Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 17

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 Miss South Dakota USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Fjerstad

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

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

Fjerstad was Miss South Dakota USA but that alone is not enough to make her notable. She is also a lawyer, but nothing indicates she is at all notable as a lawyer. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. My sweeps turned up zilch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss South Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I support deletion rather than redirection. She isn't notable, so delete or redirect, and I see redirecting as a statement that her greatest accomplishment in life is likely to remain winning a beauty pageant aged 19. I find that rather demeaning. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Paganetti

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

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

Paganetti won Miss Rhode Island USA which is not enough to make her notable. Her roles in the US army are also not enough to make her a notable soldier John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT - Winning a state-level beauty pageant doesn't seem likely to establish notability, and that's Captain Paganetti's only claim to fame at present. Having an article on her seems to be an unjustifiable intrusion into her privacy. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a state level pageant win does not qualify under ANYBIO1 (although I've seen it use in this manner, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Johnson (2nd nomination). Coverage is all localized and not significant. My searches do not turn up anything better, except this brief mention in Forbes: "What Our Troops Miss Most About America". The subject may become more notable due to military service -- who knows? Then the article can be recreated if needed. She's not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the subject has been mentioned in the press in re: her military career, so a straight up redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA may not be the best option. That's why I would advocate deletion in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as that is the WP:ONEEVENT she is notable for . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A BLP on a non-notable person is actually harmful as it's an invasion of the subject's privacy, and any vandalism could lead to embarrassment to them. Notability guidelines cannot be endorsed by single projects anyway. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are very curious arguments. By agreeing to take part in a public competition, the subject has become a "public", not a "private", person and there is no invasion of privacy. As for deleting an article because of a potential for vandalism, that argument would call for the deletion of all biographical articles on living people, and would also call for deleting all biography-related material from non-biography articles. Indeed, these are very curious arguments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because someone was a participant in a public event 12 years ago does not mean that they have become a permanent public figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Pennsylvania USA. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Brabham

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

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

Brabham is not notable. Winning Miss Pennsylvania USA is not enough to make someone notable. This is shown in part in that the only source that is not a Miss USA publication or IMDb, is an alternative paper from Philadelphia, her hometown, that is not even about her but spends one paragraph mentioning her in an article on someone else. If that source is enough to pass GNG, than most contestants in state Miss USA pageants would be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My sweeps didn't turn up sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Pennsylvania USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per usual for beauty pageant contestants. Completely non-notable. Engleham (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laci Scott

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

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

Scott is just not notable. She was Miss Oklahoma USA. Winning a state level Miss USA competition is not enough to make someone notable. The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA Subject is best known for this pageant and it is a valid search term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Ohio USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Berry

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

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

Berry is just plain not notable. Being a contestant multiple times for Miss Ohio USA does not show multiple nominations that might suggest notability, it just shows persistence. The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. 2 are Miss USA organization publications, which just don't seem to be enough. The other is from the University of Cincinnati magazine, a publication of the university she attended. This is just not enough to show she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Ohio USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissa Miller

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

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

The previous discussion was largely predicated on the flawed view that winners of Miss North Dakota USA are default notable. The general consensus in recent discussions is clear that winners of such a title are not at all default notable. So we are left to look at sources. The sources basically are what we would expect for a non-notable person. One is a paper published at the university she was a student of. University newspapers are generally not good sources to pass GNG. The other is an article from the local Bismark paper ostensibly about her. However it really is about the Minnesota Timberwolves Dance Team, and uses her as the local hook to cover a broader topic. There is no consensus that members of such teams are notable, and one article in the paper in the town she is from is just not enough to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator or Redirect as per NorthAmerica (below).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss North Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E; not independently notable. Delete option may be preferred vs redirect to avoid an article re-creation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss New Mexico USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Deaner

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

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

Deaner is not anywhere near notable. There is one source, so even if it was reliable, secondary and third party, it would not pass GNG which requires multiple. However the one source is her official "biogrpahy" for the Miss USA organization, a biography that exists for the purpose of promoting her. Miss New Mexico USA winners, like other such winners, will in general only get very limited press coverage in their home towns (not even state wide) at the time of their victory. There is just not the coverage of people winning these awards to justify having articles on them. They generally fade quickly into obscurity. They are basically one event people, and we have rules that in general discourage articles on people notable for only one event. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My searches came up dry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss New Mexico USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss New Mexico USA as valid search term and subject is best known for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is the "aliens guy". The cited sources are a PR bio and a duplicate reference to a single article in his school's magazine. Seriously, this fails WP:GNG by quite a margin. I think a redirect to Ancient Aliens is the best that can be justified here. Guy (Help!) 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His ideas are very much fringe, and the coverage he has received is not enough to establish notability in that case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could become a better article if users were to find out about more of his talks and theories. 86.45.250.131 (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep biographies because they could, if osme theoretical sources were found, become legitimately sourced. Please provide reliable indepdnent sources if you have them. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as it stands - I was slightly surprised not to find anything that wasn't Ancient Aliens. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it would need the good sources it doesn't have. I would redirect as he's actually famous, so people might look him up - typically several hundred to a few thousand hits a day - but that's the only thing he appears to be famous for - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good work, Mr. Magoo - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was a bit shocked to see this, being familiar with (and, admittedly, enamored of) his pioneering work in the field of stupid internet memes. But upon searching for sources about the guy, I find bupkiss that isn't there already. So while he is the host of an unintentionally hilarious television show, and while he did inexplicably appear in some talking head roles in earlier, equally unintentionally hilarious television shows, I think I'm going to have to suggest that we Redirect this to Ancient Aliens. Note that I'm not suggesting that the editors who created and edited this page are aliens. But they were. Because aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens.

