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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 19:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Bolun Li

Bolun Li (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not much independent evidence of notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, it's not notable itself.
• Delete. Two of the four references here are primary sources (a staff profile and a piece of his own bylined writing), and the other two are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — which means that none of them are establishing him as notable per WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 11:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as PROMO for a non-notable activist, crated by an SPA, tagged for sourcing since 2017, and, as Bearcat says, inadequately sourced. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sign of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jen Sinkler

Jen Sinkler (  | 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 was entirely created by an undisclosed paid editor (see details on the Talk page). The editor already had a sockfarm blocked a while ago and the Jen Sinkler article was cleaned up, trimmed and tagged. It looks not notable and deletion was already suggested by other users at talk page, with nobody reasoning for inclusion. MarioGom ( talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Delete. Reads like an ad, and per Talk page the subject of the biography herself is in the testimonial of the guy who edited her page. 'Great attention to detail', except for leaving an obvious connection between her client and this article. Pilaz ( talk) 16:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Also, find it funny that User:SinklerSupport came back to try to remove the problematic banners. Pilaz ( talk) 16:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:SOAP, while it may meet WP:GNG. Syndicater ( talk) 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep The fact that it reads like an ad or was edited by someone with a conflict of interesting are not valid reasons for deletion of an article (although they are certainly valid reasons for editing and/or pruning). The question that matters is: does she pass the WP:GNG? The existing coverage seems to me to indicate that she does, although not overwhelmingly. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Antje Utgaard

Antje Utgaard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This page does not meet notability criteria and ready purely as self promotion. Trumpkinius ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete there is no significant sourcing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, the article can merge with the movie or series Article if exist. Forest90 ( talk) 23:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, and the references have poor coverage on the topic. Syndicater ( talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 23:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Young India Party

Young India Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a political party, "referenced" only to its own self-published presence on Instagram rather than any indication of reliable source coverage in media. Since any random person or group of people can easily call themselves a political party whether they're actually registered as such or not, however, a political party is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because somebody set up a social networking account -- the inclusion test requires registration with the appropriate electoral authority, some actual evidence that it has fielded real candidates in real elections, and some actual evidence of real reliable source coverage about it in media to support all of that. But this shows no evidence whatsoever that any of those conditions have been met here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The registration details have been added. Some are in Hindi as well. Media has not covered the party, because it was just founded as stated on original stub, which is why I didn't add an actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero ( talk • contribs)

If media haven't covered you yet, then getting a Wikipedia article will have to wait until they do. For one thing, the sources you added were mostly just random shit that had nothing to do with this political party at all, and were there just to make the article look like it had a lot of references so long as nobody actually read them — and the one source that was actually a list of new political parties seeking formal registration from the Election Commission of India does not even have this party's name in it at all. Wikipedia is not a social networking platform on which you're entitled to have an article for publicity purposes just because you want more attention than you're getting from the media; our job is to follow media coverage, not lead it, and as a person with a direct conflict of interest you have no business starting the article at all. You pull one more fake-referencing stunt like you just did, and I'm going to immediately speedy-delete the article with no further discussion. Bearcat ( talk) 21:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have to say: your tone of language really is off-putting for someone editing articles behind a computer screen. While you can critique the ECI registration papers, what you cannot do is take your position of editor to your head and speak in the tonality and language in which you've added. If you knew Devnagri, you would have looked at the Hindi document. The only power which you hold you have already threatened of a 'speedy delete.' Go ahead, but at the same time, get some etiquette on how to speak to people. We're all here trying to learn and get better. Be grounded about your Wikipedia status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero ( talk • contribs)

Firstly, when people are breaking the rules, my job as a Wikipedia administrator is to be a disciplinarian, not a comfort doll — I'll acknowledge that my writing tone is pretty direct and doesn't beat around the bush, but I do not have a responsibility to be Pollyanna and just let anybody do whatever they want on here without ever raising my voice, or warning people that their breaches of our rules may have consequences.

Secondly, there was not a single Devangari source present in the new sources I'm talking about. Every single new source you added was written in English, not Devangari, and none of them included any content about this political party at all — one of them was a generic English-language glossary of abbreviations for scientific terms, one of them was an English-language journal article about science education, one was an English-language academic book about how politics affected the development of literature in 19th-century England, and the only one that had anything whatsoever to do with political parties in India was still written in English and didn't name this political party at all. I don't know whether you meant to add a Devangari source and forgot, or whether you're just lying about the sources you used in the hope of making me look negligent, but there were zero non-English sources in the article. Bearcat ( talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't have to make you look negligent, that is not my provocative to do so nor my intention. This debate does make the arrogance in which you hold yourself and your position to. No one has asked you to be pollyanna or someone's comfort, but basic civil decency is expected, but this can't be expected from people from your stature, since they take it too far. You've got to be kidding me, I explicitly put ECI papers in Devnagri and tried to be cordial enough to take 45 minutes off to find the English translations, so it would help the editors out. While I'm first to admit that I am not an expert at editing, but it's always peaked my interest and have wanted to try to better edits or include things about my interest. Coming across such distasteful people who lack the ability to be even cordial is disheartening. Be however cruel you want behind your screen, my friend.

Side note, adding the civility page on Wiki. Hoping you take something out of it: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Civility

And on the Devnagri party on the registration aspect, here are official ECI papers that I had sourced: https://eci.gov.in/files/file/4254-list-of-political-parties-and-election-symbols-main-notification-dated-13042018/

In which you'll find the Young India Party listed in both English and Hindi. Guess you didn't look hard enough. Crazy that there are backed up sources, and you still refuse to believe it. And mind you, I created a stub, nothing else, since it's too early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero ( talk • contribs)

That's a new source you've added to the article now, not a source that was in the article before you attacked me. I correctly described the sources that were in the article at the time, none of which included any content about this political party at all, and adding new references that weren't in the article before is not dropping the mic on me.

It still isn't a notability-supporting source, however: the notability test for getting a topic into Wikipedia requires evidence of reliable source coverage in media, and topics that do not meet that condition are not exempted from having to meet it just because they're technically verifiable in a government list or a social networking profile. Evidence of registration is one of several conditions that a political party has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article, not the golden ticket in and of itself: it's evidence of registration and evidence of actual candidates appearing on the ballot in actual elections and evidence of real media coverage, not just your personal pick of any one of those three things. It's not Wikipedia's job to have an article about every single thing that exists, whether it gets media coverage or not: it's our job to be about things that get media coverage, and not to be about things that don't.

And I'm not engaging you any further on the topic of whether I had a responsibility to be "nicer" to you or not. You say "no one has asked you to be pollyanna or someone's comfort, but basic civil decency is expected" — except that not being Pollyanna, but rather explaining to you that we have inclusion criteria that have to be met and rules that have to be followed, is exactly what you're attacking me for. Your evidence that I'm being uncivil and arrogant is that I didn't just let you do whatever you wanted, not that I actually crossed any lines of civility at all — I did not insult you, I did not call you names, I did not beat you over the head with a golf club. I simply pointed out that we have rules and you're not following them — and if doing that is being uncivil, then there's no way left for administrators to do their jobs at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Of course you won't entertain this further, because after abusing me, using language that is not appropriate (as stated on Wikipedia's own discourse) and humiliating a user, your ego of your position is far too great. In terms of the sources, I sent them to you and added them. You were just too occupied of trying to be mean and nasty to look into the Hindi text, so I gave you the English version from the most official body that clearly states as of 2019, 'Young India Party' is an official state unrecognized party, directly from ECI sources. Again, I created a stub, because as they contest, they will get coverage. If this isn't enough info (which by far exceeds more proof than half the parties that have full articles on Wiki) to have JUST a stub article, then that's just your ego getting in the way. Young India Party has been proven to be an official party while contesting in in the 2019 elections, Wiki can at least have a stub article since an active party is contesting. I'd love to get someone else's perspective on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero ( talk • contribs)

One more time, because you're clearly not getting it: I did not "fail" to "look into the Hindi text" in any source, because there wasn't any Hindi text to look into. The first time you even tried to add a Hindi-language source to this article was after you had already attacked me for "failing to read the Hindi text" in a set of sources that did not have any Hindi text to read, because they were all written entirely in English.

