Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 May 11 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Rayyan Ahmad Usman Ki Tahreer . I've undone a previous close as the nom hasn't specifically said they wanted it merged nor redirected, Plus it seems better to just close the AFD as redirect/merge instead of "Speedy Keep per SK1" - We have the option of redirecting or merging so I see no issue with following it through, Anyway article's been redirected after close so I'm reclosing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rayyan Ahmad Usman Ki Tahreer Episodes[edit]

List of Rayyan Ahmad Usman Ki Tahreer Episodes (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)

TV series with only two aired episodes does not qualify for a WP:STANDALONE episode list. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:52, 11 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinox[edit]

Rhinox (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 character article does not show notability. There don't seem to be any third party references that could be added to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Ekmark[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Has won a few national championships as a benchwarmer for UConn, but not really known for any individual accomplishments. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are biographies of UConn women's basketball players with no notable individual accomplishments:

Gabby Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:52, 11 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Le[edit]

Chris Le (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)

Doesnt comply to Wikipedia's notability guideline, and hasnt for 5 years. Created by username: Valuptiious with intent to "kiss Chris Le in the bottom" as stated by his post on the talk page. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Some sources, but all within the industry. Subjects needs independent third-party sources. Scr★pIronIV 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Le directed a major science fiction film starring Danny Trejo that is due to release this year. After searching Chris Le Juarez 2045, numerous articles appeared. WP:GNG. Examples of significant coverage in reliable media sources include: (1) [1], dreadcentral.com, (2) [2], www.cinepremiere.com.mx, (3) [3], horror-movies.ca, (6) [4], Fusion.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoid714 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Thevoid714 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I should add to why this page should be deleted. Most of the edits, along with the current design of the page were by IP's based on Utah, in and around the city of birth and residence of Chris Le. A simple IP location in various websites lists the same results, although I can concede those website are not entirely reliable. Calling "Juarez 2045" a major SciFi film is like calling a movie like "The Room" good. The movie in itself is not notable enough to even warrant its own page, but it hasnt released so I'll give the article time to curate. A few more things. None of those articles are by major media sources, in fact they are the first articles you can find with most of them being in the second page of the google search. Second, user Thevoid714's account is also recently created and it has only posted in this page, it was also used to comment mere 15 minutes after the last edit on the Chris Le page. To finalise this page has suffered from some kind of attacks against criticism, like this very page and the talk page being completely blank. I restored the talk page, while someone else restored this one. DeviantAttitude (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazin' Blue[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amazin' Blue (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)

Deleted once already, but though the article has been revived with sources, they seem to be closely linked to the music group, or a passing mention in a film. As the third oldest acappella group in Michigan University, no one has even considered it worthwhile to mention it in the University's Wikipedia article. Though it claims to be the "most decorated" acappella group at UM, I can't actually see any awards listed - the best they can come up with is winning five ICCA regional quarter finals, which is well short of winning even an ICCA award. This group may well have some recognition in acappella circles, but falls well short of WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable ensemble, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is a foregone conclusion, but I do need to correct several errors in this post. To my knowledge, Amazin' Blue has never been mentioned in a film, nor does the page claim it has been. There are numerous awards listed (and cited), not just the ICCA quarterfinal victories, but also an ICCA semifinal victory, numerous recording awards and inclusions on the selective BOCA albums. I'm unaware that being mentioned on the UMICH Wikipedia page is now a requirement for notability. Presently that page lists only a single a cappella group, and that by virtue of being a subset of a prominent male chorus. Presently, there are UMICH a cappella groups on Wikipedia without an ICCA semifinal victory and without any recording awards at all (and also without appearing on the UMICH Wikipedia page) and no one is challenging their notability at this time. It's true that I am embarrassingly ignorant of Wikipedia policies, and it's true that I do want this page to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Still, the fact that the article proposing deletion is filled with falsehoods while other groups with fewer awards and citations have their pages unchallenged makes me feel as though there's something personal here, although I certainly don't know what it would be.Andypoe (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI "Amazin' Blue's 1991 recording of "Taco Bell Canon" was mentioned in Mickey Rapkin's Pitch Perfect." Sionk (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was. I believe I mentioned that in the article and cited the book! What's your point? Why are you bringing that line to my attention? It's true and cited! In fact, very few groups were mentioned at all in this influential book, and Amazin' Blue was the only group from UMICH that Rapkin chose to mention. This is evidence of notability, not against it. Andypoe (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have found several links but all of them still questionable to noticeably improve this. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madison U. Sowell[edit]

Madison_U._Sowell (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 the notability standard. AutumnalEquinox (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Plenty of academic recognition. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the referencing style of the article is substandard, being provost (chief academic officer) of a notable university, holding named professorships at another, translating Giordano Bruno for Yale University Press, and having a pretty extensive Google Scholar presence make this cursory nomination look formidably silly, even if the subject may not quite fit into any convenient professorial pigeonhole. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's slightly fuzzy whether the positions he held at BYU exactly meet WP:PROF's named chair provision since they're for a broader concept than the standard "X chair of Y subject", but having several such positions and multiple university-wide posts at a huge university seem likely to meet that criterion, and though his current position is at a small school, he is the provost. This, along with the above-mentioned Google Scholar results that appear to be fairly well-cited at a quick glance (and work on a significant translation), make me say he fits notability for academics. In addition, he's received some news coverage for questions about whether Southern Virginia in general and he in particular have been discriminatory to gay students. Pinball22 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I expected this to still be questionable, nothing to suggest the needed applicable notability. Keep perhaps only because the article seems to suggest he's a provost, aka a senior position at the university thus suggesting notability. Asking DGG for his confirmation analysis. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provost in a US university is the chief academic officer, not the chief administrative officer. It is a very distinguished position at a really distinguished university. I do not consider Southern Virginia University anywhere near that class; it is a relatively small liberal arts college. Nor do I regard such generic professorships as "a Karl G. Maeser General Education Professor" as anywhere near the equivalent of a usual distinguished professorship, even at BYU--I would guess they are temporary honorary teaching positions. . Nor would he seem to be qualified for one: he's in a field where notability depends on books, and he is co-editor of a single books only, which is not academic notability at any major research university DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like DGG I'm dubious that the Karl G. Maeser General Education Professor is the level of endowed professorship that we're looking for in WP:PROF#C5 (it seems to be more of a teaching award than a recognition of outstanding scholarship), but he also held the Scheuber–Veinz Professorship at BYU, which appears to be a standard endowed professorship. So I think he passes WP:PROF#C5, regardless of whether taking up administration in a different university after his 2009 retirement from BYU is also worthy or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing the PROF test by way of having a named chair. I'm also of the opinion that a provost of a major university is usually notable. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:22, 12 May 2016 (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 Self-image.  Sandstein  16:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's self image[edit]

Women's self image (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)

Highly essay-like. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've completed this nom on behalf of the IP editor, above, using their rationale from the talk page for this AFD. They are, of course, invited to expand on their rationale. On the merits... oi. The text is indeed essay-like, which is a concern - but one that can be fixed through editing. There are references, but note the presence of WebMD and Wordpress among them - not a good sign. We also have indications that this is tonally like a self-help article. For example, Plastic Surgery is described as an "...evasive way to change your physical appearance...". There was a student who indicated that some work would be done, and much was added in February - but the existing article, problems and all, was left mostly intact. For my part, I think it would be best to Merge this over to Self-image and expand on issues particular to female self-image there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As described above, this article has/had a number of tonal problems and is (partially) covered in self-image, body image or self-objectification. The underlying topic is probably worth breaking out (as there's not exactly a shortage of research on women's self image in the US, the west and elsewhere. I've removed a number of problematic passages and I'll return to see if I can't focus the article on the topic directly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the fact it's an Essay and per the fact Men's self image doesn't exist, Damn feminists. –Davey2010Talk 23:28, 16 May 2016 (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 Xavier University - Although sources have been provided they're extremely weak anyway consensus is to merge.,. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Day Center for Faith and Justice[edit]

Dorothy Day Center for Faith and Justice (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 organization, fails WP:BEFORE. The organization itself hosts its website on Blogspot, which is not something one would expect for a something that was notable. References in article are largely published by unreliable sources or by related religious entities, making them non-independent. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or at best, Merge to Xavier University. The article seems to be about a campus ministry at Xavier University. Google news shows 2 sources which mention it in passing. It fails WP:CLUB as there is hardly any coverage in independent and reliable source. It is also unclear if their scope of activities is national/international. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to merge (diff). A small mention in the parent university article is sufficient. Doesn't merit its own article at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence weak keep. Thanks for the backhanded compliment. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2016 (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 and redirect to Neverwinter Nights (series). Consensus is to delete the article; the late proposal to (also) redirect seems unopposed.  Sandstein  16:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neverwinter Nights characters[edit]

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

Unsourced (possible WP:OR), fails WP:GNG and is WP:GAMETRIVIA. Looking "neverwinter nights characters" on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine does not bring up "several reliable sources". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to look at a lot of those links at the moment because of a firewall, but there are a lot of results on the search engine. I am unable to link to the actual search results, unfortunately. The best I can do at the moment would be to post the individual links here that come up in the search engine. BOZ (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you can do to help. There can be a lot of false positives in source-hunting with these video game characters lists - many hits may be just wikias or game guide type documentation that wouldn't meet WP:RS criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's supposedly a "Reliable Sources for Video Games" custom search, so we will see.  :) These are the hits that come up for the 17 characters listed under the first NWN on the page. Some of the hits will be duplicated from one character to another when multiple characters are mentioned on the same page. I am not able to evaluate most of these links due to a content filter. BOZ (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The set of characters is not independently notable from the series, as proved by lack of reliable sources that directly address the characters either as a whole or en masse, individually. A character section with dictionary definitions in the series article would suffice. A redirect to the series could work too, but I see no need to merge the unsourced material as it stands. czar 16:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. From a cursory glance, none of the above sources provide anything significant in regards to notability. TTN (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAMETRIVIA.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, that is, restore the recent redirect by the nom to Neverwinter Nights (series). I was unable to find independent secondary sources discussing these as a set, but obviously didn't have time or inclination to search for every character. As BOZ' search shows, some characters have been discussed in secondary sources and preserving article history in a redirect could provide useful material for future merges of verifiable material, per WP:PRESERVE. The title is a plausible if not compelling search term; it gets 20-30 page views a day. Hence redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close comment - I've undone the close by the IP as it was closed as Redirect .... I'm not seeing any consensus to redirect at the moment .... –Davey2010Talk 22:43, 17 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of Hip Hop[edit]

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

This is a ridiculous page, utterly ridiculous. The intro says "A "Hip Hop Queen" is a term used to describe an individual in the Hip Hop industry who has transgressed the stereotypes presented to female and queer bodies.The Queen is no longer just a Ride-or-die chick or a baby mama, the Queen is a person who is in charge of their own agency. By being a Hip Hop Queen, the Queen has received the greatest title a female or queer individual in Hip Hop can receive."