• Comment He does have some coverage, but it's mostly just related to mainly Ancient Aliens and him only named as a host of it. Yet he does have a lot of fringe coverage. I remember there being some rule about fringe coverage, so I'm quite unsure about this case. As a bit of an archivist, I'd prefer to keep his work record as it's harder to find elsewhere so neatly put. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I were able to find coverage when I omitted the "A." and just searched for Giorgio Tsoukalos. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a large number of citations. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also cleaned up the article quite a bit. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also now just noticed he actually had a notable career before Ancient Aliens as the runner of a San Francisco bodybuilding competition. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am changing my vote to Keep. Right now, that article is ridiculously oversourced, and while the reliability of many of those sources in general is highly questionable, their use for this article is, I think, perfectly fine. Mr. Magoo seems to have done a wonderful job here. Also, his reddit AMA is pretty funny. That's has nothing to do with why I changed my vote (it was aliens), just something I thought I'd share. Aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also intrigued by the seemingly short-lived bodybuilding San Francisco Pro Grand Prix. The final year seems to have been in 2006. I found this other San Francisco competition with same final year: San Francisco Pro Invitational. I compared the winners with our Grand Prix and they're the same. Lee Priest is reported by numerous sources to have won the Grand Prix in 2002, but the only San Fran win his page says is San Fran Pro Invitational. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass GNG. Jarkeld (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the current references (considering the general lack of good sources), it seems alright to me. --Jonas kork (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher supermarkets in the United States

List of kosher supermarkets in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. PROD removed by creator. Fails WP:DIRECTORY and WP:GNG list entries are not notable and no evidence that such a list has any notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the fact that so few of these are wiki-linked shows the topic itself is not very notable. ubiquity (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Something about WP not being a directory. BlueSalix (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failure of WP:DIRECTORY. Completely a non-notable list. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. None of the supermarkets themselves are wikilinked (the only ones that appear to be wikilinked actually are linked to articles about other topics with similar names), and no sources have been provided other than the web sites of a few of the supermarkets themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pretty classic example of NOTDIRECTORY. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:LIST. A category of the more notable Koshers markets would be allowed. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Turkin

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

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

Appearing in an advertisement is not a the same as notability. This is a person who has had transient fame for a single event and nothing more. None of the refs establish notability for the subject of the article merely that statements surrounding him are true. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally placed a PROD tag on this page. He fails any standard Wikipedia has for notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local police department lawyer, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've seen the ad, I know his face, and he's a mensch. However, he fails my standards as a notable lawyer. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnston (actor)

Michael Johnston (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No mention of this actor on any of the Wikipedia teenwolf pages. No sources provided to confirm his role or any notability. First ref is flagged as a dangerous site by my malware protection software, the other has no reliability. Appears to fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article has been updated with sources that satisfy GNG. He was listed at List of Teen Wolf characters, where his name is now wikilinked. Found a few other articles where his name was mentioned and they are wikilinked now too.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Harut (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Joeyconnick (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Retzlaff

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

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

PROD as non-notable boxer was contested by the original editor. Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fighter was a fully professional athlete with 77 professional bouts in 11 years, fought contenders and one future world champion, performed all over North America, was the Minnesota heavyweight champ, and has been inducted into the Minnesota Boxing Hall of Fame. I've expanded the references from one to three. He isn't a household name today, but neither is Nap Lajoie. Brain Rodeo (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not all pro boxers are notable. Being Minnesota state champ fails to satisfy WP:NBOX. Notability isn't inherited from who he fought and coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: May meet WP:NBOX#3, if the WBA is considered to include its predecessor NBA. Per this and this, he was in the top 10 (presumably of the NBA) in 1936. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I struck my previous vote. WP:NBOX is met by his Ring magazine ranking [1]. Jakejr (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Best to let this play out but it looks like WP:NBOX is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleptophobia

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

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

No reliable medical sources Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete indeed no MEDRS sources. more playing with greek. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MEDRS--Savonneux (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automatonophobia

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

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

No reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete indeed, no MEDRS sources. Just more fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced; no evidence this is a real thing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This does appear to be a real phobia, and sources do exist, although not great in quality or depth: [2] (see citation at bottom), [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bwimb

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

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete original research based on fictional sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Contra Stasek Lem, WP:ATD-M prefers a merge for non-notable content (the assertion that it is OR seems curious; it's more like regurgiated primary sources) rather than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The sources are real, the content is fictional. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Lloyd

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon espinoza

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

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

This could almost be speedy deleted as purely promotional. There is a claim of importance but unfortunately, this football player does not meet the relevant notability guideline since he's never played in a fully professional league Pichpich (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has never played at a fully pro level, the page is purely an advert/CV, can't find any evidence that this footballer even exists Spiderone 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wizzogmb

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. Notability is not inherited. Virtually all references in the article are to wikipedia, instagram, etc. Autobiography written by the subject himself. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Oiram.jef (talk · contribs · count), a  Confirmed sock master, created another version of this article, MarioFernandez, which I deleted per A7. Wizzogmb (talk · contribs · count), a confirmed sock puppet, created the current one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if this was in fact created by a confirmed sock puppet. It may even qualify for a speedy . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dead Rising#Protagonists. MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the future if you feel something should be redirected, please say so! Even if my "common sense" suggests a redirect, I can't override a clear consensus to delete. That would be a WP:Supervote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dead Rising characters