And again: the test for inclusion in Wikipedia requires that the article topic has already been the subject of reliable source coverage in media. Not that it expects or hopes to receive such coverage in the future: that such coverage already exists today. Bearcat ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG - no significant achievement, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (Instagram as a source, seriously?) - Epinoia ( talk) 02:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete In addition to the subject in no way meeting any notability standards, there appears to be a possible WP:COI situation regarding both the article's author and within this AfD which I am requesting User:Pundrihero disclose. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is a general election currently taking place in India (the elections are spread over a period of weeks), and several states are conducting elections for their legislative assemblies at the same time as the national general election or later this year. However, nothing in this article even claims that the Young India Party is contesting any of those elections, nor that they have received any media coverage (in English, Hindi, or any other language). In fact, the article creator stated in this discussion that the media "has not covered the party". If the party later receives coverage in independent sources, the article can be re-created at a later date. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete all the drama aside, it simply does not meet the criteria for inclusion due to a lack of reliable 3rd party, significant coverage. It's a new party, so that isn't a shocker. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Beyard508 ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NORG due to a dearth of third-party, independent reliable sources. It is also outrageous that User:Metropolitan90 thinks it's OK for socks to weigh-in with arguments, such as here. It is irrelevant whether they are known to be infuencing the !vote on any party's behalf; the point is, no-one would know. So they're sacked on principle; it's the only way to be sure. See WP:DENY, WP:BMB, and the entire culture... —— SerialNumber 54129 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't say that it's OK for socks to weigh in with arguments, but rather I asked for clarification about the policy on what to do about recommendations from sock puppets. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Not a sock-puppet user, but will delete until more coverage comes about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero ( talk • contribs)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPRIMARY. The other references show very little coverage. Syndicater ( talk) 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Neos (band)

Neos (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support the article. Their only releases were 7" singles, not full albums, so the only real notability claim here is that they were purportedly an influence on other, much more notable bands -- but that's being referenced to a podcast and a user-generated directory of local bands in their hometown to which the band were able to submit their own self-published PR bumf, not to any evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media, and the only other source present here at all is a Q&A interview with a band member in another podcast, being cited only to support that the band played fast. Podcasts, interviews in which the band members are speaking about themselves and directory entries are not notability-supporting sources, however, so none of this is properly referenced at all. The notability test for bands is not just the ability to offer technical verification that they existed -- they have to pass a specific NMUSIC criterion, and that has to be supported by much more reliable and independent sources than just podcasts and the band's own self-published PR. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I found an article in the Times-Colonist [1] stating that they "are deemed by many to be the most influential band ever to hail from Victoria"--complete with a quote attesting to their influence from J. Mascis. They were also included in a documentary about punk rock in Victoria and it seems that they were important in that scene: one local artist says "The Neos and Nomeansno are huge influences when it comes to Victoria and those are bands that you can name check to people in the outside world and those are ours; those bands are our hometown heroes." [2] IntoThinAir ( talk) 17:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Beyard508 ( talk) 00:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:SOAP. Syndicater ( talk) 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) MrClog ( talk) 11:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

India cholagogue

India cholagogue (  | 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. MrClog ( talk) 17:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 17:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• I disagree that this fails GNG. I have left several sources regarding the topic on the page, and will likely find more as I go. I do intend to improve this page and monitor for vandalism over time. If the powers that be still are not convinced, I'd at least like some good suggestions for what to merge this with. Acronach ( talk) 17:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• The sources you mention seem to be primary sources, like advertisements and letters made by the owner or webshops that sell old bottles of the item. The only reliable source is the fact that an old bottle is in the catalogue of a museum, but that alone doesn't establish notability. -- MrClog ( talk) 19:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The product seems to have been widely known in the 19th century. There are several articles in medical journals offering recipes to mimic the medication; Journal of Rational Medicine repeated in Journal of Materia Medica, The Standard Formulary and this looks like a reader's letter, but is likely a disguised advertisment. American Philatelist has a substantial discussion of the product's history in 1973. Spinning Spark 23:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Ah, I didn't know. Withdrawn by nominator. -- MrClog ( talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to India Cholagogue. Tone 19:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Charles osgood m.d.

Charles osgood m.d. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I am not sure if WP:NPROF applies, but if it does, it seems to fail that one too. MrClog ( talk) 17:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 17:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MrClog ( talk) 17:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment-I think this article actually has been made under this name before or a similar one that has been deleted, can't find it though. Anyway-either a delete or a draft is what I vote. I guess I'll go with delete. Wgolf ( talk) 17:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep So we have someone who was published in a medical journal of its day, the fact that it's been preserved, archived, and digitized suggests it was itself of some historical importance and whose papers are held by an archives again suggesting historical notability. These sources, already present in the article suggest notability without my having to search for other sources. At minimum this should be a redirect to India Cholagogue, which was already at AfD (under the name India cholagogue) and speedy kept. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - The two articles appear to cover exactly the same ground, and so it makes little sense to have both. - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Thanks everyone for looking into this. I'm glad at least India cholagogue was kept. After reading everyone's thoughts, I'm thinking a Redirect to India Cholagogue isnt a bad way to go on this one, unless others chime in and vote keep Acronach ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and the title is not capitalized. Also there are too many references for one single line. Syndicater ( talk) 22:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment India Cholagogue's AfD was brought up earlier in this page, GNG was a question there as well, and that one passed. As I see it, if that passed GNG, this one should as well. Acronach ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to India cholagogue - Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make - Epinoia ( talk) 16:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Anita Rinaldi

Anita Rinaldi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Porn performer. Fails GNG and ENT. Wouldn't have passed PORNBIO either. Would also support a redirect to the relevant penthouse pet list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete article fails the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the article because violated WP:PORNBIO. Forest90 ( talk) 23:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: She's also a prominent European porn director falling under WP:CREATIVE but it's hard to review the extent of her coverage due to the preview limitations in Google Books and Scholar. For example, L'Espresso [3], Der Spiegel [4], Tallozo (a Hungarian magazine) [5], la Repubblica [6]. She is also covered in scholarly journals [7] [8] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - After reviewing the sources, I believe she is notable under WP:BASIC. She is also described by the Associated Press [9] and Variety [10] as one of the European industry's biggest star which id evidence of criteria 3 of WP:ENT and her director awards are evidence of WP:CREATIVE criteria 4. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Syndicater ( talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. MT makes a plausible case for the subject's notability, but the flimsy content and weak sourcing, without a real assertion of notability, isn't enough to justify a BLP in the current form. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Aletta Ocean

