disorder -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]