List of Dead Rising characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage doesn't warrant a split from the main series article, which can adequately handle this information (and is otherwise relatively empty). The rest of game-specific characters can be handled in individual articles. But as a separate article, there is no summary style need for the split, and the list separately lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant the separation. I've already merged content to the main series article Dead Rising#Protagonists so this list would need to redirect there to preserve attribution unless we delete that info as well—I'm fine with either result. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not only I had had already added more coverage since de-merging it last time, but there's more coverage out there that I haven't added. Such articles include this one I recently found devoted on Chuck Greene from Dead Rising 2, and this one for Nick Ramos from Dead Rising 3. Those sources, along with the ones already in the article should be enough to pass WP:GNG. It's also perfectly acceptable for a split when there's a lot of characters and details for them for a series like Dead Rising, per WP:SIZE. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage by WP:VG/RS'es, only appears in "Top 10..." characters lists. No origin, no development, no real reception to speak of. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Chuck Greene I listed above includes origins and development. Having only sources where they appear in lists do not necessarily negate their notability anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I don't believe a list of Dead Rising characters by itself meets WP:GNG by this point. I'd rather see a decent Dead Rising article with a sourced, short section on characters, than a huge list that just rehashes the events from the games from the characters' perspective. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ultimately, most of the sources currently used seem trivial. They certainly don't provide any compelling reason to have a list article over summary style descriptions in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why are you guys voting "delete" instead of "redirect" or "merge"? Even if you don't agree that this subject is notable enough for its own article, a redirect makes a lot more sense, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the information for any future potential notability. I could understand going with delete if there was nothing to redirect this to, but there is, in this case, the Dead Rising series article. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the arguments above. And @Kokoro20:, I think that it's mostly implied that spin-off articles like this default to being merged instead of outright removed, but I could be wrong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you are wrong about that, @Dissident93:. If no one votes "merge" or "redirect", but just "delete", then it would probably get deleted, regardless if there's a target available. So, why vote "delete" over "redirect" or "merge"? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed it was common sense for something that is directly a spin-off article to be redirected, despite calls for "deletion". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing your vote to "redirect" then, @Dissident93:? Kokoro20 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I still think common sense would apply here anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I don't think we can depend on common sense or implied recommendations in an AfD discussion--it is best to make explicit recommendations based on what one thinks is best. Here the list of protagonists seems verifiable based on sources in this and the parent article. Despite the nom proposing deletion, if the nom has merged content back into the main article, a redirect is needed to preserve attribution, per WP:PROMERGE. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Polyamorous Affair

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

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

I'm unconvinced by this act's notability. aside from the lack of references and clear COI issues, relating to WP:Music, this is my assessment no indication of any chart performances. likely that no album or single charted. a handful of reviews in respectable publications. reviews to me seem to be more suited to being classified as 'trivial as per WP:Music section 4 rather than significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Main internet search results are automatic entries on places like google play and itunes and discogs. band does not have significant web presence - most viewed youtube video has 50,547 views, majority of remainder have sub-10,000 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=polyamorous+affair facebook page has 1,585 likes https://www.facebook.com/The-Polyamorous-Affair-38684109107 last.fm has 124,000 plays http://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affairhttp://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affair my interpretation of the guidelines suggests delete unless I'm missing something or misinterpreting Rayman60 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article doesn't claim notability, and notability isn't inherited from the artists. The complete lack of sources doesn't help either. Sunmist3 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A poor article and a lack of sources in the article are not necessarily an indication of a lack of notability, as the following easily-found coverage demonstrates: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], plus [13]. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Also this. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While poorly written and cited, article appears to have relevance by discussing a band with a clear record of recognition within the broader music community. In fact, while reviewing previous edits to the article, I noticed that several apparent citations have been removed over time. Contributors could easily modify the article to include those references again. DavDaven (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This seems like another case of a band that's had some minimal coverage by important music outlets, and consequently that has been used to justify an article. I do feel that the notability guidelines for music need some amendment, because too often it seems that every source is linked as evidence of "coverage", but often on actual inspection this is brief, not focused on the artist, or from a local publication that's unsuitable for assessing notability (and with a whole load of recency bias thrown in too). This seems to, again, be the case here: Quite a bit of the "easily-found coverage" is L.A. based media, including an inclusion on a list no less. If this is the sum of their prominent publicity then I can't see a substantial reason to keep this; That said, the NME review is more relevant, so I'll accept there's at least a case for inclusion. But as I say, as an aside, we don't seem to hold musicians to the same stringent criteria we do other fields and this is problematic. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by Michig. The article just needs an overhaul. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has enough coverage in total, with the links identified earlier, passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charles & Eddie. Clear consensus here to not keep as a standalone article. More vague after that, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect. I don't see any support for hiding the history before redirecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chacon

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

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

I've been trying to wikify this mess of an article, but am now beginning to question the subject's notability as an individual. Granted, *that* song and act most definitely pass WP:Music, and have their own articles, but I don't feel the subject has done enough to warrant any notability outside of that act. As a photographer, does not meet GNG. Nowhere near. There've been a few examples of songs written by subject that have had some success, but as a composer, subject wouldn't pass WP:Music. There's an argument that the sum of their work (as part of Charles & Eddie, as a composer with isolated pockets of success, and as part of a duo with limited impact (also currently being AfD'd)) could justify an article, but this interpretation of notability seems subjective, or perhaps may be more obvious to someone with more experience, hence the nomination to get some opinions.