Aletta Ocean (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Won an award, sells her body for $1000 an.. Er.. Pop. That doesn't feel like a good BLP when there are no reliable sources. Fails GNG and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete total lack of reliable sources leads to afailure of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Many of us could say, “I’ve heard of her” but that doesn’t count. Reliable sources required. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Beyard508 ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete for failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable source coverage. My independent search for RS coverage found only celebrity sightings, trivial mentions and promotional releases. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Through the Google News search, I found the following articles that feature her [11] [12] [13]. They, the multiple multiple briefer mentions from those Google News links plus brief acknowledgements in an academic journal [14] mean she passes WP:BASIC. I don't know why they cover her but they do. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Coverage from Hungarian sources since she's Hungarian. [15] [16] The second link documents that Ocean has the fifth most popular twitter account from Hungary which suggest she has a sizable following under WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 07:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Coverage ≠ sources passing the GNG and none of what you put forward cuts the mustard. Certainly none of it is going to rigoriously source a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

That is so amazing that you can so quickly review and deny the reliability of those foreign language newspapers and magazines like Il Gazzettino, Affaritaliani.it, and Central Mediacsoport Zrt. (G7.hu). Sources that are currently used to support biographies on wikipedia. [17], [18] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and most of the references show little coverage. Syndicater ( talk) 22:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I tried to evaluate the sources reported by Morbidthoughts. Of the first three, two are simple clickbait without substantive content regarding the article subject, while the other, at mundiario.com, was composed of text like this (per Google translate): "The carpets in the hallway burned when Aletta and Hitomi left their splendid dressing room and climbed into the monsoon taxi that dragged them to the gallows on Boobs Square. There were the hyenas, with their gibbous anatomies and their inscrutable eyes. A ray of hope stopped the suicide of the penguins in the same district." Such remarkable prose may make Donald Trump's twitter feed read like Emily Dickinson, but it's not reliable sourcing, even regarding the suicidal penguins. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to B*Witched. May be subjected to RFD at editorial discretion. T. Canens ( talk) 05:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Across America 2000

Across America 2000 (  | 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 satisfy WP:NALBUM. It also did not chart, as B*Witched put "Across America 2000 was supposed to make a comeback for the band in America but did not chart." TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and there are no sources for this. Syndicater ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to B*Witched - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - EP did not chart - Epinoia ( talk) 03:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Epinoia: My concern is that a redirect could very well end up at RfD as B*Witched contains nothing more than 2 sentences about it. Redirecting to B*Witched discography wouldn't be of much use either as it talks even less about the album. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TheSandDoctor: - my first choice would be Delete, but in a similar AfD discussion I was chastised for not considering Alternatives to deletion, so where a merge is not reasonable (as in this case), Redirect is another option WP:ATD-R - Epinoia ( talk) 16:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Willie Hoel

Willie Hoel (  | 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 couldn't find within this article, it's versions in other encyclopaedias or from the Internet generally, evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I couldn't find the coverage. I can see why this has been unreferenced for 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boleyn ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep He has an entry in the Norsk biografisk leksikon, the Norwegian Dictionary of Biography [19] (with further sources), so he meets WP:ANYBIO. The Norwegian WP article about him lists a filmography of nearly 40 years, over 40 blue-linked films, so it's hard to see how he couldn't meet WP:NACTOR, too. The English article does have a link to a series of films, but more could certainly be added, as well as adding references. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 15:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think this passes WP:GNG, although more information and references could be added. Syndicater ( talk) 22:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep He has an article on Norwegian Wikipedia with all notable films. The article on English Wikipedia complies with WP:NPV and WP:GNG. It is a stub with no promotional tone. Brenthaven ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

A1QA

A1QA (  | 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 satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Beyard508 ( talk) 00:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPRIMARY for one of the references. Most of the references also show very little coverage. Syndicater ( talk) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Take 6. Tone 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Beautiful World (Take 6 album)

Beautiful World (Take 6 album) (  | 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 in the same boat as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonight: Live. Contrary to the unsourced claim that this album did chart present in Take 6, this is unverifiable and most likely did not, in fact, chart. I have also just removed an unverified/false claim from Take 6 that this album was nominated for a Grammy in 2002. There is no record of this nomination on the Grammys website. This album does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. There is a short AllMusic review of the album, but NALBUM criterion #1 ("multiple, non-trivial, published works") is not satisfied by this and no other criteria appear to apply in this case. I would have boldly redirected it to the artist ( Take 6), however, feel the coverage within the latter of this album is insufficient and would probably land itself at RfD if redirected. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete It charted on the Top Gospel Albums No. 14 for 12 weeks, but aside from the long review at AllMusic, I cannot find any other reviews or coverage for the album. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Walter Görlitz: I am genuinely surprised that my WP:BEFORE search did not turn this up, given that Billboard was a site I searched. Huh....must have missed it (on the site) somehow (same goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album)) -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have found that searches on the billboard.com do not return results for charting. I tend to search charting directly. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are no references for the article and fails WP:GNG. Syndicater ( talk) 22:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Take 6 - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia ( talk) 03:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Spinningspark settled the matter and Chiswick Chap has confirmed that the nomination is erroneous. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. ( talk) 20:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Drafting dog

Drafting dog (  | 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 tried looking for sources but can't find any third party sources to support the article. Most of the information here is unreferenced. I checked the references and they only have a few lines describing drafting dog. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep. If you can't find third party sources for such a well known subject, you should go take lessons in how to use the internet. Books on the subject from just the first page of gbook results include;
  • The Draft Dog: Past and Present
  • Carting with Your Dog
  • Just a Walk in the Park: A Guide to Draft Dog Training
  • Pulling Dogs

and no, the last one is not a dating guide. Spinning Spark 18:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Spinningspark, I searched Google and nothing came up. And the article is lacking sources -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - That's odd, I just pushed the 'Google' button at the head of this AfD section and got 8000 google hits, and there are plenty of books and other WP:RS among them. As for "the article is lacking sources", that has nothing at all to do with Notability, which depends on whether sources exist. They do. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Chiswick Chap, well I get hits to Pintrest and pics of the dogs -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 20:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Colt Roberts

Colt Roberts (  | 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 paintball player on a non-notable team in a non-notable league. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Syndicater ( talk) 22:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 22:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg ( talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Falls short of WP:GNG requirements. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Take 6. Tone 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album)

We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album) (  | 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 in the same boat as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonight: Live. This album did not chart and does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. There is a short AllMusic review of the album, but NALBUM criterion #1 ("multiple, non-trivial, published works") is not satisfied by this and no other criteria appear to apply in this case. I would have boldly redirected it to the artist ( Take 6), however, feel the coverage within the latter of this album is insufficient and would probably land itself at RfD if redirected. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete It did chart: https://www.billboard.com/music/take-6/chart-history/christian-albums/song/194900, but it was only No. 29 on the Christian Albums chart for three weeks, so it's not a chart-topper. No coverage that I can see. The review at AllMusic is actually quite long but no other reviews in other sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am genuinely surprised that my WP:BEFORE search did not turn this up, given that Billboard was a site I searched. Huh....must have missed it somehow (same goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful World (Take 6 album)) -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Although it did chart, the sources I found showed little coverage for this album. Fails WP:GNG. Syndicater ( talk) 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Take 6 - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia ( talk) 03:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Take 6. - GretLomborg ( talk) 18:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdraw. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget  ^(Talk) 05:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Wreck-It Ralph (franchise)