What unsourced Hotep nonsense is this. Ogress 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress, ThePlatypusofDoom, and DeviantAttitude: "Hotep nonsense"? Really? Their page needs work and I told them to provide a cited definition that is less their understanding and more a presentation of how the term is used in Hip Hop, with linked examples. Perhaps the term Hip Hop Queen is unfamiliar to these Wikipedia-using "culture warriors" because they don't pay attention to women in Hip Hop, which is the entire point of getting a page like this up and running. You might want to check books like Black Girlhood Celebration: Toward a Hip-hop Feminist Pedagogy, From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, Nationalism, and Feminism, Home with Hip Hop Feminism: Performances in Communication and Culture, and Home Girls Make Some Noise!: Hip-hop Feminism Anthology (there are so many more that you can find on your own) before you make comments about something you are clearly not knowledgeable about and/or resistant to. The tone of the critiques are not appreciated nor are they helpful. Also @Wasted Time R: Thank you for your advocacy. The point of the project is to empower them to share their new knowledge, not discourage them. --JustJess PhD (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - original research, synthesis, and an essay with extensive, unsourced editorializing: "Las Krudas ask for respect, recognition, and critical representations of people from the African descent throughout their music. As an all-women group it is ironic that their most popular music politicize menstruation, celebrates the bodies of black and fat women, and advocate the love for women and between women. This message has been hard for this group to get across because of the male-centeredness of the Cuban hip hop movement. As a result of personal and professional reasons Las Krudas decided to leave Cuba... They recognized and confronted the absurdity of the noticeable inequalities, and social justice-inspired messages that always thrived on the politics and aesthetic differences." GABHello! 21:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OR. The term isn't widely used or even used at all, NN at the very least. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Disregard of WP:OR, article written with unrecognisable gibberish alluding to a term that isn't even used within the genre. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JustJess PhD: Yes, but this is not a widely used term. Although I do agree that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia, please add citations. You may want to consult with WP:WikiProject Women. My opinion (I can't stand hip-hop, support women) has no matter in this. I am trying to be as neutral as possible. Although spreading knowledge is important, Wikipedia has standards for this type of thing. Also, it doesn't matter if you are an expert in a topic or not. Although experts are normally better at editing in their expertise, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please read WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - it needs a lot of work. Let's take a look at the sources used in the article and what they support. [1] is an interesting look at the role of women in hip-hop culture, but it doesn't use the term "Queens of Hip Hop" at all. It discusses Queen Latifah a little, and it quotes a Nikki Minaj song which generically refers to women as "Queens", but the article itself does not discuss queens of hip hop as a concept. The Minaj song lyrics may provide support that the concept exists as a sort of primary source, but if that type of thing is what the article is relying on it is original research and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. [2] is more promising. If you have access to Project Muse, it's accessible online. It does have extensive treatment the "queen" as a concept specifically referring to a certian type of woman in black American culture. [3] is about an event for female break dancers. Most of the other articles focus on specific individuals, such as biographies of Beyonce and Queen Latifah. Many of the other sources do not have the word "Queen" in them at all. In short, the only source that actually supports the article is Johnson. If someone can find more sources like the Johnson article, they could craft an acceptable article on this concept, but this iteration of the article isn't it.
Looking for more sources in line with the Johnson article, I found [4]. Also, [5] looks promising but the relevant portion is not available in the online preview, so I'm not sure.
Basically, I'm only seeing the one source that really treats this as a concept, that said, the searching is hard because you keep getting results of people calling themselves "Queen" as part of their name, which then discuss the person (i.e. Queen Latifah) and not the concept. I don't want to filter those out with an advanced search because any discussion of the concept would necessarily include mentions of the people, so it's a catch-22.
TL:DR - The article needs to be fundamentally re-written to focus on the concept of a "Queen" in hip-hop culture. It needs multiple sources that describe this concept, not just biographies of notable women in that culture, and not just treatises on the role of women in that culture more broadly. There is only one such source currently cited in the article, although I have provided a couple promising book sources. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Now That's a Bad Bitch!: The State of Women in Hip-Hop I The Hampton Institute". Hamptoninstitution.org. Retrieved 2016-04-12.
  2. ^ Johnson, Leola. "The Spirit is Willing and So Is the Flesh: The Queen in Hip Hop Culture" Noise and Spirit: The Religious and Spiritual Sensibilities of Rap Music. Ed. Tony Pinn. New York University Press, 2003.
  3. ^ Walker, Chris (2016-04-08). "Queenz of Hip Hop Is Bringing Up the Next Generation of Female Artists". Westword.com. Retrieved 2016-05-03.
  4. ^ Forman, Murray; Neal, Mark Anthony (2004). That's the Joint!: The Hip-hop Studies Reader. Psychology Press. pp. 265–268. ISBN 9780415969192. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  5. ^ Pough, Gwendolyn (1 Dec 2015). Check It While I Wreck It: Black Womanhood, Hip-Hop Culture, and the Public Sphere. Northeastern University Press. pp. 127, 134. ISBN 9781555538545. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
@ONUnicorn, JustJess PhD, P&S, ThePlatypusofDoom, GeneralizationsAreBad, DeviantAttitude, Wiae, and Wasted Time R: I am the nominating editor and I am a member of WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women in Red. I think it's really important to add women and coverage of women to Wikipedia.
That being said, this is fundamentally problematic in that it posits the existence of a subset of women that does not appear to exist. Yes, "hotep". "The Queen is no longer just a Ride-or-die chick or a baby mama, the Queen is a person who is in charge of their own agency. By being a Hip Hop Queen, the Queen has received the greatest title a female or queer individual in Hip Hop can receive." What the actual hell. I'm going to actually quote the ride-or-die chick article to contrast: "Historically there have been four stereotypes of Black female sexuality, the Jezebel, mammy, matriarch, and welfare mother. Layli D. Phillips reinterpreted these categories and claimed the modern day hip-hop equivalent of these gender-role scripts are the diva, gold digger, freak, dyke, gangster bitch, sister savior, earth mother, and baby mama." In contrast to that article, Queens of Hip Hop reifies that category of diva on a Wikipedia page rather than bringing an examination to it. Classic hotep: 1. calls women "females"; 2. calls women "queens" 3. says this is the greatest title for women. All I need an inspirational photo of ancient Egypt to write it over and I can send it to Hotep Of The Day. It's a sexist affirmation rather than a wikipedia article about a phenomenon.
The article on "ride or die chick" - which appears also problematic but not nominate-for-deletion (in my humble opinion; Alt-Right is currently NfD, so who knows) - actually brings in RS; "Black feminist scholar Treva Lindsey claims the ride or die chick is a challenge to a dominant narrative in hip hop that privileges homosocial male relationships and undermines heterosexual romantic bonds between men and women." It describes the phenomenon. Video vixen begins, "A video vixen (also hip hop honey or video girl) is a female model who appears in hip-hop-oriented music videos. The video vixen image has become a staple and a nuanced form of sex work within Black popular music; especially within the genre of hip-hop. Many video vixens are aspiring actors, singers, dancers, or professional models. Women from various cultures have been portrayed either as fragile, manipulative, fetishistic, or submissive within contemporary music lyrics, videos, concert and movie soundtracks, although this is not universal, as demonstrated by the archetypal Ride-or-die chick."
Second, I'm not even clear that the notion of "queens of hip-hop" actually exists as a pre-existing term, although I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong. You do hear "Queen Bey" but a general discussion of queens? Maybe I am missing it. *shrug* Ogress 18:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This verbose list is a good combo of WP:NEO and WP:OR, creating something out of nothing. Rather than WP:WTAF, this should be a case of WP:Write the thesis/dissertation first.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely as I had seen this for quite some time and planned to nominate also, nothing at all convincing of the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (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 we have the consensus on notability now. Tone 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Society of Slovenia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Archaeological Society of Slovenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Re-nominating for a second AfD because the first one did not gain consensus to delete. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The national society in its field, publishing an academic journal. References have been provided by Yerpo. --Eleassar my talk 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:12, 13 May 2016 (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 Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 17:57 on 10 May 2016 by Maile66 (talk · contribs): (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sita William[edit]

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

Reason Bigstory2016 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (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 Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 09:32 on 11 May 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

انا فتاة حرة[edit]

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

This is a poem written by an Arabic-speaking poet. There is no claim of notability for the author or the poem. The article actually includes the request "please read and give me your opinions". Blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:38, 10 May 2016 (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 Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 19:26 on 13 May 2016 by Sandstein (talk · contribs): (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International 2014 (4th nomination)) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2013[edit]

Manhunt International 2013 (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 appears to be a hoax. The Manhunt International main article says that 2012 was the last contest. This page was moved from Manhunt International 2014 to avoid the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International 2014 (4th nomination), where the consensus was obviously tending towards delete. ubiquity (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just unclosed the other AfD because it included the 2013 page and moving 2014 over 2013 does not resolve the AfD. Honest mistake by the person who moved the page and the closer who reacted to the move. Hopefully they will not mind relooking at the situation and save us all a big Deletion Review. Legacypac (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2016 (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 and redirect to Bratz#Video_games. Redirect the other unsourced game articles to the same section. czar 19:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Ponyz[edit]