If consensus is keep, I'd expect everyone to be in favour of stripping it back completely from its original version prior to my input here to something far more suitable (i.e. ~80% of the article needs to go)

The long and winding bio, seemingly added by an SPA/COI is written poorly - no sources, a rambling narrative which lacks a neutral tone Rayman60 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A member of two notable groups in my view and writing big hit songs for others also makes him notable. There's also some coverage of his work outside the two bands - [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Michig, which is the second notable group? I don't believe he was ever a member of 2 Live Crew. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I've realised you're talking about The Polyamorous Affair – they weren't wikilinked in the article so I didn't spot the connection at first. But then, I see that article is also up for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. This seems to be similiar to the recent Paul Tucker (musician) AFD in that the sole reason to include appears to be being in "two notable bands", but one of them is borderline at best and up for AFD itself. As I do not feel the second band justifies an article, I lean toward a weak delete. That said, Eddie is more notable in himself than the second, largely unknown band he is in. KaisaL (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charles & Eddie - seems like the obvious outcome here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect as this is basically unsourced and then not convincing for independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like there is no evidence of notability, either under WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Maybe non-English sources can be found, in that case please post on WP:DRV seeking a review, please. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritam Banerjee

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

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

No indication of notability. Salt and burn BLP. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy, that's a big trophy. The guy's certainly an accomplished photographer but Gnews and Gsearch doesn't reveal any significant independent solo coverage, nor has he yet received the kind of exhibits or honours that would meet the additional criteria for creative types. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That said, there may be Hindi or Bengali coverage I'm missing. That's possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No article in the Hindi or Bengali wikipedia, where it would have been easy to extract refs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Our systemic bias might make me more inclined to delete if he were from a country where wikipedia gives good coverage, I suspect we need better coverage of India. And I found a reliable secondary source ref without having to look very hard. I appreciate there are problems with editors on thsi article, seems I just got it looking neutral and an editor has come in piling on the puff-piece and with little idea of how to write an encyclopedic bio of a living person but I am happy to keep editing it for neutrality. It has been advertised on upwork so needs careful watching but none of this has anything to do with whether the article should be deleted, hence my falling on the keep side. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all criterias of WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An additional problem I have with this article that it's written like an advertisement for commercial photographer. He does have one award in not very known movie festival which may satisfy WP:CREATIVE, but this looks like WP:COATRACK for his commercial photography. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Me and some friends created this article which is about a photographer we study and like. We are photography students living in India, and although we have little knowledge of how Wikipedia works, we love what Wikipedia does and wanted to include there something we are proud of and think deserves a place in Wikipedia.

This page was recently tagged saying it needed more references, and because I didn't know what this meant at the time, I posted an ad requesting someone help me with this. Someone did take on this job, but then quit when there was an issue with a photograph used. Oddly enough, the person I hired has a very similar username to the editor who proposed this article for deletion.

We are just starting to learn how Wikipedia works, and will be fully transparent about our contributions here and any future editing. We will also stop editing this article as we feel it's now been handled by people who know what needs to be done.

There are many more references about Ritam Banerjee that I did not include: [17]], [[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and more (as well as more in Indian press). 219.91.152.121 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on RichardWeiss's proposal to edit and Arthistorian1977's assessment that the article may satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Aust331 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I actually think it must be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, seemed to have misinterpreted your comment about the award you found that may help the article meet WP:CREATIVE. Regardless, if User:RichardWeiss thinks this is something he can clean up, I'm willing to vote in favor of keeping. Aust331 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are no convincing collections or other convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article reads like an advertisement. I looked at all of the references in the article, none qualify as WP:RS. I also did my own google search. The first page of search results includes, in order:

1. His own website
2. Our article
3. Facebook
4. Behance (a photo commerce site)
5. Descreative, self-described as "an Indian Advertising Creative blog"
6. Twitter
7. LinkedIn
8. Instragram
9. Pintrest
10. Wagonart, another photography commerce site

This is not the sort of coverage notable people have. I agree about having to fight systemic bias, but there's a line, and this goes way over it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with RoySmith. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sreten Jocić

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

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

Delete: as non-notable; the article, after removal of unsourced claims/speculation, is valueless. Quis separabit? 16:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable person. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing from that event to suggest his own convincing independence. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ganster/murderers are not all notable, nothing about him suggests more to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't like to get personal, but I'm sad to see some names above known for utter failure to even read WP:BEFORE, let alone apply it, and apparently voting out of their ass. The guy is all over Serbian news and has been for years [23][24][25] [26][27][28]... I can agree that the article is valueless, but that is unfortunately not a valid reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we should not base our !vote on article size or quality, but on notability guidelines. clearly this person has been the subject of coverage for years. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If someone can translate those news articles that No such user provided, then we should try to incorporate those into the article to improve it. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of a couple of sentences, the most important part of which is "He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the murder of Goran Marjanović in July 1995, and is serving his sentence in a Belgrade prison." Is everyone convicted of murder (aside from the notability of the victim, i.e. assassins of U.S. presidents, et al) and sent to jail automatically notable?? I don't think so. And if that is what my ass says, it's good enough for me. Quis separabit? 21:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: From WP:Deletion policy (WP:ATD): If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. and If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. This is a stub. We do not delete bad articles on notable topics. WP:BEFORE expressly states that If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability; The minimum search expected is a normal Google search. And I don't see that you or any of deleters in this discussion has done even the basic Google search, thus my pretty obvious anger.