Wreck-It Ralph (franchise) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this really a "franchise"? It's literally just a film and a sequel, along with two tie-in video games for the films, and the "miscellaneous titles" section is just cameo appearances. Most importantly, none of the references in the article refer to it as a "franchise", and a lot of the article is just unencyclopedic comparisons between the two films. Perhaps there's an argument to be made when a third film gets released, but right now its WP:TOOSOON. Satellizer el Bridget  ^(Talk) 15:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget  ^(Talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget  ^(Talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget  ^(Talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep No, I wouldn't call it a franchise as one normally thinks of the term, but because its cross media, it's also just not a "series". But with at least four notable topics within the same narrative universe plus other appearances, it seems reasonably fair to have a higher level article to group common elements. "Franchise" just happens to be the most common name to use for cross media articles like this. -- Masem ( t) 15:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Masem . Mosaicberry ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Masem. A franchise doesn't necessarily mean a movie franchise. Shearonink ( talk) 16:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the above. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Masem. Also, while not a frequent term, there are reliable sources using the term (per WP:NEXIST they don't need to be in the article, just exist), such as
  • "the next chapter in the Wreck-it Ralph franchise"
  • "is the foundation upon which the Wreck-It Ralph franchise is built"
  • "it's perfectly suited to the Wreck-It Ralph franchise"

Regards So Why 17:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep I suggest the nominator do a Before. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I click the news search at the top of the AFD and see many reliable sources calling it a franchise. Dream Focus 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Intrapersonal skills

Intrapersonal skills (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There might be an article to be had on the topic, but it would require a complete rewrite. As written, this is a coatrack for one doctor's opinion on the matter, more of an essay, thus inconsistent with our goals of providing 3rd party references and objective, verifiable and encyclopedic information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

—

The page from my side is still under construction and there are more books and article quotes to be added. It takes some time to find all quotes. I agree it should not be one sided, I work on it author by author. Wellminded

• Then it should be created in Draft space or User space, not main space, until it is at least marginally within criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry, now all sources I have have been added and the editing is finished for now. Hopefully this page can stay. Topic is interesting and seems more and more researched over last years. Wellminded

• DELETE - Looks like it is exclusively promotional material and is too shallow to describe... Every day people experience events of feelings or thinking? I can't help but imagine that all of the concepts here, such as they are, would be better covered elsewhere. I do not feel that it possesses even a hint of a neutral point of view. WP:PROMOTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:NPOV ogenstein ( talk) 02:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, "Bitey, bite, bite, munch, crunch". Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Extremely fails WP:SOAP. Syndicater ( talk) 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the article Theory of multiple intelligences has a section on Intrapersonal with a hatnote to Introspection, so the subject is already covered elsewhere - I know that content does not determine notability WP:CONTN, but this article is almost incomprehensible - it reads like a badly written personal essay WP:NOTESSAY - look at the first sentence, "Intrapersonal skills describe skills that enable humans to lead different processes within human mind." Huh? What does that mean? And why are Donald J. Trump and Robert T. Kiyosaki introduced in the lead? - if it doesn't get deleted the whole article is blow it up and start over WP:TNT - Epinoia ( talk) 02:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

AdminiTrack

AdminiTrack (  | 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, promotional article about an unremarkable software company. MER-C 13:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no real claim of notability, so it's borderline CSD. Another company that simply exists, but isn't particularly noteworthy by encyclopedia standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I found nothing other than passing mentions. The only source cited in the article does not mention the subject. Not eligible for speedy deletion under A7 due to the "one of the most popular and the most commonly used" claim, but should still be deleted. —  Newslinger  talk 21:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOPRIMARY. Syndicater ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

James Charles & Tati Controversy

James Charles & Tati Controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable indecent. The feud is only reported by non-reliable sources including DailyMail, Metro, etc. CAPTAIN MEDUSA ( talk) 13:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You may want to look up No true Scotsman. 202.36.244.29 ( talk) 03:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

From my point of view, this is a big deal and is worthy of a Wikipedia article just as much as Instagram egg or PewDiePie vs T-Series. Jayab314 13:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The feud also has articles from Cosmopolitan and E! Online. Jayab314 13:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• DELETE This article's topic does not seem to be encyclopedic or meet WP:NOTNEWS. Certain events like KSI vs Logan Paul or PewDiePie vs T-Series are noteworthy but this is not; every internet feud and occurrence cannot be documented. This articles sources also include a Buzz-Feed article, a you tube video by one of the content creators in question (which probably violates WP:NEUTRAL), and two different subscriber-Count tables from the same website. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would have to argue that this is noteworthy. Not every controversy you see on YouTube results in millions of subscribers being lost or gained. Also, I added in James' apology video and some more information about that in order to maybe not seem so biased. There are two different subscriber counts from the same website because it's documenting the loss in subscribers for James and the gain in subscribers for Tati. Jayab314 15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Look, I mean absolutely no offense by this but this article does seem a bit risible, and the fact that this entry exists may be somewhat problematic. I understand what it feels like as an editor to have an article that you started be nominated for deletion, it has happened to me, but ultimately, those editors who are most committed to seeing Wikipedia improve are OK with their contributions being critiqued. So far I have not seen any substantial reason why this entry should be kept after numerous guidelines such as WP:GOSSIP, WP:NEUTRAL, AND WP:NOTNEWS have been violated or brought into question. Unfortunately, suggesting that the addition of another you tube video which is just biased in favor of the other side does not negate the violation of WP:NEUTRAL. I am not however saying that this topic is not notable, I keep hearing "Largest subscriber drop ever" so it very well may be; however, a topic being notable doesn't mean "Keep it around and we'll try to fix the other stuff", because many times that "other stuff" cannot be fixed. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Before someone asks what I meant by "other stuff" above. I meant 1.) the writing of this entry as if it were news, 2.) the inability to find reliable sources which allow it to be told from a neutral point of view, and 3.) the inability to find reliable sources which allow this to be told as if it were not gossip. I'm sure there are more. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 12:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, NOTNEWS. "Feud" is entirely too strong a word over a one time incident, btw. Not every slap fight on the interwebs is worthy of an article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortpio ( talk • contribs)
• This article should not be deleted until 12th of May, because the situation may lead to the biggest loss of subscribers ever on YouTube, which is a notable fact itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliette Han ( talk • contribs)
  • Keeping the article until May 12 is not really a concern. This deletion discussion would normally be scheduled to run for a week, until May 18. If you think that the article should remain on Wikipedia for the long term, you should provide reasons to "keep" the article, and if you think the article should be deleted on or after May 18, you should provide reasons to "delete" the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Wikipedia is not TMZ. This is an embarrassment. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Trillfendi: I'm not trying to be TMZ, I'm trying to document the largest drop in subscribers in YouTube's history, have a backstory, and document the reasons, public reactions, and the daily stats. If you want, can you please tell me specifically what I should change in order to redeem the article? Jayab314 17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jayab314: I don't believe Wikipedia is a good place for the blow-by-blow, live-reporting type thing that you seem to be aiming for. As stated at the very top of the section for encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is more about collecting a summary of newsworthy events, not every single little detail. I personally see Wikipedia as the launching point, where you learn enough about a subject here to get an understanding of it, and you go to other websites to get further into the details. The Wikipedia articles for James Charles and Tati (the latter of which doesn't even currently have an article) are good enough places to get an understanding of who they are, and get an idea of this controversy, but getting down into the details of what's happening day by day—such as live subscriber counts—is probably best reserved for another website. JaykeBird ( talk) 19:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ JaykeBird: Thank you for your feedback; however, I drew a lot of inspiration from the PewDiePie vs T-Series article, which includes live subscriber counts and every single time the title of most-subscribed YouTuber switched hands. As for Tati not having an article, the WP:NOTNEWS states, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." I am not putting every single detail, in fact, I am leaving a lot out of it, but I am collecting the important facts and discussing how it can be seen from both sides by including sections about both videos. Jayab314 19:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jayab314: Now that I reflect a bit more and re-read through it, I think my biggest issue in regards to "too much detail" is that ever-growing list of people who unfollowed James Charles. Beyond that, rereading through it all, I think it's fine (and indeed, may be lacking some detail—as you said— in regards to background to this situation/their relationship, and the larger (news) response). I mentioned that Tati did not have an article as a side note to my comment that this may be better represented in the persons's articles, but your quote from WP:NOTNEWS is a good thing to keep in mind. I did change my opinion to Merge rather than Delete. JaykeBird ( talk) 04:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per all above. Not notable enough for own article. ECW03 ( talk) 17:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Don't Delete This article was very informative I really really needed to know why James Charles was losing subs and this article literally saved my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.201.107 ( talk • contribs)