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

Unsourced article on nn video game TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing notability guidelines. A single notable review on IGN from 2007. Other than that, scant or no coverage. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 10 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. The Db-repost was declined as the article was deemed to be completely different yet the same article was very recently deleted by Db-repost - and posted again. I believe the deletion was correct as the reasons for the original AfD deletion remain unchanged. The subject has had no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee has been subject of multiple independent articles from national or international media and clearly meets the notability criteria as per WP:MMABIO. It's possible that previous versions of this page were not made properly, but the current version which I made contains references to multiple articles about Angela Lee in reputable, reliable, significant news sources such as Bloomberg, The Canadian Press, The Straits Times, The Daily Mirror, The Independent etc. I don't think you could find a clearer case of an MMA fighter meeting WP:MMABIO in terms of independent press coverage. Sadoka74 (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sadoka74. I created the article after its first deletion with similar reasons and see it's back up, which I support. I do understand Angela Lee does not meet all notability guidelines, but then again, I respectfully disagree with those in this case, seeing how many respectable media outlets write about her. Lotte Belice (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for MMA fighters is at WP:NMMA and it's clear she does not meet that. The sources given in the article all amount to routine sports coverage--results and promotion of upcoming fights. She does not have the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't understand your point here at all. 90% of the references are either features exclusively on her or exclusive interviews with her. If multiple interviews and features in major international newspapers and media outlets isn't significant independent coverage than what is?Sadoka74 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pre and post fight interviews are routine coverage and/or promotional so they're considered routine coverage. Fighting for a second tier MMA organization, even for its title, is not considered to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so interviews pre and post fight don't count, but interviews that take place when she hasn't got a fight booked do? Please refer me to the place in WP:NMMA where it states this as I must have missed it.Sadoka74 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me what in WP:NMMA she meets.Mdtemp (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She has been the subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. Sadoka74 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you actually read WP:NMMA to see that is not in the criteria listed.Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadoka74 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. The actual notability guideline is at WP:NMMA --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she meets 1 of the 3 criteria supporting notability and none of the 2 criteria supporting deletion. Werda66 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets "multiple independent articles" criteria as there is tons of local and international press, including some in the media that have described her as "the face of MMA in Asia," potentially "the highest paid teenager in the history of MMA", and "the biggest MMA star in Asia." Aifanp (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2016 (PST)
Potentially being the highest paid teenager in MMA is not a notability criteria. Being a high paid minor league baseball player doesn't show notability. Non-neutral fancruft and minor league success don't show notability. Why do all these users without user pages choose to ignore the MMA notability criteria?Mdtemp (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. The refusal of those voting to keep the article to use the actual guidelines is disconcerting. As far as meeting WP:GNG goes, I don't see the significant independent coverage requirement being met. I agree with Mdtemp that the coverage seems routine sports reporting. Most of the coverage stems from her OneFC title fight (a second tier championship that doesn't show notability) that, at best, can be considered WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the comments I made above, based on what was in the article and what had been presented at the time. However, additional sources have been presented which compel me to change my vote to Keep because it appears she does meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The girl is notable:
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/sport/bruce-lee-one-championship-mma/
2. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/singapore-mma-star-angela-lee-ready-for-one-pride-bout-with-natalie-gonzales-hills.html
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/mma/angela-lee-looking-to-make-history-and-pioneer-womens-mma-at-one-ascent-to-power-a7003626.html
4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/mma-superstar-angela-lee-insists-7957412
5. http://www.esq.sg/women/women-we-love/Angela-Lee
6. http://www.shape.com.sg/fitness/you-won%E2%80%99t-believe-what-mma-fighter-angela-lee-has-eat-after-every-competition
7. http://combatpress.com/2015/09/one-championships-angela-lee-a-proud-member-of-the-evolve-fight-team/
8. http://www.mmamania.com/2015/10/14/9528593/one-unstoppable-rise-of-singaporean-superstar-angela-lee-mma
9. http://mmajunkie.com/2016/05/one-championship-42s-angela-lee-embracing-position-as-face-of-womens-mma-in-asia
10. http://www.mmaweekly.com/newly-crowned-one-atomweight-champ-angela-lee-signs-huge-new-contract
11. http://www.kollab.nyc/the-unstoppable-wave-that-is-angela-lee/
12. https://sports.vice.com/latinamerica/article/angela-lee-es-la-primera-campeona-atomo-de-one-championship
Though only 1 year fighting professionaly, she was a 2016 Female Fighter of the Year World MMA Awards nominee ("Awarded to the leading female mixed martial artist for her contribution to the sport both inside and outside the Ring, Cage or Octagon"):
http://mmajunkie.com/2016/01/world-mma-awards-nominees-set-with-new-analyst-mma-programming-categories
After winning the ONE female Atomweight belt, Fight Matrix also started ranking her:
http://www.fightmatrix.com/mma-ranks/womens-strawweight/ Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Jakobs[edit]

Anthony Jakobs (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)

To me this teen BLP would have been a {{db-person}} candidate, as I can't find any WP:CCS no matter how much leeway I give it. But since it was curated on NPP with the addition of {{notability}} I bring it here. Searching for sources I find nothing useful that would make subject meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NACTOR. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not notable. Searches returned zero hits for him (except for one, which I'll get to in a moment), so fails WP:GNG. Doesn't come close to passing WP:NACTOR. Article is clearly promotional. Didn't know there was a restriction for A7'ing an article after it had been tagged for notability. I don't think I've ever done it, but didn't know there was some guideline against it. Only that you can't re-add a prod tag. Now, about that single hit: imdb.com. This imdb.com is the poster child for why imdb.com is not a reliable source. Obviously self-published and self-promotional, it reads like the resume of a friend I had in high school who was trying to puff themselves up for agents. In fact, I'm bookmarking his imdb.com page so I can bring it up anytime there's a question about imdb's notability. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Onel5969: To the best of my knowledge it would in this specific case not have been wrong to A7-tag it instead of coming here. Would any other user find that there is a CSS and remove the speedy? Open question. If yes, PROD would have been the next step in the DELPRO. I have no idea why one of our most active NPPers skip both speedy and PROD with this one. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having "followers" on Instagram doesn't make one notable. A cameo (!) appearance in an untitled (!) film idem. Mixing someone else's music without release idem. I deleted this "He has also stated that King Charlegmagne is one of his ancestors." crazy self-promo, as virtually every white person in Europe (and so US/Canada and the rest of the world) is related to him (8th century AD). Tisquesusa (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as I certainly would've tagged this as such, if it wasn't that Speedied have been simply removed recently thus I tagged and watchlisted until I nominated for deletion. Certainly deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @SwisterTwister: A7 should not be used when the consensus driven deletion discussion has commenced. Please clarify I certainly would've tagged this as such, if it wasn't that Speedied have been simply removed recently, I do not understand what you intend to say. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:36, 11 May 2016 (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. The subject (as of this writing) appears to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements without any problems. Yes, there are two calls in this discussion for deletion, but both of these requests focus on a section of the article regarding a Facebook appreciation group - that section can easily be edited down without having to delete the entire article. And at the risk of editorializing, I would like to commend everyone that participated in this vigorous and entertaining discussion. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halal snack pack[edit]

Halal snack pack (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)

Notability questionable, article consists mostly of coverage about a Facebook page dedicated to the appreciation of this dish, and contains, for example: "Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group."

I can't resolve this with the other editors on the page, because they revert me and remove maintenance tags. Laber□T 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • I cannot understand your NPOV concern, I merely stated that this is just another social media phenomenon with the typical "flash in the pan" effect. --Laber□T 12:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state atop in your nomination that the article "contains, for example: Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group." It comes across that you don't like this notion, since you're basing your deletion nomination in part based upon what the sources state, which is properly verified in the article. North America1000 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because that seems like "house rules" that Facebook pages or other social media groups tend to have, and these are things that are not for Wikipedia articles, because these rules are not relevant to the subject and can be changed at any time by any group admin. --Laber□T 13:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources have already reported the information; it's irrespective whatever happens at the Facebook group page; Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state. See also WP:BELONG and WP:NTEMP. North America1000 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, on the talk page, you stated, "Yeah, but writing who donated something for whom, who supports Halal food, and that users are banned for putting certain things on their food (!) is not something that should belong in a Wikipedia article." (diff, bold emphasis mine). As such, you come across as not liking what reliable sources state about the topic, so you nominated it for deletion. Hopefully this explains the NPOV concerns I have with your actions thus far. Again, see WP:BELONG. North America1000 13:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because the first one is not notable (many groups, movements or corporations donate money, this should only be included if unusually significant), the second one should go to Halal food if it improves the article, and the third one is just ridiculous. --Laber□T 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You come across as thinking that every sentence in the article needs to qualify for it's own separate article per WP:N. This is not how it works. See WP:V, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". Thus far, you have only provided subjective proof by assertion arguments based upon your personal opinions, rather than discussing the coverage the topic has received in reliable sources and how this relates to WP:N. North America1000 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You for telling me how to formulate this right, so far I've felt a little lost here. Here comes my review of the references: "Case Studies in Food Microbiology for Food Safety and Quality" tells what the meat used will likely consist of, but of course not referencing the product because it was written in 2002. That is OK, so we know the contents, but of course has nothing to do with the notability. "Your Local Kebab Shop Is Now Trending, Introducing Your New Facebook Group Obsession": the video autoplay really caught me off-guard here, ouch. To me, this does not seem like a good source, because it is really just some content slapped together and given a chic title in order to attract clicks. "The halal snack pack: a fast track to a heart attack? Or worse?": they say that this dish isn't something new, OK that indicates some notability. However, the article doesn't tell us much about the subject in question, the last three paragraphs are just about Halal certification in general. There is also an indication that this article is hastly written: It contains the racist remark "signalling a kind of stubborn 'whiteness' that no amount of shredded meat can overcome.". "Senator rates halal snack pack a 10": This does not seem to add much notability, some senator ate the dish and found it to taste very good, I don't know... "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society makes pilgrimage to snack pack ‘Mecca’, King Kebab House": This asserts some notability, however it is just a local news site, and you can really see that by the crappy Photoshop they did. "Halal snack pack: bridging cultures or a recipe for radicalisation? – video": That is the video to the Guardian article. Indicates that they did some research. The three other references concern the "Adelaide AB", which may be similar to the Halal snack pack, but it has not been established that this is really the same thing or at least something similar enough to go into the same article. "Halal, is it meat you're looking for? Hilarious Facebook group where kebab lovers rate their ultimate meat, chips, sauce and cheese combos (and mock far-right groups calling for a boycott of halal food)": Just a report on the Facebook page, meh. "The Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society Is Uniting Australia With Kebab Meat" same as the last one, but at least this includes some info on the controversy surrounding Halal slaughter, which may be used to expand the article to include different viewpoints. Overall, I think there is some notability, but I'm not sure if enough to keep the article. It should also be determined wether this "AB" dish really is the same, or even similiar (it seems to not be Halal after all). --Laber□T 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Clearly notable, as it is covered in multiple independent sources. My only caveat is that the other variants of the dish do not warrant their own articles and all variants should be discussed here, like "Adelaide AB" (the expansion of the acronym is rather nasty and should only be made if it is sourced). To the other editors here, please note that per WP:AFDFORMAT it is more productive to state arguments for keeping or deleting in your own response rather than making assertions about the validity of other editors' responses, as far as is possible. Roches (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. This well-referenced article clearly meets the requirement for significant coverage in independent sources. I am familiar with this article from its submission at DYK, and can see that it is start-class, awaiting further expansion. That is, the lead contains all the information about the halal snack pack. Other editors could choose to expand on this with additional information about the snack pack itself. Then the supplementary sections of "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society" and "Similar dishes" would not stand out so sharply and seem to "take over" the article. Don't demolish the house while it's in the process of being built. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as Keep however after going to DRV (discussion) It was decided I closed waaay to early so am relisting it, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. but the food pack is notable , not the group., I've removed the information about the group. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook group has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. How is it not notable? Please read WP:V, where it states, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". The article is written entirely from what reliable sources state. North America1000 02:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as G11 for the Facebook group. Both topics may be notable , but there is no point in having an article that confuses the two of them: they ae not equivalent. It would be the analogy of having a combination article on medicine and the American Medical Association. The net effect is to turn a perfectly viable article on a general topic into an advertisement for one particular group. I tried to fixit, but was reverted. The best choice at this point is to delete the whole confused article and start over. If a NPOV article cannot be written,on a topic because of this sort of interference, it must be deleted and a new attempt made. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, content about the Facebook group is not promotional; it's written only upon what the sources state with a neutral point-of-view. The article does not extol any benefits or greatness of the group; it simply provides an overview based upon reports by reliable sources. If a separate article about the group were to be split off from the article, it would likely eventually end up having a merge template added to it to merge it back to the main article about the topic. North America1000 06:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subculture surrounding the HSP is as notable as the dish itself, and the appreciation society is the centre of this subculture. -Espo 121.219.241.248 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as I've been watching this AfD and it still seems too close including for the appreciation society to have solid independent notability and its improvements yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in plenty of independent reliable sources. The political/social aspects to it (including the facebook group) add to the notability, not detract from it. The-Pope (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is covered by a wide range of sources and is notable. 92.4.96.96 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article could be tidied up in some areas ('haram dingo'...), but it passes WP:GNG - coverage from a variety of good sources evident Aurora (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the tradition is clearly being spread worldwide, hence there needs to be an article on this new meal that is recognized an appreciated by the majority of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.93.216 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article is the HSP, a dish that has been widely popular for many years, and is a notable part of Australian culture, even without the Facebook group. The Facebook group is not notable enough for its own article, despite news coverage, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but information about it is available from reliable sources and it is relevant to the article. Whether the section on the group has been given undue weight is a content issue that can be fixed by editing. Even if an article is poorly-written rubbish, AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline for improvement. @DGG: @Laberkiste: if you feel that other editors are unfairly reverting your changes, AfD is not an appropriate method to resolve it, see dispute resolution. Deleting the article and starting over would accomplish little, since those editors are free to continue editing it... -- IamNotU (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the same editor closed this discussion twice and then claimed it was a waste of time. Obviously this is improper. Also, I would have voted keep. Valoem talk contrib 16:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is a waste of fucking time and you reverting the close is a waste of fucking time, If you would have !voted keep then why the fucking hell revert ? .... –Davey2010Talk 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an abuse of process, I certainly hope when something closes against me it is not the same editor doing it twice and then rubbing it in my face with comment like "I told you it was a waste of time". If you feel I've done something wrong please ANI. Valoem talk contrib 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem - It wasn't abuse of process at all, The nominator had gone to the trouble of going to DRV where after I relisted it it gained about 7 !keeps ..... It was obvious the AFD was going to be closed as Keep and the nom knew that ..... so therefore the whole drama was a waste of time ....., I wouldn't drag my worst enemy to that place so don't worry you're safe , –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 16 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Varoga[edit]

Craig Varoga (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)

An American campaign strategist of dubious notability. Eleassar my talk 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I found these: [103][104][105]. However, the latter two seem to be more about the organizations he is associated with rather than him as a person, and the first one is simply insufficient coverage. Sure, he's quoted substantially in the media, but that is not enough for an article, either. GABHello! 21:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:MILL. I'm a former Democratic committeeman and consultant myself, and keep up to date daily on partisan politics, and like the lead says there's a reason I've never heard of him. He truly is up and coming. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this a case of lacking any secondary sources, it is a case of original research desgined to cover the coordinated activities of one individual. There is a place for such original research, but it is in an investigative report in a newspaper. If such gets published, than depending on the circumstances it may create enough notability for Varoga to have an article on him, but creating the article in Wikipedia is not a legitimate way to do an end-run around the process of creating a newspaper article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've explored speedy and PROD as an option, this would certainly need better to be acceptable and I'm simply not seeing the signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

(The result was Speedy Delete. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was Procedural close. Already speedy deleted at 22:26 on 11 May 2016 by Ponyo (talk · contribs) (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by IwantobelikeGogoDodo (talk · contribs)) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24-hour news, weather and traffic radio station[edit]

24-hour news, weather and traffic radio station (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 just seems to be a list of US radio stations that has no sources indicating why this grouping is somehow notable. It reads as a guidebook more than an article. I believe it meets the G11 CSD criteria but the CSD tag was removed. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE article; none of these stations are all-news radio in the pure sense, making the article title a lie, and all of the categories are just radio scheduling gimmicks the general layman doesn't care about (not to mention traffic reports on the hour and half-hour only just don't happen except in small markets). Nate • (chatter) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the removal of the G11 tag was correct as the article doesn't contain any promotional wording, but the inclusion of topics in this list is arbitrary and the list isn't likely to be very useful, especially if it was made comprehensive as it would then be extremely large. Hut 8.5 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would only state that the page's intent seems promotional or at least for publicity/advertising the stations listed. But I understand that has passed now. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As basically a guidebook per above. There are 302 radio markets tracked by Arbitron, and one would assume that there are several stations per market that have traffic and weather reports 24-hours. Also @Gogo Dodo: who may have history with the author, given the name. CrowCaw 14:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It looks like something blocked user: Dung247 would create & I think it may be the same user.Stereorock (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G5 criteria as an article created by a banned or blocked user. It's Dung247, yet again. SPI started. Scr★pIronIV 20:37, 11 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Cooper (musician)[edit]

Albert Cooper (musician) (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)

Local blues musician from Norwich, England. No indication of any national or international significance. The article lists details on a venue in the town that the artist has been involved with. No mention of a notable career in music that includes chart entries on notable tours. Any searches on the name come up with local results. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - Wikipedia includes mention of numerous American non-entities, famed for only hitting a ball with a stick and unknown out of their State/Nation. Cooper an integral part of British R'B & blues scene since late 1950's. A music promoter booking Paul Simon in early days Read the compliment Guy/Buddy Rich gave him. Fairly obvious there is no integral policy to proposing delete article, just spite and ignorance of anything outside of America. Norwikian (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that says anything about Mr. Cooper or his relevance. Having something nice said about him by someone who has an article isn't itself a reason to have an article. There are lots and lots of policies that govern whether someone is notable or not, and if you can show that Mr. Cooper meets just one of those policies, then this is an easy keep. But responding to this deletion debate by criticizing other editors, Nominating two other Albert Coopers (here and here) for deletion, and angrily adding a local website as a reference here, while calling other editors "jealous and inept fuckers..." isn't going to convince anyone that Mr. Cooper is notable. It might end up getting you blocked from editing, which is a thing I guess, but it will do little for Mr. Cooper. So please, focus on the subject. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have found nothing better and everything is still questionable for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All I'm seeing are 'local interest' type stories such as this, this, and this. From actually listening to his music (I unambiguously recommend this to everyone that comes across this message) and looking at various commentary about him, I understand his reputation as a talented local celebrity. He's, though, just still not notable in Wikipedia terms. His releases haven't charted nationally, his performances haven't received national news coverage, et cetera. I encourage people to talk about him someplace directly music-oriented such as Last.fm or the like, but for here, though, I think this page should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11, clearly promotion of the firm. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Awards[edit]

Churchill Awards (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, lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": the Daily Telegraph source is not independent (the award was set up "in association with The Telegraph"), the Dorset Chamber of Commerce source is a copypasted press release and the Newmarket Journal and Portsmouth News are brief "local man wins award" local news stories which say little about the awards themselves. McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the association with a major British newspaper rather undercut your argument that the award is just from "some damned property developer", as you said in this discussion? BMK (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comment might have been mine, Beyond My Ken. The context was "there's no possible reason for us to publicise some damned property developer (who doesn't even have a WP article) here". This page was created by an obvious COI/paid editor (assuming WP:REALNAME, that is), expanded by another. We don't tolerate WP:promotion of any kind here, and we strongly discourage COI editing. In practice, that discouragement often takes the form of reverting/undoing COI edits, which is, I believe, what we should do in this case – WP:TNT. On the same theme, I've declined Draft:Churchill Retirement Living as an advertisement; it should probably be deleted as one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that error. BMK (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Just one quality reference, not in theThe Daily Telegraph, might sway me. But I can find none. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems these are, according to our article and the Daily Telegraph, the "Churchill Retirement Awards" (2 hits on Google, 0 hits on Google news). They are not the Churchill Awards awarded by the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley (which isn't the Churchill Club); I don't see any indication that those are notable either. Since the Telegraph has lent its name to this rather sordid exercise in promotion, this topic could perhaps be mentioned in our article on that paper. The primary topic for "Churchill awards" is of course the honours received by Winston Churchill. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lang[edit]

Joe Lang (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 individual with no sources available. None of the external links on the article are any indication of notability - three official websites, one deadlink (howwastheshow.com, no idea what that is) and one article written by Lang. Nikthestunned 08:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References indicate this is purely promotional for the subject. No independent sources provided. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 18 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NovaMin[edit]

NovaMin (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)

Blatant advertisement article, promotes named brand all over the place without giving actual scientific evidence or effectiveness for its claims. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: [As requested i have created a separate AfD for the other page which is now available. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recaldent.]

  • Delete Sources do not sufficiently establish notability. 4 & 5 are in-house reports, 1,2 and 6 are incidental mentions or beside the point entirely. Ref 3 seems legit but doesn't make this notable on its own. Quick search does not turn up anything better.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an ad and not notable. DeVerm (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment suggest nom creates AfD for other pages mentioned (Recaldent) DeVerm (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NovaMin, not sure for Recaldent. Like User:DeVerm, I think the bundling was inappropriate (similar topic, but different analysis).
For NovaMin, I found this but I am not sure ceramics.org is a reliable source. Since there are no secondary sources other than ceramics.org in my search, that is still not enough in any case. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's only a brand name, not anything else to suggest automatic independent notability and there's also nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 18 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-establishment wave[edit]

Anti-establishment wave (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:SYNTH of regional election coverage that don't mention each other - I actually couldn't find any coverage that does (with the small exception of some Twitter comments made after Duerte's rape comment) which does surprise me somewhat. ansh666 08:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am not very acquainted with the rules so I can't exactly say whether this article should be deleted, just wanted to say what I know. Duterte has been called "Trump of the East"; the European wave of anti-establishment candidates, such as UKIP, Front National, AFD, and the current Austrian presidential frontrunner,etc have also been compared to Trump and each other much more extensively, with many articles claiming they belong to the same brand of right wing populism. I can't find a specific source for these right now, since I saw them a few weeks back and on my phone, but there certainly have been connections made between these "anti-establishment" candidates in reputable sources. However, I don't think so far any article has coined the term "anti-establishment wave" per se, so if this article is to be retained, it should be called something different that isn't completely made up on the spot. Ingebot (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment article has the potential for expansion and notability, but for the time being its just original research and POV. Right-wing populism is nothing new (see Right-wing populism). If new sources are found and new instances happen then this article should be kept. If not then it should be merged with Right-wing populism or be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So far, this reads mostly as original research and synthesis and suggests a connection between these separate political stories not borne out by press coverage. Furthermore, people like Le Pen and Wilders have been on the rise for several years, predating the timeframe given in the article. If there's more discussion of this in reliable secondary sources, maybe reconsider, but in its present state I don't think this article merits inclusion. Most of the article seems to be built on a single Singaporean newspaper article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research/synthesis. Baking Soda (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/SYN. The links I can find mostly talks about how X is not a result of/affected by an anti-establishment wave, I don't see much hope for making a good article from that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but consider other title possibilities. --Article editor (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. As has been pointed out, there are lots of reliable sources that go into significant coverage of this topic. It's not so full of synthesis as to require blowing up. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into populism. Not distinctive enough to stand on its own. Can add a referenced line or so to the populism article. Also, not specific to right-wing populism, as suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted by others, this is synthesis. There certainly are some common themes (anti-immigration, nationalism) among the European politicians listed, and some of the American ones. But the leaders of Guatemala and the Philippines, who are also included in the article, don't seem to have anything in common politically with the others. Trying to depict this as a global wave doesn't make sense, and is not supported by the sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis. Can't seem to find any sources that talk about it in detail or any suggestions that it's a truly global phenomenon. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and above points.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per OR/SYNTH, although may merely be WP:TOOSOON to write such an article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henri White[edit]

Henri White (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)

Self-promotion by non-notable performer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as overall nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 18 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Run[edit]

Baltic Run (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 tourism, rather than sports event. While some of these have Wikipedia articles, the Baltic Run simply does not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, with coverage limited to press releases and small travel blogs. No longer a penguin (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete – Unless I'm missing something, does not appear to meet WP:N per source searches. For what it's worth, I found a rather humorous non-related mention of a different type of Baltic Run here. 🌝 North America1000 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing else convincing of notability here and I have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 18 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Nadernejad[edit]

Nader Nadernejad (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a co-producer, casting assistant and/or receiver of special thanks on short YouTube videos. This is not enough of a claim of notability to satisfy WP:CREATIVE in and of itself, and the sourcing ain't carrying him over WP:GNG either -- and there's a probable WP:COI, as the creator uses the plural first person we in their talk page comments about the past prod tagging of the article (and has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that was unconnected to this subject, either.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- it takes reliable source coverage, verifying a proper claim of notability, to earn an article on here. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as a credited film producer. This person is not a mere YouTube personality. This notable public figure holds numerous film credits. He is mentioned and featured in local and international news outlets. This person satisfies WP:CREATIVE for creating a significant body of work with other notable public figures. Sources have been updated to satisfy the WP:GNG. The guidelines were met and the person has been cited in outlets independent of himself. The proposed AfD is not based on constructive evidence, but weak speculation. Keep this WP:BLP as it adheres to the standards discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.79.234.49 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
— 66.79.234.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The references you've added do not satisfy WP:GNG nearly as well as you think they do. #1 = IMDb, which is not a source that can support notability (or is even valid for use as a reference at all; per WP:IMDB/RS, IMDb may be added to an article only as an external link, and not as a citation for the article content.) #2 through #4 = purely local media coverage in his own hometown market; acceptable for additional verification of facts if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but not counting toward the establishment of encyclopedic notability. #5 = not actually about him at all, but merely namechecking his existence as the tweeter of a quote about the person who is the subject of the reference. #6 = more purely local media coverage in his own hometown market. #7 = a YouTube video, not a reliable source. #8 = a Tweet, not a reliable source. #9 = does not mention Nadernejad, but merely confirms a fact about Vita Chambers which is entirely irrelevant to Nadernejad, and thus does not speak to Nadernejad's notability at all. #10 = another YouTube video. #11 = article where he's a bylined author of the content, not the subject of it, and thus not supporting notability. #12 and #13 = more purely local hometown coverage, not able to confer encyclopedic notability.
A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because you can add any footnotes at all which verify that they exist — certain specific types of referencing have to be present to verify certain specific markers of achievement, and none of the references you've added are valid ones. You say, for example, that he's also received international media coverage — but you haven't shown a single media source outside of Peterborough, except for that Toronto Star article that fails to even mention his name.
Note, as well, that notability is not inherited, so "has worked with other notable people" does not constitute a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:BLP required some minor edits, it is enough to claim notability by community standards. The subject is listed on IMDb as a film producer with a number of credits. In addition to this, the subject has interviewed and worked with other notable public figures. He is listed independently on a various news outlets with specific focus on his media endeavours and projects. Consensus is important to Wikipedia and the platform should work to Keep and improve articles with reliable source coverage. BeaverTails18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
— BeaverTails18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being listed on IMDb does not constitute an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and neither is "has interviewed and worked with other notable figures" — and the "various news outlets" that have been added to the article as references are all local coverage limited to his own hometown, but "local kid does stuff" coverage in the local media is not enough in and of itself to demonstrate that he belongs in an encyclopedia for that stuff as of yet. A filmmaker does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because his body of work exists — reliable source coverage about him and the work has to verifiably demonstrate the notability of that body of work, and none of the newly added referencing here has shown that at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The threshold of "significant coverage" has not been met. A few exposes in local news papers does not meet the definition of "significant". --Jayron32 17:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I ever use the words you just said that I used. It's quite odd to be misquoted when the statement you misquote isn't heard, but actually written, and written a few millimeters above the misquote. --Jayron32 00:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was only addressing an unfortunate wished for WP:SUBSTANTIAL. I will now strike my arguments. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed above why the sources in question do not pass WP:GNG: The Arthur is a university student newspaper; the Star link serves only to confirm a tangential fact about one of his collaborators while not even containing a mention of his name at all; CNN iReport is a user-generated content site to which anybody can submit any "news" they want; PTBO Canada and My Kawartha are community weekly papers in the subject's own hometown; The Coast is an article he wrote, not an article somebody else wrote about him (a person gets over GNG by being the subject of sources written by other people, not by being the bylined author of sources about other things); and The Wolf isn't about him, but merely embeds a tweet from him in an article about somebody else — and the Google News search brings up zero additional sources beyond the ones that have already been established as inadequate. This is not adequate sourcing to pass GNG — a person does not pass GNG if the best you can do for sourcing is a few pieces of "local boy makes good" human interest coverage in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You feel you "addressed" them again, BUT in repeating, you express a failure to understand that a topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic of a source, just so long as it is spoken of directly and in detail. I remind that your wished for WP:SUBSTANTIAL and WP:SOLETOPIC are not policies nor guides. So please... tell me how you've personally determined that CNN's award winning I-report is unsuitable or please share the Wikipedia discussion at WP:RSN that tells us it does not meet WP:RS so that we can then go through ALL of Wikipedia and remove the thousands upon thousands of times CNN is used to source thousands of articles.... for if any portion of authored CNN content is unreliable, then all authored CNN content is suspect. I'd love to read how others drew your conclusions, as personally deciding authored articles in otherwise reliable sources are unsuitable is not convincing. No sale. Thanks Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
iReport is not CNN-authored content — it's a "citizen journalism" section of CNN's website to which anybody can upload their own self-created video reporting of any "news" they want to "report", entirely without oversight from professional journalists. I can upload video of a trivial fender-bender in a parking lot to iReport if I want to. You can upload a video of your cat playing with a bottlecap if you want to. Anybody who's trying to create self-published sourcing for a Wikipedia article can upload video of themselves if they want to. People can upload outright hoaxes to iReport if they want to. This fact does not invalidate content created by CNN's staff on the regular website or the channel — iReport is USER-GENERATED CONTENT, which is a class of sourcing we do not allow to carry notability in a Wikipedia article, while CNN's actual staff are professional journalists.
So your false dichotomy that we have to remove all CNN sourcing from all of Wikipedia if we don't accept iReport here simply does not wash, because iReport and content actually created by real CNN staff are not the same thing. A couple of phrases from our article on iReport that you might want to think about, if you're still not getting what I'm saying: "There have been several cases where hoax stories placed on that service were given credence by their apparent connection to CNN"; and "Submissions are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post." That's why iReport doesn't count toward notability: there is no editorial control over what gets submitted to it.
And just for the record, I express no failure to understand anything. A person's tweet being requoted in an article about somebody else does not assist in getting the tweeter over GNG. A person entirely failing to be mentioned at all in a news article about some second person does not assist in getting the first person over GNG. "Local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in their own local media does not assist in getting them over GNG. Self-published content on user-generated content sites like YouTube or iReport does not assist in getting a person over GNG. This is not me failing to understand anything, or applying tendentious personal interpretations of policy — there simply isn't a single source here that satisfies GNG. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You win. I fold. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was first proposed for deletion for variety of reasons which have been satisfied. Now the issue surrounds passing WP:GNG. Sources that were not enough to help the subject pass WP:GNG have been corrected and improved. It would strike an editor reviewing articles in good faith to correct the citations of a subject instead of using one or two poor citations to propose an entire article for deletion. Furthermore, articles that are independent of the subject prove that the subject passes WP:GNG. Independent sources verify that the subject has an online following of hundreds of thousands. In addition, the subject has appeared on national media outlets. Sources verify that the subject is a film producer, has interviewed public figures on radio, wrote to the leaders of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference with other notable Nova Scotian's, and much more. Despite an online presence that satisfies notability, the subject meets WP:GNG through the many things he has achieved in the public eye. It is important to consider the collection of information provided to avoid creating a straw man argument based on one or two sources. Per WP:GNG, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected", which has been met and exceeded. BeaverTails18 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources are generally expected in order to pass GNG, which is why the reasons for the deletion nomination have not been satisfied. This was not a case of "one or two" poor citations which have been "corrected and improved" — it's a case involving 13 poor citations, which is the entirety of the citation pool here. There has yet to be even one citation added that would contribute anything to getting him over GNG. When it comes to demonstrating notability in a Wikipedia article, the standard that a source has to meet to be valid is not "any webpage at all that confirms the information cited to it, even if it was self-published by the subject" — only certain specific types of sources count as reliable ones for the purposes of supporting notability, and none of the sources shown here are of the appropriate type. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peterborough Examiner is a source of the appropriate type to name one. Please refer to Postmedia and calculate the frequency it is cited in articles of notable public figures. User:DefineWanderlust (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— DefineWanderlust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He's from Peterborough, so a "local teen does stuff" human interest piece in the Peterborough Examiner does not get him over WP:GNG if it's the best you can do for sourcing. If the rest of the sourcing around it were solid, then the Examiner would be fine — but it cannot carry a person over GNG by itself as the only acceptable source in the mix, as it's local to his own hometown and thus fails to demonstrate that he has the wider recognition necessary to get into an encyclopedia as of yet. It's not just a question of "published by Postmedia ergo GNG met"; it's also a question of the context in which that coverage is being given, and "local teen" human interest coverage in his own local newspaper is not a context that makes him internationally encyclopedic by itself, if media coverage beyond Peterborough is entirely nonexistent. And your "non-admin closure" on the basis of "nomination withdrawn" was a cute stunt — but as the nominator, I get to decide if and when this is withdrawn, not you. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As lacking notability. The disgusting behaviour of COI editors, namely vandalism, socking and harassment makes for a pretty good case as well. AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a little bit more context, the behaviour AusLondoner is talking about has included vandalism to my user talk page (which was clearly connected to this, because the only other Wikipedia edit the vandal ever made before trying to fling feces at my face was to remove the AFD template from the article while this discussion was still open); several attempts by both DefineWanderlust and BeaverTails18 to unilaterally declare this discussion closed under the false pretense that the nomination had been withdrawn; and a deceptive request (which WP:BOOMERANGed) at RFPP to have the article protected against the restoration of the AFD template on the grounds that the restoration was vandalism. Obviously we ultimately have to judge this situation on the article's compliance or lack thereof with policy, rather than the bad behaviour of some of the participants — but it's important that editors are aware of what's been going on. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just another interesting twist: The original name on the account BeaverTails18 (talk · contribs) (creator of this article under discussion) was PeterboroughExaminer (talk · contribs) as of two weeks ago. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 06:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as his listed works and frankly also the listed sources here are not at all convincing of keeping or improving if that were to happen, simply nothing else convincing to apply notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being the product of a sockmaster and his sockpuppets. IF or when young Nader Nadernejad gains irrefutable coverage to meet WP:BASIC, the article can be rewritten buy some non-puppet. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 15 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Krug[edit]

Patrick Krug (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)

Author of page is the subject himself. The page shows that he has published research papers and some receive about 80 citations. He also helped discover a species. However, WP:SCHOLAR says that "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." He has received no prestigious awards, is not elected to a highly prestigious society, holds no named chair, has not been appointed to a high level post, and his research has not make "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." There is no mention of (this) Krug in Google news. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. h-index of 21 may give borderline pass in very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. GS citation data is always inflated, so the actual h-index is somewhere lower. Even according to GS, the highest-cited paper has only 82 citations, which for such an active field strikes me as kind of low. The total number of publications (39, with a PhD from 1998, according to the subject's CV[106]), also seems on the low side for such an active field. The CV itself indicates a reasonably successful but fairly ordinary career. No significant awards, no elected fellowships of scholarly societies, no journal editorships, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Given that, as the nominator notes, this is a WP:AUTO case, the bar should be higher, not lower here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web of Science with "AUTHOR: (Krug PJ*)" gives an h-index of 19 with the highest cited paper at 65, so it doesn't seem that Google Scholar inflates his results as much as it often does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I think the GS/WoS difference is pretty typical. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't agree with your second sentence. In this case the difference between Google Scholar and Web of Science is so small as to be pretty well negligible. As regards the h-index it could be made up by just a couple more citations to articles for which Web of Science reports fewer than 19 citations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and no. How about looking at my contributions, and doing a geolocation on my IP address, before asking such silly questions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, either numbers doesn't mean his work has made an "impact ... on the field of study." If Notability were to be determined by meeting the h-index or Google Scholar citation count, then Wikipedia would be a list of people who've meet that threshold, which is something Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the notes to WP:PROF criterion 1, which say "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". The issue here is whether the number of citations meets this definition, but it's a little more difficult in this case than in most because the numbers are close to the border line for this field of study. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely fails WP:PROF, H-21 is a pretty good index but is way so "common". --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's doing good research, especially for a non-PhD-granting university, but I don't see enough evidence for a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Binch[edit]

Caroline Binch (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. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I've added a bit to the article, hoping that helps. There's probably more material out there. I believe she's a well-known illustrator in the world of children's books. Lelijg (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lelijg is correct: she's a well-known illustrator and writer of children's books. Her work is reviewed by Kirkus: [107], [108], [109], [110], Publisher's Weekly [111], and the New York Times: [112], [113]. Her original illustrations for Amazing Grace are in The Guardian: [114], plus she is written up in databases and other RS (which I'll be adding to the article). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG easily given the information that Megalibrarygirl has provided.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to Megalibrarygirl for article improvements, but this should not have been nominated in the first place (noting WP:CONTN - "Article content does not determine notability") as the subject meets WP:ANYBIO ie. 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times., and Binch has been commended or highly commended 3 times for the Kate Greenaway Medal, the premier British children's book illustrator's award. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted my Keep close as perhaps I closed abit to early so have reopened. –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 17 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACivilian[edit]

ACivilian (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 has been tagged for a year and nothing has been added. Fails WP:N. A google and google news search shows nothing. Lacks notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing to show notability in a google search or a DuckDuckGo search. All information comes from his own facebook or twitter accounts or web page. Noticed five years ago on a blog which has only a handful of entries. Cited reviews (not full citations) do not show up in searches and have no links. Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trinket Rec[edit]

Trinket Rec (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 group of musicians, not supported by any references. (Notes are links to Wikipedia, not references.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete fails WP:NCerealKillerYum (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing applicably better for the needed notability. I myself patrolled this and certainly questioned it. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This clearly qualifies for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. The article contains no credible claims of importance, there's no evidence that any of the WP:BAND criteria are met, and the article even states that the band and the record label are up-and-coming. You don't get an article on Wikipedia if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not establish any notability, article is purely promotional. I'm tempted to speedy delete this if further speedy delete votes appear. JIP | Talk 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claim of significance, and it's clearly spam. GABHello! 21:39, 10 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi State Hillel[edit]

Mississippi State Hillel (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:ORG. This is a small and vibrant university student organization which does a lot of benevolent work, but does not appear to cross the Wiki threshold of notability. Most sources are from the university newspaper, while other make passing reference. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2016 (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. Coverage is sufficient to meet our policies and guidelines. The fact that our sources have a disagreement about the nature of the topic is not an argument for deletion, they clearly give significant coverage to the term. However, the article in its current form does not even come close to being decent, so a rewrite is strongly suggested. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right[edit]

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

I'm not sure this article is anything but a WP:SYNTH of random sources that just use the term "alternative right" with any real point here. The first red flag is when you basically cite 2-3 things for a dozen beliefs all together based on two sources from not even six months ago. The main usage here (I'd say massive WP:UNDUE weight to a single Buzzfeed article) connects it to the Trump campaign and white nationalists. The "historical" citations start with this 2008 speech which other than the title has zero in common with anything that Trump or white nationalists represent. From there, there's two or three blogs in 2009 [115][116][117] that connect to the 2008 Mencken speech but associate this with Buchanan and Ron Paul. There's not even a policy connection between them, Donald Trump or the white nationalists again unless you're just WP:SYNTHizing one. From there, the citations clearly point to Richard B. Spencer, a white nationalist basically trying to push a new identification. The ADL blog and this Daily Beast piece both state that the ADL considers this basically just a term "that white nationalists use" as a so-called movement (regardless of those sources, the ADL can be a reliable source that white nationalists use the term but the fact that white nationalists use the term doesn't mean it's a legitimate term unless you actually consider white nationalists NPOV and reliable sources about political movements). The sources here otherwise are basically Rosie Gray's Buzzfeed piece quoting bits from anonymous callers on Rush Limbaugh's show, random vbloggers and linking it all back to Spencer again who again claims credit for this term. Now, AFD isn't cleanup but when you bury down into the actual sourcing, the fact that the allegedly young age of this group is literally citing anonymous Rush Limbaugh callers leaves serious questions of WP:UNDUE weight being given to them. On the other hand, we have this Weekly Standard piece which defines the alt-right as a broad group which includes white nationalists (as opposed to a group of white nationalists with the other sources seem to imply). Basically, the only actual reliable source I see (buried in layers of Buzzfeed and DailyBeast and other blog-type cites) all state that this is essentially a white nationalist phrasing with other people just stating that it is an actual movement of Trump supporters full of white nationalists as Trump's campaign has been going. At best, I'd call the actual relevant material a neologism by Spencer that deserves a mention on his page rather than treating this as an actual movement. The Gray material could also go into part of the Trump political campaign but I have no idea why "white supremacists in the Trump campaign call themselves the alt-right" is really that important. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure whether I support this. I think deletion is preferable to leaving the article in its current state. It's extremely biased, despite the fact that it has been honed down by many transient editors' protests. Because of this chiseling, the people working on this article long-term - people who seem committed to casting the alt-right as an explicitly bigoted white nationalist group - will defend at length each individual sentence, quote, and source in the article. However, the article as a whole is unacceptably biased and unencyclopedic, offering little information other than a list of nasty things that the alt-right's been called by political commentators and social justice journalists working with low-quality partisan sources. Also, many of these quotes, sources, etc. aren't particularly defensible, there's just some relatively weak argument that's made by four or five people in tandem until the challenging editor gets tired of reversions and leaves.
However, I think the article could be honed down to a few objective and notable sentences. The alt-right doesn't seem particularly organized or well-defined anyway, and it's very new, so I don't think this subject merits a long article. I don't know if we could wrest the BuzzFeed source and the massive block of vitriolic quotes from the hands of the incumbent editors, though. If we can't do that, I think we should delete. Exercisephys (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting this up to snuff is going to be difficult, but with the SPLC and the New Yorker running stories on it it's at least as notable as your average K-pop idol or the latest YouTube sensation. I gotta go with keep--sorry Ricky. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which New Yorker piece? This one with a throwaway line that's back to the Gray piece? Is that significant coverage? The SPLC piece literally only says Alt-Right in terms of the website name, not the actual usage of the term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one Exercisephys (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't the piece questioning whether it exists at all? It says that "One way to understand the alt-right is not as a movement but as a collective experiment in identity, basically as an vague term that anyone can use for their own purposes on the internet? The piece also say that people are "imagining that they are a new group of people rather than the same old group during their off hours, trying out a different form of play." How does the fact that the New Yorker doesn't believe the fact that it is real support an article alleging the very thing the article attacks? At the very least, giving proper weight would include a complete dismissal of the idea of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the notable subject of this article? The New Yorker article discusses several separate phenomena under the umbrella of alt-right: the Zero Hedge financial blog-hoax (which our Wikipedia article does not discuss); Richard Spencer, the webmaster who invented the term "alt-right" to market himself; and Mencius Moldbug, whose blog and related ideologues already have a name as the Dark Enlightenment. Shrigley (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering this recent article from the New Yorker, among others from reliable outlets, the article in its current shape is largely dubious and would best be deleted or barring such, merged into Alternative Right. If it is to be kept, it needs to be rewritten as it is not encyclopedic and relies heavily on pop news and pundit blogs, all of which are unacceptable as reliable sources for our purposes here in building a credible encyclopedia. There are too many political and cultural articles written in this fashion, so we need to start taking a more active effort to clean this kind of thing up. Laval (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having an article about "alt-right" as a concept is considerably more difficult than finding a bunch of webpages which mention the term "alt-right" in passing. You need to cite authorities, preferably academics but definitely not amateur bloggers for Buzzfeed, who can connect all of the concepts currently covered in this article as part of a single coherent idea. Yes, Mr. Spencer did at one time curate a website called Alternative Right, but we have a separate article for that. As it stands, this article is catnip to politically excited writers who want to label people (like Trump) "alt-right" against their will and cite themselves on Wikipedia. We don't have a separate article on "Cultural Marxism", a subject in the same politics-space, because of the trashy nature of the sources which purport to describe that topic. Let's not have an article on this nebulous "alt-right" until quality sources develop. Shrigley (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the article is describing seems to be the same as Neo-fascism, so redirect there. Borock (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't think so. Part of the problem is that it's erroneously casting alt-right as neo-fascist. Exercisephys (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the few legitimate sources which tries to describe the alt-right (but ends up concluding that "alt-right" describes something ephemeral or nonexistent) is The New Yorker. There, like Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, Wallace-Wells actually rejects the idea that rebloggers of neo-fascist content hold those beliefs; he recognizes provocation for the sake of provocation and the questions and contradictions that certain online personalities try to expose about speech taboos. Shrigley (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very much so casting the Alt-Right as Neo-Facist. This Article is a mess, with no reliable sources. There is about one source out there currently that describes what the Alt-Right is, and it is bias, written by an Alt-Righter. I suggest that the article be deleted, redirected to Alternative Right until some reliable sources do come out. Higginbothamtris (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked into the article I mentioned before a little more, and realized that it comes from an unbiased viewpoint. I now suggest WP:NUKEANDPAVE, and use This as a main source.Higginbothamtris (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breitbart is NOT an UNBIASED source on this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure yet - Leaning keep with the suggestion that cuckservative be merged into this article, as the terms seem very closely linked (i.e. cuckservative is the creation of the alt-right, and shares the same space online). For the sake of limiting the domain of action to this article, maybe it should be merge to cuckservative, with the expectation of a RM being opened to move that to alt-right. This is a tough one, though. There are a lot of sources that use "alt-right", a lot of sources that give brief definitions/explanations, and some very decent sources which go into a bit more depth. A delete seems hard to justify unless the rationale is just WP:TNT (which may be applicable -- I'm trying to research before really diving into the article). Plenty of political topics/movements do cover a broader-than-ideal-from-an-encyclopedia's-standpoint range of people and beliefs, but are nonetheless included as encyclopedic topics because sources define them in sufficiently similar ways. In this case, the subject seems to be roughly a loud/bombastic/confrontational/trollish largely Internet-based extremist group with close ties to white nationalism and known in 2016 for their support of Donald Trump's presidential bid. There are plenty of other things, but that definition seems to fit with most of the reliable sources. That said, the tie with white nationalism is so strong that there may be an existing article on the subject that could sustain a merge. Alternatively, and this is certainly bound to be controversial, since the vast majority of sources also link it with the Trump campaign, we could merge to taht article, too. Ultimately, it's hard to ignore full-length articles in The New Yorker and BuzzFeedNews (which is not a terrible source anymore, btw), Vice, Daily Beast, Daily Beast again, Daily Wire, and Vox, as well as coverage in Vice again, Newsweek, Daily Beast again, SPLC, and Newsday. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has certainly had sufficient media coverage. The New Yorker article by Wallace-Wells that I read[118] says nothing about neo-fascist beliefs. It describes it as " the loosely assembled far-right movement that exists largely online," and is an attempt to understand it. I don't read it as saying it doesn't really exist. The National Review is a respectable conservative journal and has an article discussing it.[119] Other articles have also been mentioned. I wouldn't call it an extremist group because it isn't organised enough to be a group. I can see some of the problems but to an extent they are symptomatic of the new era of social media. Maybe next year we'll start to see more scholarly analysis, but at the moment we don't have that. But I think we have enough. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Although I do have periods of regularly editing at AFD, I got here today because someone I follow retweeted someone they follow who was retweeting someone who was retweeting this [120] 2015 article that made me google "alt-right" to try and figure out what it is. Wikipedia can sometimes be useful for answers to on stuff like this. A quick google established that this term has had more than sufficient coverage in serious media to fully justify an article. That said, it's a terrible atticle at present. After the 1st paragraph of the lede, it dissolves into a mere hotchpotch of confusing sources with a great deal of mudslinging that has the impact of smearing the "alt-right" while doing nothing to enlighten the innocent reader who has come to find o ut what the "alt-right" is. Ripe for drastic reduction and a thoroughgoing re-write, which needs to be undertaken by someone without a political ax to grind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Changed ivote, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - SYNTH and UNDUE are not valid deletion criteria. If you intend to argue for WP:NUKEANDPAVE, I strongly disagree. There seems to be enough sources and coverage to have an independent article. The nomination makes no valid argument (e.g., notability, verifyability, etc.) for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SYNTH and UNDUE are not valid deletion criteria - wrong. As you can see from the link you mentioned that list is not intended to be comprehensive, and it includes anything which is an inappropriate in the article namespace, as long as the material is so bad that improvement isn't practical. And as it does mention original research you could argue that SYNTH is included. Articles can be and are deleted for being fundamentally violations of our policies on neutrality and original research. Hut 8.5 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I mentioned NUKEANDPAVE. If the nominator is suggesting that, it's a bit ridiculous. An article plagued by SYNTH or UNDUE is not sufficient reason for deletion if the problems can feasibly be remedied. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is if there does not exist an actual topic but instead we have people just pulling everything with the words "alternative right" or "alt-right" into one place and acting like it's a topic. Reliable sources that don't even believe the topic exists is not evidence that the article should remain. There is no concrete topic between the 2008/2009 nonsense and the current stuff. What we have boils down to Rosie Gray's single buzzfeed idea of a concept, based on anonymous radio callers and random white supremacists claiming that a "movement" exists while other reliable source question whether it exists and others tease it as just a white supremacist claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm certainly persuaded that the topic is encyclopedic as there exist quality sources which discuss the term/movement in depth. However the article in its current state is largely a mess of references to political pundits using the term and it needs serious work. Hut 8.5 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Breitbart News Network for now, that seems to be where most of this nonsense comes from. If it's kept for whatever reason it should probably be extensively rewritten. Artw (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to - somewhere. We may need a whole discussion just to figure out what to redirect it to. It's not enough of a coherent subject to merit an article on its own. The very definitions of this term as presented on this page are all over the place. It's nonsense. Rockypedia (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable, but the article needs work. - Scarpy (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs work but is a common term used to describe far right ideologies.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but which far-right ideologies exactly and what are the sources behind such descriptions? One of the biggest problems behind the article is how nebulous the term is and the lack of reliable sources beyond a bunch of blogs using the term as a synonym for far-right and/or white supremacism, along with Buzzfeed using the term as a smear or pejorative against Donald Trump and his supporters. Simply keeping the article without offering any suggestions or solutions on how to improve it and solve the inherent problems isn't a very good resolution. Thus far, none of the editors here advocating for 'keep' have offered any such solutions. Laval (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is, for sure, WP:NEO. But there seems to be plenty of secondary sources discussing it. It's just all poorly organized in this article. - Scarpy (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scarpy.Dwscomet (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The accusations of bias I've seen here and at the article talk page are themselves, biased. Most of what is stated by the article is uncontroversial, and the controversial stuff is all well sourced. The complaints about one of the major sources being a buzzfeed article have all been addressed both at the article talk page and at RSN, multiple times. Several editors (including myself) have gone from the opinion that it's a bad source to the opinion that it's a good source, while I haven't seen anyone move the other way. The article has problems, of course. This is to be expected with any controversial article that doesn't have a clearly 'correct side', such as many fringe subjects do. The article has been subject to frequent 'drive-by' edits by people who take a quick look and cut out content they don't agree with, or add content consisting of their own OR. Despite this, the article continues to slowly improve. I honestly think the best thing would be permanent semi-protection or something similar, to reduce the 'drive-by' edits some. Also, as others have pointed out, this is a new movement. Right now, there seem to be enough sources to support the article. As time passes, the number of such sources will only increase. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has sufficient coverage. Alex Mattrick 23:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is significant. Here's a source: [121] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep If you look at google trends you can see interest in the term "alt right" has skyrocketed since Donald Trump entered the Republican primary nomination race. Obviously this is not a source to be used anywhere, but it does provide evidence that there will only be more articles about this rapidly rising phenomenon in the future. However, a big overhaul is needed because the article as it stands is too biased against alt right; the section "criticism" is basically as long as the rest of the article combined. This is obviously unacceptable.Ingebot (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — Ingebot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Extremely Weak Keep conditional on a total rewrite. Otherwise, Delete per WP:TNT and WP:COMMONSENSE. The notability of the subject seems undeniable based on RS coverage. However this article is a wiki-train wreck. There does not appear to be any real consensus as to what the term actually means and this is not adequately reflected in the article. You have all sorts of groups and ideologies, often with wildly conflicting beliefs, being lumped together. Oh... and they are all supporting Donald Trump for President, (Monarchists Libertarians and the Ku Klux Klan all banding together for The Donald.) This reads like some kind of far left paranoid conspiracy theory. In other words the sources are being used to present patently ridiculous claims that should be dismissed with ridicule by anyone with more than two functional brain cells. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to White nationalism, section: United States where this topic already is discussed. (White nationalism in the United States itself could usefully be expanded into an article). I came back to revisit, not satisfied that I understood "alt-right" properly and, in searching for sources, became persuaded that not only is it not adequately sourced at this point, but it is vulnerable to neglect and hijacking by partisans. Then I searched for a proper target article for a redirect. This seems best because sources such as the SPLC [122], the ADL [123], and today's article in The Atlantic [124] (scroll to final paragraph) agree that this putative movement is some sort of amalgam drawing not merely on good old American keep-the-niggers-down racism, but on anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim tropes that make it hard to group under white supremacism. White nationalism seems to be the best home for what is, after all, merely a new label for an old phenomenon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since when does expressing a love of your own national identity qualify as race based nationalism? Since when is it wrong to love your own country? DalSheron (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You must not allow another alternate viewpoint to be removed or suppressed-no matter how appropriate or inappropriate it may be, being offended is not the grounds for removal. Alt-Right provides a platform of a voice to those disenfranchised by their original party and those who are a part of the Alt Right are merely looking to have their suppressed voiced heard again. To those who compare it to Neo Fascism, please consult your history books and notice that all left-wing governments are guilty of growing a system of fascism. How is a political ideology of LESS government supposed to be a perpetrator of fascism which is a hallmark of an ALL POWERFUL government? Scratch your heads on that one. Keep the page, ban the hate groups trying to label them as racist and fascist, since they are the ones guilty of that themselves. DalSheron (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)— DalSharon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horrendously biased, low-quality article not worthy of inclusion on any serious encyclopedia. BuzzFeed as a quotable article? It's beyond laughable.--Eustressmeister (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — Eustressmeister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I am 100% convinced that there is some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on with respect to this. There are too many !votes here from editors with brand spanking new accounts and few or no edits in other areas. I have never opened an SPI and I don't have time to put together a good case, but I am nonetheless convinced. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MjolnirPants: I think you're just seeing the effects of off-wiki WP:CANVASSING. If you google alt-right and wikipedia (or search e.g. Twitter), you'll see some people talking about it. That's typically the impetus for the {{notavote}} up top. Doesn't mean there isn't sock/meat puppetry going on, but that there's a bigger issue. If you see a new account (or one with few edits), just tag it with {{spa}} like others have done here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meatpuppetry is just another term for canvassing, but yeah; I failed to notice the {{spa}} tags until after I posted (it was Doug tagging one that clued me in). So my comment was redundant. I'm willing to wager good money there's also sockpuppetry going on, but I'm also willing to bet getting to the bottom of it will require more time and effort than I'm willing to put in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that there are a number of suspicious votes being cast here. Sadly most of them seem to be coming down on the same side I have taken in this discussion. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk)
Yeah, but if I recall correctly (I'm too lazy to scroll up) you voted to take the nuclear option because the article is causing controversy as currently written. That's reasonable. They're all voting to get rid of it because they don't think the article is accurate. They all seem to think it's inaccurate because it's not whitewashing the movement, which is not at all reasonable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make presumptions. My lengthy nomination was that it's not accurate because there is no one thing being described here. Other than a few small pieces that don't even seem to identify it as a movement or agree on what it is, we have citations from 2008/2009 for different things, a random assortment of suggestions from a white supremacist group and twitter commentary as an analysis of a political group. In all, it's just "here's everything where I google 'alt right' together". It would insulting if I suggested this quality of sources for something like Progressivism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would insulting if I suggested this quality of sources for something like Progressivism. Wikipedia is not censored. If you find a group of sources insulting, then deal with it, or find better sources and add them. The fact is, if a source is reliable for a claim, it's reliable. It doesn't matter if that source is whatsupyourbutthurhurhur.com, looks like a mid '90's AOL user homepage and has a reputation for being run by a schizophrenic nazi child molester. If we have every reason to believe it would report on a particular claim accurately, it can be used for that claim. It's worth noting that many of the people complaining about the quality of sources used there continue to suggest breitbart.com as a reliable source. If we judged sources by your criteria, breitbart would be blacklisted on WP. If that weren't enough, the alt-right and progressivism aren't exactly flip sides of the same coin. Progressivism is a broad, philosophical framework which underpins a huge swath of modern thought and dates back hundreds of years. The alt-right is... Well, not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not edited this topic, but I am curious to learn about the alt right. I'm not a meat puppet. I just saw that this article was tagged for deletion. Benjamin (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to figuring out what to do. I don't see how we can delete it when it is in constant and increasing use. On the other hand, the meatpuppets and stridency in this debate demonstrate that a stand-alone article will be an ongoing POV problem. Which is why it is better to redirect this still relatively minor neologism to White nationalism, a page with many editors watching and working to keep it up to standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really accomplish anything, A better plan would be to simply send some editors over there to tear the article apart and rebuild it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:20, 17 May 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Herzog[edit]

Nicolai Herzog (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 coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 10. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Herzog meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very reluctantly. Seems like a really fascinating piece for an article (I love niche topics like MTG), but unfortunately there just isn't enough content to merit the article's existence. I've looked through as many articles as I could find and the only slightly reliable source I was able to find was this ([125]) which seems obviously to not be about the person the article is about. It's a delete for me, but I think a discussion about what the qualifications for notability of MTG players needs to be re-hashed (the last conversation I could find about it at WP:MTG was here in 2009). To Sir Sputnik's points above-- Jon Finkel's AfD passed because of a book about his work with poker and I think the other ones are pretty questionable. Nomader (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in fact about the same Nicolai Herzog, though I would never have guessed it if it weren't for the photo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! No kidding. That's crazy. Unfortunately the article isn't *about* him (it's about the station he works for), so I'm still leaning towards delete but I can certainly see why people would vote to keep this article. That's an crazy. Nomader (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for any better notability improvements, although informative and sourced, this is still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 18 May 2016 (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 Don Ho#Family. MBisanz talk 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kea Ho[edit]

Kea Ho (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)

Contested prod-reason was: Actress who falls under too soon with only one major film so far-which she was uncredited in. Now she does look like she will be notable someday-but not yet Wgolf (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple citations for notable projects, many of which have already been released. Citations come from legitimate industry sources. What exactly are you basing your seemingly arbitrary decision on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hancocklane (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has very strict guidelines for notability. So far she has just been in one major film (Sin City 2), which was uncredited. Now she might be up and coming, but that falls under too soon. Eventually she might get her own page, but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Way WP:TOOSOON to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON pretty much sums it up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon at best. Not finding significant RS coverage to satisfy GNG. Fails WP:NACTOR with an uncredited role in a major film, low billing on a second film and a possibly significant role in an upcoming film. Even being the daughter of Don Ho doesn't get her much RS attention and notability is not inherited. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now and recreate later if she receives coverage when the upcoming film is released. At the moment, any coverage in reliable sources is trivial and isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. Wouldn't pass WP:ENT either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as not at all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Don Ho. Seems absurd to toss the whole article, save the content and spin it out later if she gains significance. Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Don Ho#Family. Content has been merged there, so this needs to be redirected. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm only willing to go as far as Delete and Redirect but the thing about that is also us having the article vulnerable to restarting before she has any actual independent notability. I find it rather unlikely anyone would search for her and her career and be redirected to the father. Still questionable for her own article, whether the history is kept or not. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_10&oldid=1142621531"