As I'm writing this, Google news search produces 746 hits on the topic. Granted, most in Serbian (which is not a reason for deletion), but there are English ones too [29][30]. For Serbian sources, which span several years, his name usually appears in the title, which means he is their primary subject, which pretty much nails the WP:GNG. For example, Google translate of two lengthy pieces in respectful Vreme 2005 2009 could be sufficient alone to make a decent stub. If you are unwilling to do that, fine, tag the article and somebody else will improve it, but do not waste our collective time by nominating it for deletion. You have been a regular editor on Wikipedia for 10+ years, and you are expected to know how things work. No such user (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neka većina odluči. Quis separabit? 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, kids, this ain't my style, but am !voting Keep here. I just ran a Google search on Joca Amsterdam and came up with 46,000 hits— I pulled up just one of the Serbian news articles, translated it through Chrome, and was able to get a sense of this dude's notability (as well as his ugly mug— yeesh!). I am surprised he hasn't made it into the English news cycles yet, considering the amount of murdering he's apparently been up to. But as has been pointed out, even coverage in just Serbian can make him notable, and seems to do so. It's a weak article, to be sure, however, and the person who threw it together did a bad job of it: it would have taken very little to have included two legitimate Serbian references here instead of making others hunt for them and invoking this entire discussion out of the ambiguity that was created. KDS4444 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Tony Fox per WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Löwisch

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Subject is covered in enough reliable sources breaking threshold of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, but mostly no support for deletion. Clearly, there is no support for deletion here. Opinions appear to be split about whether the coverage justifies a separate article or a redirect in light of the recommendations of WP:BAND about subjects mostly known for their association with a band and this is fundamentally an editorial decision; probably best to continue the discussion on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Amending my close because as pointed out on my talk page, the prior close suggested an unqualified "keep" which isn't the case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Hervey

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

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

Alone, Hervey does not have any notable accomplishments to have a stand-alone article. The page is riddled with trivial information about her background and briefly mentions her debut recording with her notable band. Users can argue to redirect or merge this page to Lion Babe, but there is nothing really here to combine into the band page. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Delete and redirect to band article Lion Babe as a plausible, categorized {{R from member}}. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC) -Amended. — Sam Sailor 15:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Vanessa Williams or to the band. TOOSOON perhaps, but let's preserve the bluelink, as otherwise it's just going to be recreated. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lion Babe (and add {{R from member}}). The subject is not notable independently of the band, but the name is plausible search term. There is nothing to merge from the article though, so a redirect will suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to father (Ramon Hervey II)'s page, Lion Babe, where she is surely mentioned. Quis separabit? 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually her band Lion Babe is much more notable so it is much better target for redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, @Lemongirl942 . Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with numerous sources such as these, including this one and this one in Glamour magazine and this one and this one -- all in-depth -- plus has anybody noticed that this page averages 500 pageviews per day? Deleting this article leaves all our readers high and dry with their hair up in a frizz. Clearly she is much more than her band Lion Babe, being the subject of many articles in the media. Elle magazine devoted an entire article to her -- one of many publications doing so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ELLE Meets Jillian Hervey, Five minutes with Lion Babe - How is the subject independently notable of the band? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough articles focus on her, with her name in the headline, showing her photo, making the point that she is interesting, her hair styles, etc. Of course she's a member of the band (which is notable in its own right) but the sources indicate that she is a subject in her own right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to see my comment about WP:BAND below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Numerous sources found by clicking the links right below the section header here, Tom only lists some. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per WP:BAND, Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. She has demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. Let's look at the articles about her: Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Is the New Face of Pantene: 'It's Really Exciting to be a Voice for Girls with Curls' People Magazine; How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Learned to Love Her Curly Hair Glamour Magazine You Won't Believe How Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Keeps her Curls so full and Fabulous Essence magazine Why Lion Babe's Jillian Hervey Says Sweat Is the Secret to Great Volume Allure magazine Lion Babe’s Jillian Hervey Has An Important Beauty PSA For Men Huffington Post. These are just a few, there are easily a dozen more like this. They are not articles about her band, they're about her. Actually, they're about her hair. I could see more of a case to be made for the article being redirected to Jillian Hervey's Hair than to her band. --GRuban (talk)

  Good idea. We could comb the Internet for even more sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are all interviews and primary sources and many of the headlines itself actually reference her as "Lion Babe" member. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to her band. When she stops being mentioned as a member of the band or as an advocate for curls (if that ever happens), she will warrant a standalone article. Until then, I can't see through all the hair. KDS4444 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with the note that usually I don't even believe in the term, keep is a keep. But I want to stress my view on this one, in light of my concern that the WP's editorial demographics may be at risk of underestimating the significance of notice for Hervey in hair politics--which is to say, in U.S. race politics. WP needs more coverage of this, not less. I don't think this could be appropriately covered on the band's page; possibly it could be covered on her mother's page (where, sigh, I'm noticing now that Williams's place in race and beauty debates in the U.S. is also probably not adequately accounted for), but given the extent of the sources on Hervey specifically, I don't see a reason to shoe-horn her into a parent's entry. I'm glad AfD has brought the entry to my attention, I'll work on it this evening. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update There's still more to add (about her childhood, her music and still more beauty/fashion coverage), but as I realize this AfD has been hanging around a while already, I thought it'd be better to give notice sooner than later that I have gone in and added a bunch of material w/sources; still a work in progress but I hope the progress at least helps clarify why I consider this entry a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm, WP:NOTADVOCACY is a policy. We are not supposed to cover something unless the media has covered it as well. I still don't see anything in the sources about US Race politics - the only thing I see are interviews which are primary sources and she talk about product endorsements. In addition, considering that there is a huge amount of coverage for American articles, I have no sympathy for keeping this article and intensifying our WP:GEOBIAS on Wikipedia. A redirect to the band is appropriate here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at my updates to the entry? They are all sourced--I can assure you, the last thing I want to see on Wikipedia is unsourced commentary on race. Still not all the sources that exist are yet incorporated; here's a list of five sources where secondary commentary explicitly situates her in context of racial politics:

• http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/lion-babe-mac-future-forward.html
• http://observer.com/2016/08/taraji-p-henson-is-the-latest-black-celeb-calling-the-shots-in-beauty/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/lion-babe-interview-its-a-good-time-for-women-in-pop-music/
• http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/634-black-weirdo-rich-kids-zoe-willow-jaden-and-pop-nepotism/
• https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/jillian-hervey-and-her-curls-1445166476632118.html

There are also many additional sources in which secondary commentary raises the related issue of (often even framing the whole article as being about) the "natural hair movement" or the "curly hair movement" (decent overview here for anyone unfamiliar with the significance: Afro-textured_hair#Politics_of_Black_hair). As I say I've begun to incorporate sources but I've probably only gotten to a third of them so far.