From WP:AFD: please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. ~ Philipnelson99 ( talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete or move to user space Merge with James Charles (model). At this point, I don't see this being anything more newsworthy than any other entertainer/YouTuber drama. If it grows to be something larger that catches the general populace or has a profound impact on internet culture, we can cross that bridge then. Right here and now though, I don't think that's happened. Instead, this controversy/drama can be kept as a section in the respective people's articles. JaykeBird ( talk) 19:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• I've decided to change my opinion from delete to merge. I think by now my comment on "grows to be something larger that catches the general populace" has happened now, in social media and news publications. I still feel on the fence about it needing a dedicated article, but I do believe it should be represented somewhere on Wikipedia, and so merging into an already existing article seems like a good idea to me. If the incident's noteworthiness grows even more, it can always be moved back into its own article later. JaykeBird ( talk) 02:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to James Charles (model) where this incident is already mentioned. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Good luck redirecting to James Charles (model), that article has issues and this would only worsen that. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Grapefruit17: While I totally agree that the article does need a decent amount of work, I also like to follow by the idea of Wikipedia is never finished. Especially if we trim some of the fat from this controversy article, it can at least be a start to have one decent-looking section in that article, and could serve as a launching point to continue from there. JaykeBird ( talk) 03:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article demeans us all. EuroAgurbash ( talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ EuroAgurbash: Can you elaborate? Jayab314 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A "feud" (wouldn’t even classify this as one) between two "YouTubers" does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Don’t bother relying to me with otherstuffexists arguments, I'd vote to delete those as well.— N Ø 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable internet drama that is certainly not worthy of its own article beyond a section within James' own article. What a low point for this project. -- Acefitt 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable internet feud, just add a section to the relevant articles. This is an embarrassment of an article. ~ Philipnelson99 ( talk) 23:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Can I please ask everyone why this article is "such an embarassment of an article" and "a low point for this project"? This is a record loss of subscribers. It's an embarrasment to everyone because it's in the makeup and beauty part of YouTube. This is trending on all social media, became a meme instantly, and is a record-breaking moment. Also, I realized it isn't a feud hours ago and changed it to what it was, a controversy. If this gets deleted, so should PewDiePie vs T-Series or KSI vs Logan Paul. Jayab314 00:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Trending on social media has never been the metric of notability for an encyclopedia. -- Acefitt 01:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Acefitt: Well it certainly was for PewDiePie vs T-Series. Jayab314 09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have already explained why this entry is not even close to comparable with PewDiePie vs T-Series or KSI vs Logan Paul. Those two entries are well documented from reliable sources, told from a neutral point of view, are unquestionably notable, are not delivered as if they are news, etc. This article has huge issues which are seemingly not salvageable; making an otherstuffexists argument won't work here. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 12:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep – this is a notable event, resulting in the loss/gain of millions of subscribers, with reliable sources to back this information up. In regards to this article being an "embarrassment", I can think of several more embarrassing articles. This is a notable event, period. – DarkGlow ( talk) 00:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The embarrassment is treating Wikipedia like the Daily Mail or The Shade Room. At best this should perhaps be a blip on James Charles’s article. In the end, his loss of followers isn’t generally relevant. Followers aren’t a stock market. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per above. There is no notability and involves useless YouTube drama that Wikipedia doesn't need. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Let's wait and see if reliable sources will still be talking about this in a few weeks time. CoolSkittle ( talk) 11:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. LM2000 ( talk) 14:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would agree that this violates WP:10YT per above. PewDiePie vs T-Series and other such articles may also have trouble passing WP:10YT but they're not taking all of the other baggage that this entry has i.e failing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:N and WP:GOSSIP. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 15:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Now a sky news https://news.sky.com/story/youtube-star-james-charles-loses-2m-subscribers-after-row-with-fellow-vlogger-11718184 and BBC news article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48243905 ECW03 ( talk) 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

*sigh* BBC Newsbeat is their version of Page Six. This isn’t actual BBC News calibre reporting in any dimension. That section is for lowly gossip. Trillfendi ( talk) 18:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Trillfendi is right. Unfortunately, using more news articles as sources may increase this article's apparent notability but does nothing to help the fact that WP:NOTNEWS has been brought into question. If anything, using more news will probably just make this entry read even more like gossip. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 19:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is huge! there has barely been a feud like this ever! People could search up "Who's lost the most YouTube subs?" and have trouble finding it. But now they can see it with this Wikipedia article. But if it is going to be deleted, we should put this in the article of James Charles. Possibly a whole article of most subcribers lost and maybe even one with most subs in one day. This is historical for YouTube. I'm just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.197.83 ( talk • contribs)

I would disagree about this topic's notability but I would agree that after a hypothetical deletion of this entry we could put some of the information in James Charles. James Charles should also be improved before anything is added as it has multiple issues. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS ☣ Yutsi — Talk/ Edits 18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge with James Charles (model). The incident is notable due to the massive loss of subscribers (being reported on by BBC ^[1], CNN ^[2], Newsweek ^[3], and Yahoo ^[4]) Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 19:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge While it's not notable enough to be a standalone article, it's notable enough to the main article ( James Charles (model). Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 20:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Author: Merge or Delete - After reading and listening to everything mention, I do agree it is only notable for the two records. It does violate multiple rules so we would have to reword and delete a lot of it before it can be merged. Jayab314 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I don't see why this has to be its own article. It is much better off as a section of James's own page. CrispyCream27 ^(Talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Rename to Tati Westbrook (keep). I don't think this affair has lasting value but it can be mentioned in both articles. Looking around some more, I was surprised to find that Tati Westbrook doesn't have an article yet. She passes the WP:GNG. This one can be renamed to the missing article with a slight rewrite and a lot of trimmimng. gidonb ( talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

P.S. in the meantime a redirect to Tati Westbrook was created. That's why I added the "Merge/" option, similar to Kez below. gidonb ( talk) 11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Chasing after the developments here. In the meantime a Tati Westbrook article was created so my opinion should be read as Merge into Tati Westbrook. Not really changing anything. Just clarifying what my opinion now means. gidonb ( talk) 01:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• DELETE it’s all been said above, but this isn’t news, it would be relevant or useful info in a week, it’s poorly sourced, etc etc. It seems the only people fighting to keep it are the fans of YouTube beefs, and in that case it should be covered on YouTube not a Wikipedia encyclopedia article... TropicAces ( talk)tropicAces
• Delete –  Tati Westbrook does not even have a Wikipedia page, yet, a fringe internet debacle in which she is one of the parties does? This article violates WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUB, etc. At best, this should of course be mentioned on the corresponding parties' Wikipedia pages but does not deserve its own standalone page. Aviartm ( talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per all above. Total WP:NOTNEWS violation. Wikipedia ≠ tabloid gossip site. talk to !dave 06:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Rename to Tati Westbrook (keep) - as per User:Gidonb, she should clearly have her own page, and this content is notable as per plenty of reputable media coverage, but the controversy itself perhaps is not the encyclopedic bit insomuch as its effects on both YouTubers. I think it worth noting plenty of the delete objections come from a disdain for this as "tabloid gossip", sometimes from editors who do not seem to object to controversies from PewDiePie et al. having extensive pages, and I would wonder how much of a role editor generational and gender bias is playing. - Kez ( talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised that I have to keep bringing up why this entry is not comparable to PewDiePie vs T-Series or Logan Paul vs KSI. Again, those two entries are very well documented, were big news, were told from a neutral point of view from neutral and reliable sources, and were notable without question. Although PewDiePie vs T-Series may seems just an un-encyclopedic as James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy, that line of notability which we must draw distinguishes one as a more import and dare I say historical event, while the other doesn't even pass WP:10YT. Also, "Generational and Gender bias" is a hypothesis which needs to be verified. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate you posting this to reinforce all the points I made. Since this controversy has certainly been “well documented” in mainstream news sources; since “big news” is entirely subjective and if somehow applicable to PewDiePie’s activities clearly also applicable to this; since “reliable” sources such as the BBC, CNN and Sky News have documented this from a “neutral point of view”; since “notable without question” is similarly entirely subjective; and since you offer no evidence that PewDiePie engaging in a light-hearted competition is somehow more “historical” than the impact of this controversy on the multi-billion dollar world of American make-up ‘influencers’. I am now very clear that it is consistent and fair this page kept in some form. - Kez ( talk) 11:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Kez, It's unclear to me what you mean, I was not suggesting anything other than a merge of this information, after serious trimming, into James Charles. I was merely stating that it would be a mistake to act as though this is comparable to PewDiePie vs T-Series and Logan Paul vs KSI. The reasons why I don't believe they're comparable at this point is because they seem to be on drastically different levels of notability, and because This entry totally fails WP:RECENTISM Just to name two. The fact is, no matter how many seemingly reputable sources cover this event, its transient, flimsy merit will destroy its importance and place on wikipedia. Also, by "historical" I simply meant that something like PewDiePie vs T-Series is quite likely to have a lasting impact while this much smaller squabble will not. We have to stop using otherstuffexists arguments now. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 10:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There has been coverage of this in reputable sources, but at most, it should just exist under the James Charles article. Melodies1917 ( talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - Multiple reliable sources have discussed this event in detail, and the aftermath was a loss in three million subscribers - a record for the platform. This seems to be generally notable for now. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Exactly. "For now". GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Mkdw ^talk 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - Has received notability. Keep and discuss in a few weeks. Nice4What ( talk) 03:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not notable enough for its own article, the content can go on James Charles' page. QueerFilmNerd ^talk 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and merge: I think this incident is best to be redirected to the James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies section. I agree with Laurel_Wreath_of_Victors on various news coverage like BBC, CNN (and NBC) which makes it good enough to be mentioned in James' article. I am strongly against deleting the page since it adds size to the database. ( WP:CHEAP) — Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• DELETE - Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Proverbial tempest in a teapot. Number of youtube subscribers does not equal notability. Every week, someone is going to gain or lose subscribers to whatever forum. Next month a new 'record' will be set. That doesn't make it significant. Fails WP:QSAppearing on a gossip page doesn't either. I don't see a wikipedia page for the BBC article in which he told people to stop showing up at his house, I don't believe that this warrants one either. While the news orgs mentioned are often reliable, the coverage for this crisis is not. As others have mentioned, what other scandal pages exist doesn't rationalize this one WP:INN, WP:OTHER. ogenstein ( talk) 11:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I feel like stuff like this should not be on Wikipedia. Fine on other websites, not Wikipedia though. VibeScepter ( talk) ( contributions) 21:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I haven't looked at the sources enough to form an opinion, but Tati Westbrook will need some serious attention as well. It had one blatantly unreliable source, which I removed as worse than nothing, and so it now has no sources at all. It was a redirect to the Charles article's subsection, but that's also a BLP issues, so... Grayfell ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tati Westbrook needs deletion! BLP1E with horrifically amateur and uneducated use of sources including The Sun. The goddamn Sun for crying out loud. Practically the most unreliable source there is. The very fact that this page was created out of YouTube-level controversy rather than actual notability tells you everything you need to know. Again I say, this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Trillfendi ( talk) 13:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

How is she notable for one event? She's an entrepreneur who had millions of subscribers long before this controversy started. Just because you don't like or have no interest in something, and just because it concerns notable figures in the beauty industry rather than any other industry, that doesn't mean it is non-notable. - Kez ( talk) 16:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

"Notable" doesn't just mean successful or popular. Notability is determined by reliable, independent sources, and right now, every one of the usable sources at that article is about the feud with Charles. If there are reliable sources about her entrepreneurship, they should be added or discussed at that article's talk page. Grayfell ( talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Trim and Merge to James Charles, or selectively to Tati Westbrook. Looking at sources, this event is clearly important to a sub-community, but the WP:LASTING impact hasn't been demonstrated. If, over the coming days, weeks, or years, sources are still discussing the significant of going from 16 million+ subs to 13 million+, we can reevaluate. If sources don't continue to talk about this, it will rapidly become more irrelevant until it's inevitably nominated for deletion again. Grayfell ( talk) 06:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A very clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Ceosad ( talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and the event has not been able to demonstrate it will have any WP:LASTING impacts. Mkdw ^talk 18:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Tati Westbrook per above. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Wait, she's already gotten a page. Never mind. Neutral, but merge instead of delete. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and merge - not notable enough for its own article, but merge with either Westbrook or Charles. Greyjoy ^talk 11:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and merge - with Westbrook. LALALLALLALALjoy ^talk 15:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Page, Redirect and Merge The Content of this article is not worthy enough of its own page. Content should be shared between the James Charles and Tati Westbrook’s pages. East Anglian Regional ( talk)
• Speedy Delete I really couldn't care less about the incident, but the only notable event in this entire thing is James's massive tumble in subscribers, which is almost comparable to when TheFineBros tried to trademark the word "react". A loss of a couple million subscribers by one and a gain of a couple hundred thousand by the other is hardly enough to keep the article alive. Rather, a copy paste of a small chunk of it to a Subheading in either of their wiki pages would be suffice... Cheesy McGee ( talk) 08:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete It fails WP:NOTNEWS by a long shot, especially on the "news reports" section. This controversy is only impacting the YouTube society. It will definitely not impact anything world-wide except YouTube. INeed Support ^:3 01:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Something could be added to the James Charles and maybe YouTube articles, but it fails as a stand-alone article. Edwardx ( talk) 07:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to James Charles (Internet personality). He is the subject of the controversy. How much to merge to either article is a content matter for the talk pages of those articles. But this is clearly WP:NOTNEWS. wumbolo ^^^ 11:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Note to closer. There are some !votes on talk. wumbolo ^^^ 12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hobbart & Hobbart

Hobbart & Hobbart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced, promotional SPA-created article about a non-notable company. MER-C 13:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - does not meet WP:ORGSIG ("If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable...merely because it exists") - therefore, delete - Epinoia ( talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Batia Ofer

Batia Ofer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not finding enough in the article or online to justify an article. Fails WP:GNG. She is the fourth wife of Idan Ofer and anything significant in this article already appears in his article. I did consider simply redirecting this to his article, but that could be interpreted as a unilateral speedy deletion without discussion! Edwardx ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Shyla Jennings