Feel obliged to say too, I'd think it truly unfortunate if the approach we took to remedying geobias was one of eliminating arguably notable cases that are subjects of multiple other points of underrepresentation on WP, as this entry is. That only narrows Wikipedia's coverage; it does nothing to expand on source-able topics that are nevertheless under-described on Wikipedia. But my bottom line here is even aside from redressing any bias, there's plenty of encyclopedic, sourceable material on this subject; much of it is not about her band, much of it is not about her parents, so it's best represented on a standalone page. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - To Lion Babe. Too much of her more notable parts of her career is in context of her band. Maybe in a few years a standalone article will be warrented but not now.ALongStay (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as satisfying GNG. In finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources, I rely primarily on the San Francisco Chronicle,^[1] Allure,^[2] and Glamour^[3] pieces. There are more sources given in the article and mentioned by others in this discussion, but these three are enough to sell me.

  In my view, the suggestion, per BAND, that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" only applies to determinations made under that guideline; I don't believe it limits findings under the more restrictive GNG and BIO guidelines. I also don't agree that the subject is any less notable because her notability largely turns on her membership in Lion Babe: the coverage is still significant coverage of her; and many subjects are primarily notable for their involvement with a single organization or activity and are frequently referred to in reference to that: sportspeople, musicians, politicians, and astronauts come readily to mind. Rebbing 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Washington USA . Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Font

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

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

Michelle Font is only noted for being Miss Washington USA, and this is not enough to make her notable. The previous discussion was a mass one that closed on the assumption some of the people might be notable. Despite an attempt to claim that all Miss USA state winners were default notable, the close clearly shows that they need to be shown to be notable on an individual basis. While this article is much better fleshed out than some, I have seen ones with assertions from 2005 on what the career goal of a given individual was without any indication if they had made any progress towards that goal in the ensuing decade, the way this article is fleshed out is just not workable. Her ancestry being Puerto Rican and Cuban is sourced to facebook. Her career over the last decade is sourced to Linked-in. Those are just not the type of sources that show a person is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Washington USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA. Redirect is always preferred over deletion and consensus is to redirect the non-notables so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelyn Butler

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

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

Butler is only notable for winning Miss Wisconsin USA, and that alone is not enough to justify having an article in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the notoriety level has not been reached in my book. Dolotta (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Northamerica1000.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Records

G7 Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions in reliable sources. The previous AfD discussion in August 2011 was closed as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:CORP, can't really find much about it apart from this short mention. Seems to be a touch of WP:INHERITORG based on Ghetto Concept - likewise I'm dubious about the notability of Kwajo Cinqo outside of the group. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a minor record label. My searches do not turn up anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UKCloud

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

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

No indication of significance. Appears to be just advertising. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all this actually amounts to is PR entirely, none of it is actually substantial or convincing, at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete puffed up, not substantial - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not PR or Advertising? This is literally facts and content provided via references and links. Creating a page to get many people to contribute facts and knowledge to, got to start somewhere. Instead of deleting (because it's not advertising), maybe help and provide details with how to improve current page.Sachaawilks (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Of note is that promotional aspects of the article were removed by another user prior to this nomination for deletion (diff). The article does not presently have a promotional tone. However, some of the sources in the article are primary. Also, the company was previously named Skyscape Cloud Services. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I skimmed for sources on Skyscape and the RS coverage was mostly about the trademark dispute that led to the name change, and passing mentions noting their existence as a company that sold to the government - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cynthia Lett. czar 16:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Protocol & Etiquette Professionals

International Society of Protocol & Etiquette Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources given are namedrops at best and no better sources were found by search. shoy (reactions) 17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage to be found were "Yearbook of Experts, Authorities & Spokespersons," "Miss Priss in the Office: First Impressions for Corporate Women" where a "Wilvena" is said to be a search associate member with the year date 2008 for some reason following behind it and lastly "The Art of Professional Connections: Event Strategies for Successful Business Entertaining" where the creator of our organization is giving her review of the writer of the book and the organization gets namedropped. All in all pretty much no coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to Redirect to the founder's own article: Cynthia Lett. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional article on a subject with no evidence of notability. Once it's deleted, if anyone wishes to take up the suggestion of creating a redirect to Cynthia Lett, they will be free to do so, but that is not a good reason for keeping promotional content on a non-notable subject in the history, quite apart from the fact that I am highly doubtful whether Cynthia Lett is notable enough for an article anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Before ISPEP many executives were complaining that they had hired an “etiquette expert” who was “certified” and they were not well trained and couldn’t answer questions due to lack of depth of their knowledge. Before ISPEP, all a person had to do was sit in a four day class and receive a certificate of attendance and they said they were “certified”. Since 2002 when ISPEP was started, they can no longer say they are certified unless they pass the CEP or CPP exam from ISPEP. I think it is notable and significant enough to have a page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosam Allam (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage is needed, no matter how significant it really is. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cynthia Lett. As much as I would like to think a freestanding page on this organization would be a net plus to WP, it doesn't seem to pass GNG muster. The fact that there is a legitimate redirect target softens the blow somewhat. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Focus on the Family. Consensus here supports mainly a redirect to Focus on the Family - the sources mentioned by Jclemens don't appear to be convincing many people of keeping the article. I'll be deleting the article prior to the redirect because the discussion indicates the current article contains no salvageable content (Jclemens's keep !vote refers exclusively to sources, not to the current article content. Andy Dingley's !vote does not appear to address the concerns about the quality of the current article text at all) and a number of people have advocated such action. This topic might develop more coverage that justifies a separate article in the future, but it doesn't appear to be right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plugged In

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

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

Delete The article for Plugged In is extremely poor and unexceptional. Not only is the article's bulk written like an advertisement and seemingly bias, but simple research proves that an entire Wikipedia article for the publication is likely unnecessary and non-noteworthy. The editor who wrote the majority of the article, @Androidmonkey5:, hasn't edited since July 21, 2015, and has only contributed to this page, leading me to believe he may have a connection with the company. Since this article's information likely couldn't be merged without major reconstruction, it would be best to delete this page. Carbrera (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost wholly self-sourced. It justifies a section within Focus On The Family, but not an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Adding a more specific search tool. The bare search terms seems to be the title of at least four separate books in addition to the website/community run by Focus on the Family. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I've found sufficient sourcing without a lot of effort:
  • Descriptions of Plugged In by other Christian or family-oriented media outlets: PulseFM, Hope 107.9, KPDQ, and WBFJ
  • Quoted as an RS elsewhere: The Christian Beat, Christianity Today
  • Urban Dictionary doesn’t like it: [31]
  • Neither do some even more conservative Christians: [32]
  • Book (by FotF, so not independent) ISBN 9781561796281
  • Self-titled app: App Store, Play Store
  • Their press releases get picked up by NRB.org
  • … and even a reference.com entry [33]

  At any rate, that's a lot of sourcing, even though a lot of it is in passing and some is clearly not RS, like The Urban Dictionary which is fascinating because non-notable things don't tend to attract such criticism. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Jclemens: I appreciate your findings, but this would be better mentioned on the article for Focus on the Family. The Urban Dictionary entry has no place on the aforementioned article. Additionally, the Gospel Spam article doesn't look reliable. The app and print sources are good and all, but much more suitable on the Focus on the Family article. Carbrera (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if you're proposing a merge, withdraw this AfD under WP:SKCRIT point one, and start it at the talk page. If we delete this article, nothing from it can be reused per WP:CWW. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jclemens: Merge what? The bias and obviously self-sourced information that currently plagues the article? There is nothing of use on Plugged In's page that belongs on Focus on the Family. A mere mention of anything, but definitely not an entire article or even a merge. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Focus on the Family, its parent entity. Instaurare (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (after delete) to Focus On The Family; not independently notable. Otherwise, this is strictly advertorial content with passages such as "Plugged In is a resource designed to shine a light on the world of popular entertainment while giving families the essential tools they need to understand, navigate and impact the culture in which they live" and a full-list of non notable editorial stuff. Due to WP:PROMO concerns, a Delete & Redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "delete and redirect" be a useful move? Why would that ever be a useful outcome? "Merge and redirect" by all means, that has (and always has) several advantages over delete and redirect.

Redirecting to a "blind" article with no relevant content confuses readers (but we keep doing this). Merging gives a useful coverage of a topic, like Plugged In, which might be useful but not WP:N-notable. Deleting also makes it impractical to re-use content, either to access itfor re-use, or to credit its authorship as is required. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the current article does not appear to have any content suitable for merging. It largely consists of advertorial description of what it does and a list of non-notable staff. For example:

• Plugged In's web site continues what the magazine did, reviewing movies,^[1] music,^[2] television,^[3] video games,^[4] and books.^[5] It also has a blog^[6] and a weekly email newsletter.^[7]

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then Redirect as there's no need to keep if it's all questionable and then not convincing for independent notability; there's also no guarantee it will be notable in the future. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the consensus indicates that references provided in the article don't contain enough to establish notability. Also WP:FRANKENSTEIN concerns exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCullough

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

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

Deleted in 2007 however it would imaginably not be the same as now thus renominating, my searches are not finding anything actually substantial and the article itself also mirrors this. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to show he is an impactful journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no strong feelings on this one, but looking at the old AfD and the current text, I'm uncertain they're even for the same person. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There do seem to be at least 2 journalists conflated here, one has recently retired from a career as a news anchor in upstate New York [34]. The other appears to be a mid-career journalist at CNBC [35] I have no idea who the journalist in that old AFD was, but searching news archives on this name is tough, it's an extremely common name, there's a prominent Canadian attorney, a guy whose house got hit by a flood in Flroida, another who gets picked up for drunk-and-disorderly, a high school track star, and multiple respectable men in Ireland. There is also, however, an internet newscaster, here's a 2003 news story on him"Salem Communications announced the relocation of Kevin McCullough from WYLL AM1160 in Chicago to be on air in New York, Monday through Friday... WMCA 570AM... The mission of "Kevin McCullough Live from New York" is to be a daily intersection of news and current events through the dialogue of faith, conscience, and country. Along with being a radio talk show host, Kevin McCullough is a syndicated columnist, and is a past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards." There's more, but I was using a password protected archive (Proquest) Thing is, this article seems to have conflated the first 2 journalists. This is going to require more time than I have right now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a micro-stub of an article on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject has enough references to be notable for a stub article, full disclosure I am also the editor who created this article, vote keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - None of what's been listed is actually convincing for his own convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I still don't see sources suggesting individual notability. Yes, the subject is an anchor for a TV channel, but many are and thus he is not necessarily worthy of note. Both the sources and the content in the article are not substantial to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" side has the more persuasive arguments because Geoff has looked at the sources in detail and concluded that they generally do not support the content. His argument has not been rebutted.  Sandstein  15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti cuisine

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

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

The content of this article seems to mislead. The creator of the article has several sock puppet accounts used in promoting Ashanti or Ashantiland usage on Wikipedia over Ghana or Ghanaian. Take a look at the Products section in this very article. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 14:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Ashanti are a major ethnic group in Ghana. Their cuisine should be notable and sources are provided for this article. The problems mentioned in the nomination seem to be real and probably need some kind of arbitration. But deleting a notable topic would not help.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think there could possibly enough in some of the references to satisfy WP:GNG for an article on culture, but not cuisine. I am confused because the article began life in 2012 as a discussion of Akan cuisine and the principal cited sources refer to Akan traditions. Are Akan and Ashanti/Asante one in the same? Further, one source, which was a dead link, turned out to be, when I restored it, just a blog post and definitely not a reliable source. Another source turns out to be a book on Akan customs, but does not mention the foods for which it is cited. The third cited source, on the Akan diaspora, also does not appear to mention the foods for which it is cited in the article. There may be something under all the mush, but it is very hard to see it. Delete and start over with better sources and a bit less "Ashante 'everything'" labels. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Klinefelter XXY

Non-Klinefelter XXY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prior to the main part of the nomination, I should mention the article's recent history. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d removed much of the article's content, then posted on the talk page suggesting the article should be deleted. I have restored the version prior to the IP's edits prior to this nomination as the removed content's (lack of?) usefulness to the encylopedia is central to this discussion. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d may wish to comment here, but if they do not, commentators here should have a look at their talk page comment which outlines a deletion rationale.

On reflection, despite being the AfC editor who approved this 3 years ago, I believe deletion is appropriate here. In the 2014 deletion discussion (no-consensus), I suggested moving to Gender identity and sex chromosome anomalies, which would be broader in scope. However, I now think that if such an article is created it would be better done from scratch rather than being based upon this article.

It seems apparent that this article was created as a content fork for Klinefelter syndrome, advancing a POV that a person with the XXY karyotype does not have Klinefelter syndrome if they do not identify as male. I believe content to this extent was bounced from the Klinefelter syndrome article. There is relevant discussion on Talk:Klinefelter syndrome.

The grounding in reliable sources is quite scant here. Although several papers are cited, it is not apparent that "non-Klinefelter XXY" is widely considered as a status for XXY persons (specifically SRY-positive XXY persons). This article gives a lot of weight to the "non-binary" gender category, I do not believe this weight is justified.

Overall, there's no evidence that XXY individuals identify as female or non-binary any more often than XY persons, and the inherent assertion that such persons having or not having Klinefelter syndrome being dependent on that identity is insufficiently supported. There does not seem to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article on gender identity for XXY persons. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging editors who contributed to the prior (no-consensus) AfD for this article: @Novangelis:, @Trankuility:, @CAWilson52:, @Mikeman67:, @Flyer22:, @Bluerasberry:, @Cirt:. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure I am still not ready to give an opinion about whether to keep or delete it. I gave a quick look. The sources seem fair but I did not read into them and do not know much about this. I will cross-post this to WP:LGBT for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to describe people who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome but don't identify as their given gender. It's thus something that belongs at the article for Klinefelter syndrome and possibly in a section of its own; if it has coverage, but I'm not really finding usage of the term, and there's no sense redirecting "non-Klinefelter" to "Klinefelter." Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/integrate into Klinefelter syndrome Thanks for the ping. My views remain that this article should be deleted with its content appended to a section of the main article for Klinefelter syndrome. The term "Non-Klinefelter XXY" does not appear to be in meaningful use, but the term XXY is very much in use by persons with XXY sex chromosomes, and to some of those persons it avoids the male-specific connotations of Klinefelter syndrome. Trankuility (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roadside zoos in the United States

List of Roadside zoos in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of significance. Page is almost entirely empty sections and red links. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article for this would be Zoo#Roadside zoos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I mean, there definitely is potential to this article. Most of these zoos are notable and have news-sites cover them, even though nearly all of them are for bad things such as violations and animal deaths. (example 1, example 2) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's what I'm kinda wondering. The "main article," for want of a better term, states that "Since they are sometimes less regulated, roadside zoos are often subject to accusations of neglect and cruelty." So is that the criteria for inclusion? A small zoo gets hit with an accusation of animal cruelty, it's located near a road, and gets added to this list? I wonder if this isn't a case of WP:ATTACK or WP:COAT? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really the criteria. The criteria is that it must be a roadside zoo. It is not the point that they are particularly volatile, however if that makes it notable, that's fine. It still has to be a roadside zoo (this seems confusing, I can reword it if you want) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are only two articles, one of which is already in the List of zoos in the United States. There's no need for two lists at this point. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate list. The topic is already addressed in Zoo#Roadside zoos sufficiently. If the red linked articles are developed into articles on notable subjects, than a list can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and indiscriminate list. Should the zoo be noteworthy enough for inclusion, it may be documented at List of zoos in the United States. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's nothing to merge, and the capital R makes it a useless redirect. We already have a list of zoos in the United States which would encompass this sort of zoo. There's furthermore difficulty in making a distinction, with the two zoos on the list that we do have articles for appearing to be normal zoos (a 60 acre zoo=roadside?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torgoen Swiss

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

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

Previously nominated for deletion by someone else, but closed for lack of input. No in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources - just some passing mentions and press releases. I suspect the article creator has COI. Citobun (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non-notable brand. Mostly trivial coverage: all I see are blogs, press releases and adverts. Sources discussed at the last AfD are insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH> K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the sources are the sort of promotional mentions to be expected. This was aa draft the contributor moved themselves from Draft space; the various diverse articles on small companies from this contributor all need to be examined. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Press releases, trivial quotation by the founder in one article, and advertisements. Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. I agree this brand is not notable. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as this is frankly speedy material, consisting only of PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]