Shyla Jennings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Two lines and a list of awards does not pass ENT and GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Per point #3 in WP:ENT, pornography is a "field of entertainment", which she indeed made "prolific or innovative contributions to" by winning the awards. (SN: the fact that PORNBIO was apparently absorbed into WP:ENT and that winning (or even being nominated for) awards is no longer a requirement actually paves the way for more articles about pornographic actors. Maybe all the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT porn haters who !voted to support removal in that RFC should have considered that.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Niche porn award categories like All-Girl Performer of the Year didn't pass the "well-known and significant industry award" PORNBIO test in recent AfD's even before PORNBIO was taken down. It is a stretch to call such a porn award win a unique contribution to field without independent reliable sources that attest to that. Both of us participated in that RFC. It wasn't about hating porn. It was about porn's lack of coverage by independent, reputable sources, not just the promotional ones. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Spartaz and Gene93k are right on target. Winning a non-notable award (the specific article was deleted) does not satisfy ANYBIO, and the claim regarding "contributions to the field" requires specific independent reliable sourcing, not an editor's disputable inference. The claim that industry awards demonstrate such contributions was expressly and implicitly rejected in multiple afds and drvs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete for failing WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. Neither the performer nor her achievements have significant coverage by independent reliable sources. An independent search for RS coverage yields only brief mentions of the subject or quotes from the subject in articles focused on other topics. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty ( talk) 14:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Mili Jay

Mili Jay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly fails GNG and ENT. A single award win is only claim to fail but that hasn't led to any sustained interest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Martin Graham

Martin Graham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. None of the references is significant third-party coverage of Graham. Two are Graham being interviewed about something, one is written by Graham, the fourth is a press release by his former employer. Some of the sources don't even confirm the specific sentences they're cited for. This is after a recent round of editing and improvement in response to a PROD. Huon ( talk) 09:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Huon ( talk) 09:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Huon ( talk) 09:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete ▸ ‎ épine _talk♬ 11:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - thanks to Huon for investigating the sketch sources - Epinoia ( talk) 02:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album). Randykitty ( talk) 14:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Indigo (Chris Brown album)

Indigo (Chris Brown album) (  | 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, with the only reliable sources talking about songs, not about an album called Indigo. The sources talking about an album are unreliable, such as ydraft. Binksternet ( talk) 04:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Absolutely terrible 'reads like chrisbrown.com/news' tone where nothing was confirmed, a single didn't chart, and an unrelated tour. At best, this can be merged into a 'current' section on the main article and we can create a new actual article about the album when it is announced. Nate • ( chatter) 04:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep A future release, with half of the 17 references talking about singles that are expected to be on the album, but that leaves 8 refs that talk about the album, some at-length. So the article needs a re-write, but there's enough there for that to happen, and I'm sure that a quick Google search will provide addition, salient details. This coming from the guy who has nominated dozens of "to be released" albums. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Article's a mess at the moment but passes GNG and can be rewritten given that AfD is not cleanup. John M Wolfson ( talk) 05:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• At the very least, Move to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album) for the time being until notable sources emerge and a release date is announced. That way editors can add to it and not have to start from scratch when it does come out. This album will be a studio release by a notable recording artist, which will eventually merit its own article.-- WuTang94 ( talk) 23:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Chris Brown or Delete - does not meet any of the 7 criteria of WP:NALBUM - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - seems purely promotional for an upcoming recording WP:NOTPROMOTION - Epinoia ( talk) 21:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Album title has been confirmed. While notability is not inherited, it would be ludicrous to suggest that a Chris Brown album with 30 tracks won’t chart. It’s bound to become notable soon— N Ø 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The article is a mess, that's for sure, but to assume that an artist who had six Top 3 albums in the US out of eight will not make any kind of impact at least on some charts is ridiculous! The album has a name and a release date that's about one month away. Alecsdaniel ( talk) 17:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Move to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album), per option suggested by WuTang94. bd2412 T 03:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Draftify - Good looking article right now. Maybe take it off the map until closer to release date when more reliable sources will likely be available. Foxnpichu ( talk) 14:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Junius Driggs

Junius Driggs (  | 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 subject that fails WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing single name checks and not much else. No significant coverage found. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - while a conventional before using the google tools does indeed turn up very little, one of the things it did turn up was a 2015 AZ Central article which briefly mentions Driggs as a member of the "The Phoenix 40", which was a group of local businessmen who controlled Arizona politics for decades. Digging a little deeper through Newspapers.com, there are a plethora of articles about Driggs. His obit, on July 10, 1994, was a detailed article on the front page of the state section (page 13). The transition when he was replaced as the CEO of Western Savings by Gary Driggs, also was a pretty in-depth piece on February 22, 1973, on page 6. There were also more than passing mentions on February 7, 1969 (page 18), when he and his brother were given a NCCJ award (page 9), as well as a large piece when he was named leader of the Mesa Temple on November 4, 1975 (page 9), his wedding announcement on May 28, 1933 took over almost all of page 7 of the Republic. He had an in-depth article back on July 26, 1940 in the Republic (page 10), about his youth and early life. The Tucson Daily Citizen had a nice piece on him on July 6, 1971 (page 35), when Western Savings opened a new branch in Tucson. There's also coverage from other locations, as in an article on December 11, 1962 in Provo's The Daily Herald, when a new LDS stake was created in Mesa, with Driggs as its head (page 14).He was highlighted, along with his brothers, in an article in the The Springfield Herald on November 20, 1969 (page 12), when they donated $500,000 to BYU. There are so many articles, it's difficult to find ones I was actually looking for, about his involvement in the Phoenix 40. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep my news archive search turned up results like the ones Onel5969 found. Page appears to have been written by an editor interested primarily in Driggs significant role in the LDS Church. But Driggs is clearly notable for his roles as a banker and as a power in Arizona civic life and politics of his era. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Adney Y. Komatsu

Adney Y. Komatsu (  | 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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches as per WP:BEFORE are only providing a few fleeting passing mentions in reliable sources; no significant coverage found. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not qualify notability. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC ("People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - however, it could be argued that becoming a general authority of The LDS Church is a "significant award or honor" and being a general authority constitutes a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" under WP:ANYBIO - but I think we have to go with WP:GNG here and presume the subject is not notable in the absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Epinoia ( talk) 02:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Reluctantly, the subject does not have enough online (or any) coverage to meet WP:BASIC. We need to make a better standard for notability of LDS general authorities. Rollidan ( talk) 15:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Ween discography. Whether this should point at Ween or Ween discography is up to editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The Crucial Squeegie Lip

The Crucial Squeegie Lip (  | 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 demo release, no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Mysticair667537 ( talk) 04:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they fail WP:MUSIC and WP:RS]:

Axis: Bold as Boognish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Erica Peterson's Flaming Crib Death (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Live Brain Wedgie/WAD (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prime 5 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 11. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge to either the Ween discography, or even a stand-alone article on Ween's early releases. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to either Ween or Ween discography - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:NALBUM which says, "recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, Redirect or Delete - Epinoia ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect to Ween discography Mysticair667537 ( talk) 15:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G5. ( non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jordan Ruimy

Jordan Ruimy (  | 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 random film critic who does not have significant coverage. Merely being indexed by a review aggregator is not an indication of notability. Rotten Tomatoes, in particular, has rather low standards for what counts as a "Tomatometer approved critic" since around 2018 (see this story, for example). NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Olga Speranskaya

Olga Speranskaya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete. Article is entirely unreferenced. Apart from this online biography, which appears to date from 2009 and from which much of the content has been taken, there don't seem to be any sources online. The article is frozen in time, circa 2009-11, with no updates possible. Is the subject still alive? What is she doing now? The number of pageviews in the last three weeks has hovered between 0 and 2, the latter probably being bots or random page patrollers such as myself. Akld guy ( talk) 02:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 03:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 03:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Prominent Russian environmentalist. WP:NEXIST. The current state of the article and its references do NOT determine notability. [20] [21] [22] —Мандичка ^YO 😜 14:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She appears to have a number of interviews on Pravda radio 2, and as a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize here and here, which has been compared to the "Environmental Nobel prize" by one site, would seem to make her notable. In 2011, she was apparently significant enough to be named a "UN Champion of the Earth". Simple Google searches pulled up this information, and my limited Russian wasn't a hindrance to find more about her, so I'd hope that others with more fluency could demonstrate her notability even more. LovelyLillith ( talk) 18:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Probably passes our notability guidelines as a recipient of multiple significant awards [23], [24]. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - In addition to all of the above BBC has also covered her [25] -Russian scientist and 2009 Goldman Prize recipient Olga Speranskaya brought the NGOs in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia together, turning them into an effective force which works to identify and eliminate the Soviet legacy of toxic chemicals in the environment. Seems notable and passes our notability guidelines. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 04:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 01:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Kristián Kováč

Kristián Kováč (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject narrowly fails WP:NHOCKEY. 196 games played in Slovak Extraliga (200 needed), never played in any other league listed in #2 and all other leagues he played in does not qualify to meet #2. Bronze medal in World Junior Championship I believe does not qualify for #5 as only senior appearances in the main pool of the World Championship are considered. Tay87 ( talk) 00:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as fails WP:NHOCKEY. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 15:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article lists him as playing four games in the Swedish second division, which would qualify, but the link takes you to the page for the Swedish third division, which would not. I don't know where the club actually played that season. 196+4=200, but this may be moot anyway because the article only lists him playing 193 games in Slovakia, which still wouldn't get us there. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Looking into it, it is the third division. But the correct number for Slovakian games is 196. The playoff games were missing in the article. But either way he doesn't make it, so its up to GNG. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete While they are close to passing WP:NHOCKEY, there are not really any articles that I could find that would help to make any argument for passing WP:GNG. Deadman137 ( talk) 19:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. As noted, WP:PORNBIO is no longer a guideline, and most of the detailed points about whether porn awards might still satisfy WP:ANYBIO appear to lean towards the notion that the award mentioned here is too obscure/too poorly covered to qualify. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Nikita Denise

Nikita Denise (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I generally stay far away from this type of discussion except for the fact the article imho shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. Not that I am a porn expert but isn't the Female Performer of the Year the biggest award in the adult film industry. Seems like she certainly would have had enough coverage over those couple years to meet WP:GNG. The article may not contain the proper references but it seems fairly neutral and she definitely meet the notability guidelines. They are the Oscar's of porn and she has 6 of them? I am not doing the research but i am certain she has enough press within the adult industry. 2601:989:4300:7EE4:7990:CA17:BDF9:A323 ( talk) 03:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Porn awards no longer establish notability by themselves, and asserting there are sources without doing the research just won't fly. WP:PORNBIO has been superseded by WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. The only plausibly-reliable non-trivial reliable source coverage comes from AVN ( [26] [27]). That falls short on WP:BASIC especially since one cite is a primary source and the other is a one-paragraph blurb. The evidence to support WP:ENT notability is insufficient. I did search for sources and found nothing substantial. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your assessment that the AVN comeback article is a primary source. Yes, it does feature quotes from her through presumably an interview. However, it is a secondary source because the author synthesizes the information gleaned from Denise along with other information into an article rather than a verbatim transcript of the interview. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• As I said in my !vote below, even allowing AVN as a reliable source, it is only one source. It is not sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 04:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 04:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Even accepting AVN as a reliable source, it is the only significant reliable source coverage, not enough for WP:BASIC. AINews is a press release and rogreviews.com is a self-published primary source. Notability per WP:ENT lacks sufficient verifiable evidence. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Just another porn bio with negligible independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I believe her AVN female performer of the year award and her AVN Hall of Fame status satisfies criteria 1 and 2 of ANYBIO. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• PORNBIO was deprecated for just this reason. Claims of a "well-known and significant award or honor" of "widely recognized contribution" need the support of independent reliable sources. The consensus at RFC was that winning porn industry awards does not indicate likely notability by itself. The guidance for porn performers at WP:BIO specifically indicates using WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• I interpret ANYBIO by its plain language meaning. Determinations of what is well-known and significant is subjective and what is "widely recognized as part of the enduring historical record" to me (again subjective) in this specific field is AVN's Hall of Fame. Nothing in the RFC reflects a consensus that ANYBIO applies to every biography except for porn stars. All deprecation of PORNBIO did was introduce confusion to people who are not experts in this topic. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Morbidthoughts. The two awards he mentioned are the two highest achievements a porn performer can achieve in the porn industry. If this gets deleted, it's just leading to the eventual deletion the vast majority of porn performer articles, even the ones that had significant achievement in their field because a very small number get significant coverage in mainstream press. It's ridiculous that the sports people have very lenient notability standards but there's no substantial coverage for many of them. They don't even have to even score a point in a game they played in. Wikiuser20102011 ( talk) 21:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I came across this page the other day and had the same beliefs. Awards do not = notability if your career isn’t notable to begin with. Porn “stars” win awards then just disappear evidently. Trillfendi ( talk) 03:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. It fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete blp fails gng = fail Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Female performer of the year award and her AVN Hall of Fame status satisfies criteria WP:ANYBIO Wikipedia should have no bias or a tougher litmus test regarding adult film stars. Passes WP:ENT because of her contributions (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.). Lubbad85 ( ☎) 00:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment:A central factor in deprecating PORNBIO was that porn awards generally failed the "well-known and significant" standard of ANYBIO -- that there was no correlation generally between recognition by such an award and receiving substantive, independent, reliable-source coverage, and that such an association was the best way to determine significance. Also underlying the deprecation was the widely held belief, particularly within the industry, that award recipients were selected to promote the financial interests of the awardgivers -- that, for example, AVN award recipients and whole categories were selected to promote AVN's advertisers, not to actually recognize stature or achievement in the field. Such awards also generally fail the ANYBIO standard. Also, the article does not cite any "significant roles" in notable works, so the claim of meeting WP:ENT is invalid on its face. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 00:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep for reasons cited by User:Morbidthoughts. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the PORNBIO deprecation, the AVN awards don't meet the threshold for WP:ANYBIO. WP:ENT isn't passed as there's no indication individual pornographic films she appeared in were independently notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Merge into Poway synagogue shooting, Westminster Seminary California and Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Seems like the question here is whether the articles that discuss the Poway synagogue shooting + a few other sources are giving enough detailed information to satisfy WP:GNG criteria on the congregation. Some people are citing "not inherited" but that does not explicitly address the suitability of the sources in general. There are some concerns that much of the information on the congregation is more about the denomination than the church which haven't been addressed, and the numerous quotes here certainly do not give an impression to the contrary. Seeing as Westminster Seminary California is often mentioned as the existing article on the college the church is associated with and and Orthodox Presbyterian Church as the existing article for the denomination denomination, it seems like a merger to these pages might be most appropriate to satisfy the emerging consensus that the church itself isn't notable enough for an article, but also to allow people to copy material from the page history in other articles where it may be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable local church. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the Poway synagogue shooting. St Anselm ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply