Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 September	4 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of words related to human sex

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fbdave (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in many cases they're also not "words." Seems to me this is an unnecessary and poorly named offshoot to Index of human sexuality articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: No! They are all "words". But see also section has articles. Zafar24Talk 00:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Anal masturbation," to choose the first example, is a compound noun, comprising two words. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BDSM is a word? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fbdave: but wikipedia is a source of information.Zafar24Talk 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Index of human sexuality articles does the job already. Either that or rename this List of any articles whatsoever related to human sex. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, these are not "words," they are articles. If they were just words, NOT DICTIONARY would apply, it seems. Anyway, it is an unnecessary duplication of Index of human sexuality articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion that we should re-direct this List of words related to human sex to Index of human sexuality articles.Zafar24Talk 00:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could work if no one objects and might allow this AFD to be closed quickly. However since I've !voted above, I won't attempt a non-administrative closure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Index of human sexuality articles or delete. Duplicates the other article, as above. I'm kind of skeptical that this title is useful, but I'll go along with a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks to the article creator for trying to organize -- I imagine they simply did not see Index of human sexuality articles. I don't see a need to retain a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Index of human sexuality articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 5 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 speedy delete, criterion G7, request by only contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Katherine Duhon

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 23:35, 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. Seems like notability is barely satisfied given the uncontested arguments by Michig and Richard3120. Article quality appears to be poor enough (per Richard3120) to merit an AfD-cleanup tag and a merger or other rearrangement may be discussed on the talk page (per Michig and Shawn in Montreal). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory and the Island

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

Delete. Minimally sourced and advertorially toned article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are charting on iTunes, which is deprecated by WP:BADCHARTS as not satisfying NMUSIC's "charting hit" criterion (the hit has to be on an IFPI-certified general chart, not on an online music store) and completely unsourced claims of touring (but even the touring criterion explicitly requires there to have been reliable source coverage about the tour, and does not hand a band a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie just because the article states that they toured.) And the "referencing" here consists of a single article in the band's own hometown newspaper which verifies that they exist but fails to support any of the content after the introduction. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is automatically entitled to have an article just because they exist; reliable source coverage verifying one or more specific accomplishments that satisfy NMUSIC is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will source more evidence to backup some of the content here. However, I disagree with your comments regarding iTunes not being valid for charting hit criteria. That is extremely disrespectful to the modern music industry, so I contest that. Please allow me 24 hours to source further online information to backup the touring claims etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google news search really does reveal nothing, from what I can see. As for this "extremely disrespectful" slight to the "modern music industry," somehow I think I will Apple survive, relatively untraumatized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now... Iansheldon79, it's nothing to do with being "disrespectful", and they are not Bearcat's personal comments – as per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BADCHARTS the iTunes chart is not considered a valid chart for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Richard3120 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that evidence that the band toured as support to famous acts does not demonstrate that the band itself is notable – see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And unless you are a completely different Ian Sheldon, you might want to declare your WP:COI as the person who created the band's official website. Richard3120 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't being personal in my disrespectful comment either. It just seems a out of date approach to the music industry, but thats up to Wikipedia I guess. Its got nothing to do with Apple surviving or not so I don't understand that comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because your comment was an example of WP:Drama. The nominator wasn't being "disrespectful" of anything -- he's simply citing official policy when it comes to the relevancy of iTunes as a music chart. And you're not defending the "modern music industry," you are by all appearances using Wikipedia as a platform for a band or artist that you have a business interest in, if I understand correctly. So you're not going to succeed here with hyperbole like that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the case at all Shawn. And no, you are right, I wasn't defending the Modern Music industry. I was making an observation. I have since received some much more constructive and helpful pointers regarding the article, so have been working on them. Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to The Revs. Arguably enough coverage to keep ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), but probably not enough to be said that it can't be included in the Revs article. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michig. I am in the process of yet sourcing more credible information to backup this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Except that they're two different bands. An article on the common denominator -- frontman/songwriter-of-local-soccer anthem -- Rory Gallagher might be the strongest case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Shawn. The reason Rory decided to name the band, Rory and The Island, is because,as you probably already know, there are a number of famous Rory Gallaghers (one of which also was a musician) so it avoids any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have ways to WP:Disambiguate, if the article was kept under this name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, thanks, Would be ideal to keep the name of the band though, as the band isn't just Rory Gallagher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: OK, Mr Sheldon, I think you've convinced me that the article should stay, on account of the no. 11 placing in the Irish Charts of the single "Jimmy's Winning Matches" (the website cited isn't all that great but it's correct, as can be seen on the official Irish Charts archive here) and the mentions in Hot Press magazine like this album review, although the first source you cite doesn't say anything about "a triumphant return" or give a rating for the album. Both this and the Revs article need a lot of clearing up and better sourcing, though. Richard3120 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Richard, I'll see if I can find anything else relating to the claim of the Triumphant Return comment. Appreciate your time looking at this article for me, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansheldon79 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 6 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackbirds (German band)

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

The Band in question in the article, The Blackbirds, does not meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines for music in WP:MUSIC. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.theblackbirds.de/story.html In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They seem notable enough, taking into account that an older group like this will have a bigger presence in print than online. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They meet WP:MUSIC criteria 5: 2 albums, 5 singles The Steve 00:15, 7 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 redirect to Avicii. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True Tour

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

Not notable, nor referenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's nothing here. Barring a flurry of RSes showing this tour to be notable as a tour, redirect to Avicii to forestall recreation - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avicii, and I would suggest doing the same for Stories World Tour. Article creator was blocked indefinitely last year, and had a history of creating tour date lists like this. I believe the few attendance/revenue numbers were taken from the Billboard.biz website (for example, see entry number 10 here for the Perth show), but without numbers for every show, putting a total at the bottom is meaningless. And without any figures and no text all we have is a list of dates, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR for non-notable tours like this one. I've found a review of Sydney on 25 January 2014, Perth on 27 January, and London on 21 February... but then again pretty much every tour by every artist gets reviewed somewhere or other and we don't have an article on those tours unless there's some exceptional notability, and there's nothing to show that this tour was anything exceptional. Possibly the most notable aspect of the tour was that some attendees were hospitalised after a couple of concerts [7],[8] but that's not what this article should be focusing on. It isn't even any use as an unsourced list, because it's not a complete list of dates for the tour – there are many missing, such as the show in Uncasville, CT on 27 June, for example: [9] and [10]. So really this serves no purpose as a stand-alone article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:26, 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 merge to The Good Buy Girls. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Gray

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

Gray is a non-notable broadcast journalist in a local market who happens to have been Miss Alabama USA at some point in the past, also not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Considering she has won two beauty pagents, starred in a national reality show and now a television journalist I think there is merit for notability and keeping the article, although more sources and a rewrite is needed. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -- not yet notable as a TV reporter. I cannot locate RS coverage to confirm notability. Miss Alabama USA title is BIO1E and does not count towards notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(addend: Possibly) Redirect to Miss Alabama USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2002 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would object to that, as her name could also redirect to The Good Buy Girls given she is a co-star of the show. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree there is not enough to establish notability. Her national TV show was cancelled after the first four episodes were aired, so this is not significant. The only pagents she won were state level. Would be ok with redirect except both possibly targets are equally minor. Not sure if there is a precedent for this. Perhaps redirect to one and then take it to RFD. Note there's also a redirect at Tara Tucker. MB 15:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Watkins, Mia (2013-06-04). "Birmingham's Tara Gray hopes to revitalize home shopping in TLC's "The Good Buy Girls"". The Birmingham News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
2. Langhorne, Daniel (2013-06-27). "Tara Brooks and Brook Roberts star in the show "The Good Buy Girls" on TLC". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
3. Kaplan, Donn (2013-06-04). "'The Good Buy Girls': Life at a shopping network". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
4. Shimomura, Janine (2011-06-02). "Charity Seeks Tornado Relief Donations from L.A. Residents". Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
5. Langhorne, Daniel (2013-07-18). ""Good Buy Girls" say goodbye to TLC". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tara Gray to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My second choice after retention is to merge/redirect to The Good Buy Girls. I recommend a redirect to The Good Buy Girls over Miss Alabama USA for two reasons:
1. The sources are primarily about her involvement in The Good Buy Girls.
2. Because Tara Gray is one of the starring characters in The Good Buy Girls, it would not be undue weight to merge biographical material about her there. It would be undue weight to merge her article to Miss Alabama USA since there are numerous people who have been Miss Alabama USA.
Cunard (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Good Buy Girls seems like a good solution, since the sources presented are about the subject's involvement in the show. Useful content can be merged from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 11 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Yisrael

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

The subject of this article has contacted OTRS to request the article's deletion based on grounds of notability and due to privacy issues. The given references largely are not independent coverage but organizations he is affiliated with; one of the few third-party source, classiquenews.com, has just some routine events coverage. That leaves the article with this source, basically. One good source is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Huon (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Joel.Miles925 17:15, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of War (Mobile Strategy Game)

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

Fails WP:NGAMES. Ueutyi (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Looks like a pure advertisement to me, and yes, it does fail WP:NGAMES. Joel.Miles925 17:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another poor quality Mobile Strike clone out of many and an incredible WP:GAMEGUIDE violation. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 4 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VList

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two problems:

The first one, more formal as far as wikipedia is concerned: there is a lack of notability. There is a single source: the article which introduces VList.
And the real problem I have with this page, the article is not very convincing. As stated in february by Qwertyus (talk · contribs) in the discussion page, this article is a work in progress. And most statement given in the wikipedia article comes from the original article. But, contrary to what is usually done in algoritmhic science, the original author did not prove what it states. He only stated that, with his test, it works. Without even giving the details of its test. Those tests are not replicated by other scientist, contrary to what science usually ask for. And those facts are not even stated on the wikipedia pages, which is written as if everything is effectively true without any doubt. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk)
Delete - fails WP:GNG Joel.Miles925 17:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although not every subject needs notoriety, it does need notability. Someone besides the one promoting the subject in particular. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault, I meant notability and not notoriety. (Even if I must confess my english is not good enough to understand the distinction between those words) Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a number of implementations of this algorithm, but those don't prove notability. I can't find any coverage of this specific algorithm, so I guess it fails WP:GNG. (Shame, too - it looks like a great algorithm.) Enterprisey (talk!) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Enterprisey (talk · contribs): it look likes if you believe what the paper states. But you can easily find an example of a sequence of operation which generates a state where random access time is linear and not constant: add 2 elements, remove 1, repeat. Indeed, this algorithm would create a new array each time. Note however that, on wikipedia standard, as far as I know, the previous statement is original research.

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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Fox Cabane

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

The author of a single book is not notable separately from the book. We normally have a choice of making the article on the book or the author. At this point, I think the book is the more notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this 2009 WSJ article about the subject, an interview of her at the Economist from 2012, a Business Insider interview also from 2012, and a bunch of other stuff, pretty quickly. It seems that there's enough coverage from independent reliable sources over a long period of time that establishes notability. The previous nomination actually makes the case for keeping much better than I ever could. LAroboGuy (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep Seems like a clear keep per the above, Sadads (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re nom's reasoning - "The author of a single book is not notable separately from the book.", of course a (very) notable exception (untill recently) is Harper Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, large number of sources available as i set out in the previous afd, not all of which only review here book, but do discuss the author, who is also known for her motivational work. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 6 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 delete. The only claim to notability appears to be unsupported by sources and hasn't convinced anyone else, it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pierce Farrell

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Interesting case of WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGEBLP that seems to fail our WP:BIO guildelines for notability. He founded a spirituality-based alternative medicine clinic, but he's hardly the only person to do so and his clinic does not seem to have received more notice than any other randomly chosen alternative medicine clinic in the US. He does not seem to be notable per WP:AUTHOR either. jps (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fringe author and businessman; no evidence of notability even as a crank presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator, not an encyclopedic biographical subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note there are currently 39 references in this article. I checked them: 5 are self published (1, 5, 6, 37, 39), 25 are online works by other people or organisation, where Farrell is not mentioned in the reference (2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36), 3 are offline and not verifiable (4, 10, 30) and 6 are dead links (11, 14, 15, 16, 32, 38). There is no coverage in reliable sources that would help establish notability as per WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are not necessarily unverifiable, but I note that 4 was produced by the subject and 30 written by him, so, even if a copy was available, they wouldn't count towards notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above, and thanks to Drchriswilliams for the reference check - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets notability, having served as an advisor to multiple United Nations NGO working groups. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear case of WP:REFBOMBing, a kind of gaming of the system that makes it very hard work for anyone to give a reasoned argument for deletion. In such a case I think that it's encumbent on anyone seeking to defend the article to identify three or four of the sources that are independent and reliable and have significant coverage of the subject. Is anyone prepared to step up to the mark? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how the process works? I would have thought the burden of work would have been on those arguing for removal of the article. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But anyone who has supported keeping must already have identified some independent reliable sources with significant coverage in order to come to that opinion, so why not share them and save the rest of us from having to wade through the junk? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a ransom sample of the references on this article and none of them seemed to offer any significant coverage of this topic. I'd be prepared to reconsider this if we could find at least two reliable sources which substantially deal with this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after resume padding is pruned this appears not to be a notable quack. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: created by a user who edited nothing else (and may be connected to the subject) with lots of references which give the article a veneer of legitimacy until you click on a few and realize they don't support what is asserted. Jonathunder (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable advocate of fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails BIO and is fraudulent, nodding to Drchriswilliams for the reference check. This needs TNT at minimum. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 6 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tinucci

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

The article was written by its subject and reads link anything but encyclopedic article. Notability has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~(but not strongly)~~ — it's certainly not a good encyclopaedia article as-is. The subject might possibly have some notability, but it's not convincingly established at present. If notability is properly established, then keep with a major cleanup. I'm mostly just voting because I stumbled across it in project space and moved it out so that it would get appropriate attention (either deleted or turned into a reasonable article). Murph9000 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands BLP of minor without RSes - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP without significant coverage in RS. WP:TOOSOON MB 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete This runs afoul of very many inclusion guidelines. 1st it has zero reliable, independent sources. 3 listings are to the subjects own website, which is clearly not indepdent. The other is to IMDb, which is not reliable based on its methods of editing, and also since it has the stated aim of covering as much as possible, while Wikipedia seeks to limit to those subjects that have recieved some level of coverage, it is not a good sign of coverage, only that the person has acted. Next as an autobiography it totally violates the intent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a boosterism site where people can put up articles to boost their career. That is what the WHo's Who publications and Linkedin are for. Wikipedia is meant to be a very comprehensive encyclopedia drawing from reliable, secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO and unsourced BLP. Strictly a vanity page with no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 04:16, 10 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Lenti

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

WP:TOOSOON. No anime conventions. No notable news articles with secondary source coverage on her. She has a role in One Piece but her name is not mentioned on List of One Piece characters; her character name is buried in Impel Down, so that implies recurring/supporting. She has one on Attack on Titan: Junior High but it's way down on the list. So these are not significant starring roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main argument here is that she has parts in mayor notable Anime's and FUNimation productions. Her parts are listed on Wikipedia pages of those series. These anime's are so popular one could say there are no small parts in it. She has been at conventions, for example she was a voice-over judge at AKON (Oldest Continually Running Anime-Based Convention in North America) [[11]]. She was also part of Voice for Reading along side famous voice actors Dave Fennoy, Yuri Lowenthal and others [[12]]. A request for more sources seems more suiting then a request for deletion. – User talk:HM Wilburt 20:00 3 September 2016 (UTC)

another source about the One Piece cast: One Piece’ Season 7 Voyage 4: English Dub Cast Unveiled. User talk:HM Wilburt 01:00 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no disputing that One Piece is a major production, however, her role is a minor recurring character as described above. So that doesn't meet WP:ENT. The podcast is merely a cast announcement. This doesn't show that they are notable or provide any unique coverage of her work. As for A-Kon, her profile there implies local voice actor. Libra in Fairy Tail is a minor recurring character. Also there's no Wikipedia-level notability for the Voices for Reading project. There is for Reach Out and Read. Still TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments are too subjective. I don't see that her profile implies local talent at AKON, it is just how you read into it. She was also a specialguest at TexanCon, has a big recurring role in the new anime RIO. She is put in the same bracket as Dave Fennoy, Tara Platt and Yuri Lowenthall in Voices For Reading. Your current arguements to delete are too subjective. By this way of thinking we should delete all of the following voice actors as well: Mike McFarland, Travis Willingham, J. Michael Tatum, Jeremy Inman, Brina Palencia. Still Keep – User talk:HM Wilburt 23:51 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ENT says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I don't see how trying to follow that is subjective. When she's not listed as the guest of honor in A-Kon 28 [13], but as a judge for their contest? Can you bring a newspaper article that shows this is important? Her role in Rio as the primary antagonist may be okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding: She was a specialguest at Texancon. Your argument is, recurring/supporting roles are not significant, even in massively popular anime's. As for WP:ENT "significant roles" is subjective. Is Greedo a significant role in Star Wars? Some would argue yes others no. Maybe WP:ENT should define significant. User talk:HM Wilburt 00:16 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete There is a source here with her photo. Clearly she is a professional voice actor; problem is, there's not much written about voice actors, unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston.com's a good find, unfortunately the article isn't about Lenti, and only uses her picture and brief description to head the article. Perhaps other Boston.com articles might focus on her? I was hoping there would be more of a writeup like with this one which covers a bunch of the voice actors in detail. Or this one for Vic Mignogna: [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Handful of sources that would not meet notability. Nothing on ANN aside from roles, and those are few at this point. Esw01407 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable voice actress with inadequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject page updated. Review please. User talk:HM Wilburt 00:00 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not finding anything added that shows notability. Remain with delete. Esw01407 (talk) 01:17, 6 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Mari

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

Mari was Miss World America, but there is no indication that this is a competition of the level to make the winner notable. This article was previously made a redirect, but that was back before she won the most recent title. The sources are a combination of not being reliable, being extremely local and being passing references, in some cases all three at once. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as won a national competition not just a state one, coverage such as Philstar and Vanity Fair seems to be reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong keep and yet another bad faith nom. Audra is a former Miss Teen USA and Miss USA contestant, won the national Miss World America title and will represent the US at Miss World. If the article needs work so be it but there is no question as to notability. PageantUpdater (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. p b p 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The principal of "assume good faith" has clearly been violated by calling this a "bad faith nomination." It is a good faith nomination built around general Wikipedia principals such as competitors in yourh competitions such as in sports are not as notable as competitors as adults. I see no reason this same principal should not apply to beauty pageants. There is clearly no ground to speedy keep this article because there is no special notability guideline to save it. Beyond this the claim that all national winners arw notable does not work with so many beauty pageants out there. It is also the type of claim without evidene that got us the beauty pageant winner mess to start with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me how youth competitions vs adult competitions is relevant here when she is known for benign first runner-up to one of the two most notable adult competitions in the US and will be representing the US at one of the two most notable adult international pageants? Again, you're being disingenuous. PageantUpdater (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: For saying this is built around "general Wikipedia principals" (principles?), it sure doesn't pay a lot of attention to GNG. There doesn't need to be a specific notability guideline saying this is notable, because there's enough source material in this article to pass GNG (even if you ignore the pageant fansites), and there are even more sources available that aren't in the article. As noted on your talk page (where another editor takes issue with this AfD spree), you've nominated ~30 articles for deletion in the past week. For comparison, some people consider me a deletionist, and I've nominated ~30 articles since January 2015. Each of them contains a similar nomination affirming your blanket belief that low-level beauty pageant winners are non-notable. Many of them suggest a lack of examining the sources already in the article, and certainly any checks for additional sources. Having so many shoddy AfDs is what's caused PageantUpdater and I (and probably others) to lose the ability to assume good faith with you. p b p 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly @Purplebackpack89:. When there are nominations describing Miss America contestants as Miss USA contestants, describing a contestant as coming from Georgia when they were from another state entirely, and nominations for clearly notable people on the basis of something else entirely it is hard to stay patient and assume good faith. I don't enjoy accusing people of acting in bad faith but there's something clearly not right here. Maybe it's just a case of too many nominations too quickly but surely the so called reasonable person could figure out this was too much at once? There are ~70 nominated by him currently open and many more recently closed. Perhaps slowing down & paying more attention would be helpful. PageantUpdater (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been given a copy edit with improved referencing. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The assumed notability here is hiding behind crap sources. Vanity Fair, Yahoo, 'Seventeen', TV zines and local press is all they amount to: Nothing to suggest WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Delete -- still a WP:PSEUDO biography based on WP:BIO1E. The coverage is rather trivial and insufficient to write a balanced biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how is (a) Winning Miss ND Teen USA (b) Plus a year's reign, (c) Competing & placing 1RU at Miss Teen USA, (d) Winning Miss ND USA (e) Plus a year's reign (f) Competing and placing 1RU at Miss USA (g) Competing & Winning Miss World America (h) Competing in one of the two most important international beauty pageants ... "one event". --- PageantUpdater (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @K.e.coffman: I'm with PageantUpdater on this. You can't trot out WP:BIO1E for somebody who's notable for three events. Also, @Lourdes: why was this article relisted on Saturday, even though only the nominator had voted keep, and disruptively so? p b p 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - [15] Lourdes 13:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with multiple events, I'm not convinced that they in combination rise to the level of encyclopedia notability (if you only have zeros to add up, you still end up with zero). Wikipedia requires a balanced biography, which is reasonably comprehensive. What's in the article is a WP:WEBHOST content of Ms Mari's pageant wins. Like Muffled, I'm not seeing WP:PERSISTENCE and I thus advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has been in the court of 5 different competitions and has won four. The fact that K.e.coffman cited WP:BIO1E in ignorance of this fact should negate his ivote due to his inability to read. More likely, as many who have been nominating and voting on articles about this subject, it is prejudice against the subject and uninformed, drive-by reflex in the voting. I also added a source for modeling, a CBS affiliate. Vanity Faire and Seventeen are major distribution magazines and exactly the type of sources you would expect for this kind of subject. While she is on the dean's list at North Dakota State, it is a bit much to expect to see her mentioned in the Harvard Review or NEJM. I added the New York Daily News. Plenty more where that came from so this clearly meets WP:GNG. Trackinfo (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Easily notable for several events, has notable sources, will compete in the largest pageant in the world. Don't know why this'd even be nominated. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re above "general Wikipedia principals such as competitors in yourh competitions such as in sports are not as notable as competitors as adults.", i do not see this articulated at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (sports) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, indeed WP:SPORTCRIT is almost word for word WP:GNG, which also does not preclude "youth competitions", if indeed this is the case why don't notability guidelines/policies even have footnotes to that affect? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:51, 9 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 no consensus. After discounting the several frivolous unsigned opinions, I get the impression that editors disagree in good faith about whether the level of sourcing is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 18:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Southern

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable subject. First, she does not meet the general notability guidelines because the sources are either self-published (Twitter, The Rebel), non-reliable (The Daily Dot, Breitbart News Network), or covering only one event (The National Post, Yahoo; for the urine incident). Additionally, she does not meet the notability criteria for politicians where #1 requires a sub-national or larger office, #2 requires significant coverage, and #3 explicitly notes that being an "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and the Election Canada and libertarian.ca cites don't help her meet the primary notability criteria because the former is just a database on all candidates, while the latter is not an independent source. Notability requires independent in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Considering that she is still a student at university, I'd say it is still too soon. Opencooper (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Subject is notable, has enough references and media coverage, full disclosure, I am also the author of this article. Vote keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The company she works for is considered to meet notability criteria for Wikipedia, and she appears to be one of the main contributors to the company. The article has mentions in third-party sources (Yahoo News, Daily Mail and National Post). A quick search shows she has lot of presence on the internet (videos with hundreds of thousands of views). And Breitbart, regardless of whether we consider it a reliable source or not, is certainly a notable one given their traffic and readership numbers (and their political influence, which is being much reported about in the media). Note that the Daily Mail is one of the most highly read media outlets in the world, while an editor of Breitbart is currently a campaign manager of the Republican presidential candidate (so it is notable coverage). Avaya1 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a publication may be notable does not hand an automatic notability pass to every individual contributor to that publication; she has to be the subject, as a standalone topic in her own right, of enough media coverage about her contributions to that publication to pass WP:GNG, and does not get to have an article just because her contributions to that publication provide primary source verification that she's a contributor to it. And neither does a person get a Wikipedia article on the basis of how many people viewed or clicked "like" on a piece of social media content — even people for whom being a creator of social media content is the notability claim in and of itself still only get articles if reliable source coverage is available about their creation of social media content, and do not get to keep poorly sourced articles just because they happen to have an impressive-sounding hit count. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Comrade Stalin has taught us that enemies of the people must be purged from the historical record. All photos of her must be edited to have her removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.180 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about whether anybody agrees or disagrees with her politically; a person with properly demonstrated and properly substantiated notability gets an article on here regardless of whether any individual user likes or dislikes them, and a person whose notability is not properly demonstrated or properly referenced does not get an article on here regardless of what any individual user thinks of them. We keep articles about people who satisfy certain specific objective standards of public interest, and certain specific objective standards of referenceability — we do not keep articles about every single person who can be simply verified as existing, because we're not a free advertising platform. And not having a Wikipedia article does not constitute being "purged from the historical record", either, because Wikipedia is not the sum total of "the historical record". Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Seems fairly cut and dry deletion to me, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally" [16]. This is just someone with a relatively minor social media presence in particular social circles. References are not up to standard, and half the article is devoted to an election where the subject recieved an insignificant amount of votes. Musa acuminata (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per above. She is completely un-notable. The sources are inadequate, either they are not reliable or only mention her trivially in passing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is a strong claim of notability under Wikipedia's inclusion standards for her areas of activity, the sourcing is parked almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few sources that do count as reliable ones are still disqualified because either (a) she's the author of the content, and thus it's still a primary source, or (b) it's not covering her in a context that confers notability ("banned from a Facebook group", for instance, is not a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article.) She might accrue more genuine notability in the future, but nothing written or sourced here now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note to both sides that prefacing your vote with "strong" will not change how they are interpreted, nor is this a vote. The closing admin will weigh the arguments based on policy, so please try to adhere arguments to our actual notability guidelines. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve references. There's substantial Google hits regarding the subject of the article, but it needs improvement with citations. — Confession0791 ^talk 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." Your vote would be substantially bolstered by sharing these usable and reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like Wikipedia a lot for information like this. I can not understand why this information should be removed. It sounds rather balanced too. I am from Europe, I cannot get information about her easily for she is not that famous in Europe. So I do not understand why her lemma should be removed. I liked it a lot to read some basic information about her. And I really hope that "brother Stalin" was meant ironically. For I am very sure Stalin would have hated wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobril (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Theobril (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. She has quite a few videos on youtube as a correspondent for The Rebel web site. The fact that she was defeated in an election with a negligible number of voters is irrelevant. What IS relevant is her notoriety. Judging from her abilities on youtube, she will become more and more visible and well known. The fact that people don't agree with her views is no reason to suppress information about her. Wikipedia is the natural place for people to investigate people they see in other places on the web--and this includes Lauren Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamlukman (talk • contribs)
This account is less than a month old. — Mamlukman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Mamlukman: That does not mean she is notable, but she has a good YouTube channel. Please read WP:LISTBIO Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained above, this has nothing to do with liking or not liking, or agreeing or disagreeing with, her views — Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether anybody approves of a person's ideology or not, but are based solely on whether the subject has or has not received a certain specific type of reliable source coverage about her doing what she does. The type of RS coverage it takes to qualify for a Wikipedia article has not been shown here, and a person does not get exempted from having to have that type of coverage just because they have a YouTube channel. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Neptune's Trident. — Richard BB 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All Neptune said was "has enough references and media coverage" while my nomination gave reasons for why that doesn't apply. Either show why my statements were wrong or highlight these valid references. However, saying "strong keep" per another user is not recommended, since "the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." It's also worrying that you chose to "strong" vote meaning that you didn't read the previous discussion or ignored it. Opencooper (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are some reliable sources to point towards notability, but not enough. Right now the piss-throwing incident is the only thing that has gotten RS coverage, but that would fall under WP:BLP1E. In a few years there's a good chance that she'll qualify, but the coverage isn't there yet. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: If you think it's too soon then do you propose a move to the draftspace? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would not have a problem with this. At this point, there's not enough for a mainspace article though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her simply because people want to repress information about her. Lauren is a well spoken intelligent person that people when they hear her will want to look for more information about her. Blocking people with opposing views is the worst thing that can happen in a free and open society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.245.178 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — 184.60.245.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@184.60.245.178: Not the criteria for keeping or deleting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is trying to "repress" or "block" information about her — Wikipedia has specific inclusion criteria (specific quantifiable achievements, a specific minimum volume and quality of reliable source coverage, etc.) that must be met for an article on here to become earned, and evidence has not been shown that she meets any of those criteria. We are not a place where a person is entitled to have an article for publicity purposes just because she exists, nor are we a place where an article's retention or deletion has anything to do with anybody's ideology. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, if there is any evidence that this deletion proposal is ideologically driven, then please present it. Otherwise your assertion is null. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's become quite notable, even her minor journalistic projects are covered by the media, and she regularly appears as a guest on certain Canadian cable news programs.—wing gundam 09:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in the media as a commentator on other subjects does not exempt a person from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — but people still keep failing to show the degree of media coverage about her that it takes, and are still relying on the "she's notable because I say she is" school of non-policy non-argument. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This young woman is a prolific and courageous Libertarian journalist and commentator. This is notwithstanding her previous, unsuccessful foray into Canadian politics. Consistent with the majority of Canadians (76%) http://angusreid.org/political-correctness/ she does not support political correctness, which no doubt makes her a valid target for Progressive ideologues. Therefore, despite the rationalizations above (i.e., that this is not an witchhunt), it is difficult to dismiss the coincidence between her commentary regarding the SJW who aggressed and bullied the Lyft driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LdmBqJLYcU and these precipituous, and despicable, efforts to censor her (including reported suspension of her YouTube channel and the push to banish her to the Wikipedia memory hole). Notably, on the former, she apparently has > 87,000 followers and > 3.3 MILLION views, despite having been posting there for only 16 months. As well, she is a regularly-scheduled contributor http://www.therebel.media/stand_off_with_lauren_southern?page=1 on TheRebel.media, with a total of 13 broadcasts since 1 March 2016. TheRebel.media is a very popular Canadian Conservative news website (another reason marking Ms. Southern as a target) ranked 1305th in Canada http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/therebel.media and number one in Canadian news and media websites http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Regional/North_America/Canada/Society_and_Culture/Politics/News_and_Media. 68.149.58.134 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — 68.149.58.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For the last time: Wikipedia does not keep or delete articles for ideological reasons. We keep or delete articles on the basis of whether or not the topic is the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her, in media independent of her own paycheque provider, to verify that she has objectively accomplished some specific marker of notability. Regardless of her ideological leanings being left or right or moderate or entirely apolitical, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because of an impressive hit count on social media. The question of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not is based on whether or not third parties are writing and publishing content about her doing something noteworthy — people do not get to game our inclusion rules by self-publishing their own YouTube videos. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the consensus before relisting, due to the lack of existence of independent reliable sources. Why on Earth was this relisted? There were five people giving valid reasons for deletion and none giving valid reasons for keeping. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The section "Activities" reads like a tabloid; she's not yet done anything significant to warrant an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — If this article is deleted, I propose it be redirected to The Rebel Media. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most of the references are not independent and should be removed, and that the article needs a lot of work. However, on the subject of notability, I have found additional sources that I think just pushes it over the bar:

Breitbarth News - one is referenced in the article and she is covered in several other BNN articles. Some may not consider Breitbarth a RS but I do.
Dailymail.com, already referenced in article. (same as above)
Wall Street Journal, already referenced in article. Clearly a RS, but pay site and I can't tell if it is non-trivial.
Foxnews on the Facebook censorship [[17]]
Michigan Review, although regional it is independent, reliable, and in-depth [[18]]
Gazette (Colorado Springs) coverage of twitter controversy: [[19]]
Another smaller publication: [[20]]
A mention on CNN: [[21]]
A mention on Pittsburgh Post Gazette: [[22]]
Coverage on a Canadian news site: [[23]]

I think that collectively there is enough here.MB 19:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through the list, besides the ones already in the article since those were already covered:

The WSJ article can be read here. All it does is mention a headline with her name in it. That's all.
The Fox News article is just a top-10 listicle and does not cover her or the censorship in depth
The Michigan Review is a campus newspaper, not what I would call a RS. Anyway, the source is about a talk she gave and just reiterates her points. It's just rehashing a self-given talk and not really about the subject herself.
The Gazette might be usable but it merely discusses some small twitter drama. Certainly nothing to hinge notability on since it only discusses a small event. (The general notability guidelines requires in depth coverage by multiple sources)
The other St. Alvert Gazette piece is by "a local student and aspiring writer" in the opinions column.
The CNN and Pittsburgh Post Gazette links merely mentions her in passing. The latter literally just mentions her name.
The Canadian source is already in the article and was part of the single urine incident. Again, notability does not come from one event.

Based on your sources I still don't think she Creative Loafingis notable. Notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Based on these sources we could mention the subject as part of some small events but to say she is generally notable would require more independent focus on her rather than some stuff she says covered in local newspapers. This is a good example of why Google hits can be misleading: although it looks like she's covered everywhere, what we could actually say about her in reliable sources would be extremely limited and that is doubly so for statements for biographies of living people which especially require quality sources. Opencooper (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are so many hits it is time consuming to sort through them. I want to "disclose" that I have never heard of her before I saw this AFD and got involved because the discussion was so strongly polarized between strong keep and strong delete. I have found more coverage:

UK coverage on SKY News broadcast: [[24]]
Another internet news outlet: [[25]]
Dailywire: [[26]]
another UK news site: [[27]]

I see coverage in multiple countries (US, Canada, UK) for over a year on several different issues (urine incident, rape culture protest, Facebook censorship, Sky News comments). I may have missed more while discarding all the other hits from unreliable blogs of every type as well as her own reporting on therebel. It would certainly help the keep argument if there were more in-depth sources, but I still think there is enough here based on quantity of independent reliable sources. MB 03:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is it a coincidence that the effort to delete her Wikipedia entry started on August 26, right after Hillary's speech on the Alt Right? This is a transparent effort to suppresCreative Loafings a well-known Alt Right voice, couched to fit under Wikipedia's rules regarding notability. An effort to indirectly discredit the Alt Right as fringe, non-notable, and illegitimate. Orwellian bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.180 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Southern neither identifies as, nor is considered to be alt-right. — Confession0791 ^talk 05:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of how to make a valid argument for keeping (which may or may not be a sound argument - I haven't yet checked the sources) see MB's posts above. Unfounded accusations of conspiracy theories can only serve to discredit your case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confession0791 above asked if there's evidence that the deletion proposal is ideologically driven: "Anon, if there is any evidence that this deletion proposal is ideologically driven, then please present it." The precise timing of the proposal is circumstantial evidence that it is ideologically driven. The proposal surfaced right after Hillary's speech, which was influential. No conspiracy is required. You can't really expect a smoking gun confession here, and circumstantial evidence is still evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8880:1800:202E:2E8F:52E5:8665 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such circumstantial evidence holds no water in a rational discussion, which we are supposed to be having here. The issue is whether Southern meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, not your assumptions of bad faith about other editors. As I said before, you are only discrediting your case by making such statements rather than bringing potential sources to our attention as MB has done above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep To keep things short, Southern is a prolific Libertarian activist within Canada, especially on the west coast. She has been featured on many domestic and International media outlets (recently Sky News for example, though CBC, National Post, Yahoo, Fox News are just some examples I can think of off the top of my head) and is influential in her field, at least in Canada. Though the article needs improvements, I would argue she does meet notability. I don't see how she would not meet notability guidelines while a lesser known person such as Brian Lilley does.Spilia4 (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough media coverage about her to pass WP:GNG, not by simply verifying the existence of her appearances in media as a pundit speaking about other subjects. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. No rationale has been giving for keep that mentions how she is notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's the most well-known candidate for her party (arguably more than even the party's leader, she has 50x the Twitter followers than him and he's notable enough for a Wiki entry), has her own show on a news outlet considered notable enough for an entry and is featured in several RS publications. She has over 120k followers of her verified Twitter account and almost 60k followers of her Facebook page. She has been the subject of a few viral videos and made appearances on the BBC & Skynews. --TheTruthiness (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware neither follower count or verification status are considered adequate criteria for being considered notable enough to have an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, notability is not inherited. Opencooper (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not only has she appeared on multiple media outlets internationally, she's also a political figure, having run to office. -- Evans1982 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having run for office does not automatically make one notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as I explained in my nomination. Opencooper (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:MILL. The subject is a 21 year old college student at a small and obscure "college" who writes a blog for a small media company north of the United States border. Provincial and run of the mill doesn't begin to describe her. Bad things happen to her and people around her when she violates good manners and others' personal body space. So what? She received a little over 500 votes in her only election, about one percent of the total, and about 400 votes more than I had in my last election. Again, so what? The sourcing truly, utterly stinks like a dead moose. A tweet of hers was once quoted by the Washington Post. So what? It's so good to be reminded that White privilege is not restricted to the middle class, males, straight females, or ugly Americans. For good effect, salt this one, please, closing admin; "you are our only hope." Bearian (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is an important libertarian activist who has received enough media coverage for an article. I wouldnt consider Rebel Media to be a small media company, but I digress. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:02, 12 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico Morais - Football Coach

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

A minor coach with Leyton Orient FC. Refs show that he exists but very little else. No evidence of any notability which is not surprising for a young coach at the start of his career. Fails WP:GNG and just too early in his career for an article here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not managed a team in a WP:FPL or in a senior international match. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of relevant policies. And what the heck is a Lead Foundation Phase coach, anyway......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a notable coach. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:44, 10 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 merge to Elf deities. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aerdrie Faenya

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article seems to say it got detailed coverage in numerous sources. -GRuban (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all primary sources, so they do nothing in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Elf deities as a better merge target.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to elf deities, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 7 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video gaming in Malaysia

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable by itself. A quick Google search brings up very little results; no notable Malaysian developed video games or reports on Malaysian video game culture. The source currently used is a sales report, available for €1750,-. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources available online through a quick search to show that the topic area is notable and being reported on: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination, thanks to @Patar knight excellent find! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:40, 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. Clear consensus that the subject passes the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Badrudduja

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

Non-notable social activist and freedom fighter. Doesn't have much coverage to have an own article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Member of National and State Assembly of India also mayor of Kolkata. FD: I created the article.-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NPOL, Badrudduja was a member of the 3rd and 4th Lok Sabha: [36]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject was popular but not enough coverage / notability.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article definitely needs improvement, but a person who can be properly verified as having served in a state assembly and a national legislature, and as mayor of a major metropolitan city, cleanly passes WP:NPOL and is thus a candidate for the maintenance queue rather than the deletion queue. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per details provided by Biwom (talk · contribs) - Jethwarp (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Already clearly met it when nominated. Please be more careful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 7 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiifi Fiavi Kwetey

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

Reason Sam Okrah (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced bio of a notable politician from Ghana. Not a good-faith AfD nomination. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly George

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

Compared to some beauty pageant winners, we actually have a fairly substantial article on George, but it is not enough to indicate she is notable. Winning Miss Arkansas USA is not enough on its own to make someone notable. George's military career falls far below the notability level for military personnel. Her braodcasting career falls well below the notability level for braodcasters. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Miss Arkansas USA, which apparently is what she is most known; otherwise, not seeing notability for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I advocate deletion in this case, as a redirect would "define" Ms George's career and life accomplishments as strictly a pageant winner. She also had a career in the military and TV. None of these make her individually notable, but I find the focus of the redirect to be to the pageant somewhat demeaning. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per request on my talk page SST flyer 11:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 11:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per sources already in article such as this in-depth and this in-depth but there's not much else.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Tomwsulcer and references added today --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the sources presented are insufficient, IMO. The first one is mostly commentary, relating to Ms Geoge's win from various people (routine coverage):

"You have to be a good role model in the Air Force and as Miss Arkansas USA," she said. "The key is to embody all the qualities of a healthy lifestyle and be a good role model and represent yourself and the state well." Lieutenant George said winning is important because "this breaks stereotypes about women in pageants and women in the military." "It's such an honor for her to have won," said Jeff Gilliam, Miss Arkansas USA production director and emcee. "She represents the state and our nation and this is as much of an honor for us as it is for her."

The second article is slightly better, but it's a local news outlet, so I don't feel it establishes notability either, nor in combination with what's already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me towards the policy that discounts local news outlets? I've searched WP:RS and WP:BIO with no luck. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being familiar with the likes of the Steling Heights Sentry I would be hard pressed to convince many of these free circulation papers would pass any guidelines on being a reliable source. One possible way that a person can be shown to be a notable academic is if they have been quoted as an expert in the news media, but the guidelines explicitly disallows local news media. Purplebackpack for one has attacked articles on buildings as only being sourced to local media, although the specific case was a building in Medford, Oregon covered by media in Portland, Oregon, which other people correctly argued is not a case of local coverage at all. We may need to have better guidelines on this, but I still think even the Macomb Daily having an article entitled "local writer gets their vampire novel published" (I could be off on the title, but that was the subject of the article, it came from about 20 years ago) should not count as a source worth establishing the notability of the subject. Of course, being familiar as I am with the Macomb Daily I am hesitant in claiming that any article originating from the Macomb Daily staff should count as a source that could establish notability. There may be some exceptions, but I know the article I mentioned should never count towards the notability of its subject (whose name I have also forgotten in the ensuing 20 years, but I think I actually forgot it 10 minutes after seeing the article). I have to admit I have no idea how to start a discussion on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time as per evidence from reliable sources (WP:N nutshell). The TV-anchor career alone does this, so if someone wants to merge there are multiple targets, but keeping this standalone seems to be the most practical. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per unscintillating. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above: "attention of the world at large" does not seem to apply since the coverage is mostly local. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy basis to your comment? If so, what is it? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL offers advice on dealing with run-of-the-mill articles, such as:

Examine the reference, sources, and external links provided. Do they meet WP:RS guidelines? Do they come from international, national, or local sources?

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term. The sources provided are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 14:03, 10 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 delete. Sandstein 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mp3trueedit

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. CSD was declined. Smartyllama (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands per above - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insurtech

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

WP:NEO and WP:PROMO as well, see author's user page. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No reliable sources provided, all from blogs & social media. Without them it appears borderline made-up (A11). Cabayi (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC) ... Had I seen RK's afd before adding and reverting my edit conflicted PROD (text above), I'd have been more assertive on the A11 & also added G11. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly questionable neologism - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay consisting potentially entirely of OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 4 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 speedy deleted by David Gerard--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DTAB

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

Not notable. Very little coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. Based on a recently published ebook noq (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficent coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied G11 - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 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 no consensus. It's quite clear at this point that this is not heading towards any form of consensus in the near term. I encourage continued discussion on the article talk page, with no prejudice against a further nomination should that discussion lead towards one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Railsback

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

This article was first kept on bogus arguments that all Miss USA contestants are notable, a bogus argument put forward almost two years ago. It is being exposed as being bogus, and in this case there is not even the one event clutter we see with some such arguments. The second time this article was in a massive deletion request, a set of requests that resulted in keep with a clear indication that state pageant winners were not default notable. It is time this article, and other unsourced articles on non-notable people who won local beauty pageants be purged from Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article itself does need work, but there is no policy violation. Reliable sources can be found simply by clicking on the "news" link above and we find quickly that although there is no "blanket guideline" for pageant contestants when it comes to notability, we find that no such guideline or rule is needed when the general notability guideline is met. I see that as the case here, for example this article in Newsweek where she is featured prominently -- and was carried also by CNN Money. These as well as the other articles show that the subject passes notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note previous nomination links aren't showing up properly--here they are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Railsback closed 4 Jan 2015 and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie closed 30 January 2015.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I've changed the last name from Alewxis --> Alexis in Special:Prefixindex. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Miss Kansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOREASON Why? Giving a command is not a reason. For what reason should it be done?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a valid search term, when readers type in the subject's name, they will be taken to a page that contains some information about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a reason to delete the article. The subject already has an article with that information. Abraham Lincoln is a valid search term too, but we shouldn't delete that article. Does it violate a policy? Does it fail to meet a specific guideline? We need a valid reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per available sources, the subject is notable for one event. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I count multiple events: Miss Kansas 2015 (event held November 2014) and Miss USA 2015 (event held summer 2015)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She did not win Miss USA 2015; she's not notable for that. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that she won the event, she competed in the event and her active involvement in the competition created coverage, thus passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per meeting WP:BASIC. There is some coverage of the subject's participation in Miss USA 2015, but not a great deal. This provides one ¶, some coverage here inre Donald Trump's statements and the Miss USA 2015 pageant. Additional sources covering the subject include: [37], [38], North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The event Railsback is winning Miss Iowa USA, competing in Miss USA is an outgrowth of that, not a seperate event. Anyway events can extend over more than just one day. The point is it is only one aspect of Railsback's life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response #1 It was Miss Kansas USA. Are you sure you've read the article closely to comment fairly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response #2 where is there any reference to a policy, rule, or guideline that "one event" is the same as "one aspect" ?? It's not in WP:BLP1E which is clear that it is for one event. The word "aspect" isn't even on the page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no way we can argue that every contestant from every Miss USA pageant is notable. This one is clearly not; she has no other articles in any reliable sources that have her as the primary subject, totally fails every notability test. CrispyGlover (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How is this a failure of WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources offered at this AfD provide trivial or local coverage, for example:

Miss USA 2015 Contestant Photos: Meet 51 Beauty Queens Hoping To Win The Crown! -- the subject gets one paragraph in a "catalog" of 51 contestants
Shawnee Dispatch is extremely local coverage; kansascity.com is also local
Newsweek' is not a coverage of Ms Railsback, but the coverage of the Trump controversy, in which she's cited: "Following the networks dumping the pageant, at least one Miss USA contestant expressed her disappointment. Alexis Railsback, Miss Kansas, told the Kansas City Star the pageant was "taking the brunt for Donald Trump's speech," which was "really unfortunate and kind of unfair."

This is insufficient to build a bio article. Even with addition of these sources, the article will remain a WP:PSEUDO biography on an individual famous for WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Local coverage" is not a phrase used at WP:GNG, "trivial" is not used here in the policy-based sense from WP:GNG, the essay about a "pseudo" biography is an argument to redirect, and implying that the nationwide coverage in the Newsweek article provided a zero contribution to WP:GNG notability is not policy-based analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being sited as a "person on the street" source, as Newsweek did with Railsback is not generally considered to add to the notability of a given individual. If Newsweek had written the article as a story of the hard work that Railsback had gone through to get to the pageant to show why the pageant should not be attacked as a proxy for Trump, than that would be one thing, but she just has passing mention which is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response she wasn't quoted as a "person on the street" but was quoted as an expert on the topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- she was quoted as a contestant (i.e. the person being affected by the controversy), not as an "expert" the pageant business. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is true or at least a point of view, but it's certainly more than a "person on the street" as alleged.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point for notability is that the reliable sources made her a focus of national political attention. She received this attention not as a random selection from among 51 contestants, but because among those 51 she ~~also had Mexican heritage~~ was the first of those with Mexican heritage to speak out. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few sources to show the kind of coverage she, a typical pageant winner gets. All claims of WP:BLP1E against almost all beauty pageant winners are invalid. They win a State or National title, then, separately go on to compete at the next higher level. Equate this to WP:NSPORT where every athlete has to qualify at their preliminary level before going to a major competition. In this case she already has won Miss Kansas, she also got coverage for previous attempts in Miss Kansas Teen, then the coverage, perhaps routine in that every Miss USA contestant does get multiple individual coverage situations when they are participating in a major pageant. And, her quote in Newsweek was not an accident. It was quoted from the original source, the Kansas City Star, who did not pick her to quote at random. She was the local celebrity (I guess you could say Miss Missouri would also be a potential candidate for such a story) most affected by the Trump situation. I would say Trump is a big, notable story. Along with him comes collateral damage which also gets coverage. Alexis Railsback is the face of that collateral damage. Instead of being seen by millions on a national network, a place for a (modeling, acting, philanthropic . . .) career to leap off from, her pageant was seen by 38,000 people on youtube. Trackinfo (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- comparing pageantry with national or international sports is unconvincing, as the event is not significant and well known. It's a national event (second to Miss America, probably); contestants are not professional athletes; and the event was not covered on national TV. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From our article, "Reelz (also known as REELZCHANNEL) is an American digital cable and satellite television network...As of February 2015, Reelz is available to approximately 68.2 million pay television households (58.6% of households with at least one television set) in the United States." Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miss USA 2015 was covered on Reelz, ref July 14, 2015, "To the surprise of no one, the Miss USA Pageant clocked its lowest-ever audience of under a million viewers". "Reelz noted The Miss USA Pageant got sampled by 2.5 million viewers during its live telecast and a repeat immediately following." "...the pageant snared ...38 million viewers in 1979." Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. violation of the policy NOT DIRECTORY. Winners of state0-wide beauty contests do not meet the notability standard, except for the ones that are part of Miss America. The trivial nature of the sources in this instance confirms it. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)```[reply]

I'd love to know where you made up that piece of rubbish. Nowhere here has it been affirmed that USA titleholders are any different to America titleholders. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: That's the same kind of idea that calls the American League the "Junior Circuit" league in baseball, "It is sometimes called the Junior Circuit because it claimed Major League status for the 1901 season, 25 years after the formation of the National League (the "Senior Circuit")." Miss America dates back to 1921. Miss USA didn't start until 1952, so the idea that Miss USA is a startup competition might well remain with people who grew up in the 60s and before, but as quoted above, Miss USA received 38 million viewers in 1979. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't see anything relevant. Please clarify. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of those sources could be considered significant coverage & it's from a local newspaper. Err on the side of conservatism here, as I'm not seeing the level of coverage that has lead to keep closures on other articles --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the coverage of this topic at Miss USA 2015. This topic is significant in the encyclopedia, so there is no possibility of a notability-based deletion for this topic. The sources show that as a Miss USA 2015 contestant with Mexican-American heritage, this topic became a focus of national political attention in the fallout from Trump's presidential announcement that led to cancellation of Univision and NBC television coverage of Miss USA 2015. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would suggest redirect but I don't want my !vote not counted because that option is not on the table. Reasoning: The long list of primary references, that is "...original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", that also states, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". The lack of multiple secondary references, not satisfying WP:BIO1E, and arguably WP:NMODEL (are pageant entrants models?). One source states "This is because the pageant organization wants to promote a woman that has modeling potential on top of everything else they look for in a winner.". Contestants do model clothes, that can include swimwear, walk a runway several times, and entering a "beauty contest" leads to exposure for professional modeling. Placing or winning certainly leads to modeling offers. Is being a beauty contestant modeling? We can call it modeling, non-professional modeling, amateur modeling, or entertainment (entertainers) if it makes some people feel better. The fact that a subject is notable exclusively for one event, and being involved as collateral damage caused by trump does not count as that can be covered on the Donald Trump article, nor does other trivial pageants, is a line we need to draw until there is something like NPAGEANT with community consensus for application. The article is a long list of primary references (some that are advertising) that are not supported by secondary sources. Someone once was quoted as saying "If you don't like a rule... just follow it... reach on the top... and change the rule.", otherwise we have policies and guidelines. I have listed several that this article is not in compliance with. Out of 20 references, at least two are dead, 3 or 4 or secondary coverage about one event, and the rest are primary coverages about one event. One reference advertises her Sherri Hill fashion, Chinese Laundry shoes, and "Sun Kitten" (A sponsor) swimwear. Otr500 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleared out a lot of the extraneous "references" & trivialities etc... and to be blunt there's not much left after the cull. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like a nice stub article to me. Maybe even a "start" -- Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant in terms of source material. She's mentioned/quoted tangentially in one, the Newsweek article quotes that, one is a fluff piece and the JCCC is only there to verify a couple of things. Even I can see that's not enough for a keep. Articles have been redirected with more reliable sources & potential notability than this article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Talyah Polee should have been speedy kept or moved to the talk page as Wrong Forum, but administrators are reluctant to police AfD. The nominator had tried to redirect the article, before trying to get the article deleted using AfD. But it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as this discussion is concerned. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the other keep arguments. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has removed most of the sources in the article, including one I had added earlier in this AfD from cnn.com. Here are the sources before the removal:

https://thepageantplanet.com/profiles/alexis-railsback/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://webdesk.com/miss-usa/2015/sun-kitten/Alexis-Railsback-Miss-Kansas-USA-2015.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.kevinashleyphotography.com/miss-kansas-i-alexis-railsback-i-miss-usa-beauty-pageant-i-kevin-ashley-photography-i-kansas-city-lifestyle-portrait-and-wedding-photographer-5/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)^{[dead link‍]}
http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2015/jan/06/shawnees-alexis-railsback-named-miss-kansas-compet/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://ganninma.com/alexis-railsback-miss-kansas-on-shop-talk-kgpt-26-tv-RGZhU0lpc2JqT0U.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://6lawrence.com/not-so-late-show-clips/14499-the-not-so-late-show-miss-kansas-alexis-railsback-and-mia-gonzalez. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
https://issuu.com/sunflower_publishing/docs/sm15fawi_singles/11. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://cnewsworld.com/watch/zH2GP9GXEK0/alexis-railsback-thepageantguycom-interview-with-miss-kansas-usa-2015.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)^{[dead link‍]}
http://wyandottedaily.com/krispy-kreme-opens-1000th-store-with-music-and-fanfare-at-wyandotte-plaza/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2015-usa-contestants-gallery-1.2284751?pmSlide=1.2284715. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.missuniverse.com/missteenusa/photos/index/gallery_id:4/year:all/gallery_category_id:11/page:9. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/gone-viral/os-miss-usa-2015-contestants-pictures-017-photo.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.seattlepi.com/entertainment/slideshow/Miss-USA-2015-contestants-in-swimwear-112824/photo-8260915.php. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://m.beautypageantnews.com/claire-bailey-lee-crowned-miss-kansas-teen-usa-2014/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.newsweek.com/without-tv-network-air-it-miss-usa-pageant-will-go-348622. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/stargazing/article25773886.html#storylink=cpy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.jccc.edu/newsroom/2015/02/ps-miss-kansas-usa-alexis-railsback.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
http://www.pageantupdate.info/kansas-15.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Davila, R. G. (January 2015). "Alexis Railsback - Latina que representara al estado de Kansas en Miss USA 2015". Ñ Magazine. Kansas City, MO: Enye Publishing. pp. 20–21. Retrieved April 15, 2015 – via issuu.
Roesler, Nico (January 6, 2015). "Shawnee's Alexis Railsback named Miss Kansas, to compete in Miss USA pageant". The Shawnee Dispatch. Shawnee, KS: The World Company.
Tom Kludt and Brian Stelter (June 30, 2015). "Trump: NBC, Univision abandoned '51 wonderful girls'". Retrieved 2016-09-11. Railsback, said that the pageant was "kind of taking the brunt for Donald Trump's speech." Railsback, a third-generation Mexican-American...
Lisa Gutierrez (July 11, 2015). "19 things you need to know about Miss Kansas USA, Alexis Railsback". Kansas City Star. Retrieved 2016-09-12. Her Miss Kansas prize package included thousands of dollars in scholarship money: $57,600 for traditional undergraduate study is one option.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS. You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant. That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject. I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant. These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established. Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist. And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tinoco, Armando (2015-07-20). "Miss USA 2015 Contestant Photos: Meet 51 Beauty Queens Hoping To Win The Crown!". Latin Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-18. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Kansas, Alexis Railsback: Alexis Selena Railsback was born on September 8, 1995 in Overland Park, Kansas. She has a fraternal twin sister named Ashley, and a 17-year-old brother named Jordan. She grew up in Shawnee, Kansas where she lives now. She graduated from Shawnee Mission Northwest High School in 2014. She is a freshman at Johnson County Community College where she plans to obtain her Associate of Arts Degree. She plans to graduate from the University of Missouri-Kansas City with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration, and to attend Cosmetology school to become a licensed makeup artist. Alexis' dream job is to travel the world working as a professional makeup artist in the entertainment and fashion industry and to create her own line of cosmetics one day. Alexis is third-generation Mexican-American from her mother and of German descent from her father. She feels that having a biracial upbringing has taught her to appreciate diversity and other cultures.
2. Roesler, Nico (2015-01-06). "Shawnee's Alexis Railsback named Miss Kansas, to compete in Miss USA pageant". Shawnee Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-18. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Alexis Railsback, 19, took the crown of 2015 Miss Kansas USA in November and New Year's Day signaled the beginning of her year as Miss Kansas. She will tour the state, raising money for numerous charities and making special appearances as this year's winner. She also begins her training for the Miss USA pageant.
  The title came as a shock to the Shawnee Mission Northwest graduate. It was her first time competing in the Miss Kansas USA pageant. She had only competed in two previous Miss Teen Kansas pageants where she came in fourth runner-up two years ago and in the top 15 on her second try.
  ...
  Railsback was supported at the Wichita competition in November by her parents, John and Robin Railsback, grandparents and aunt and uncle. She said she was proud to represent Shawnee at the competition as her hometown. She was born in Overland Park, but moved to Shawnee when she was 3 and attended Sunflower Elementary School and Westridge Elementary School.
3. Gutierrez, Lisa (2015-07-11). "19 things you need to know about Miss Kansas USA, Alexis Railsback". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2016-09-18. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  The article notes:
  
  The youngest competitor in this year’s drama-filled Miss USA pageant is Alexis Railsback, a 19-year-old from Shawnee who graduated from Shawnee Mission Northwest just last year.
  In May, the Miss USA organization sent a film crew to Kansas City to make a “Road to the Crown” video — something new this year — about Railsback.
  She was one of a handful of contestants to get a hometown visit. The pageant interviewed her at home and shot footage around town for a video that will be shown during the pageant.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Railsback to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs) that WP:BLP1E is inapplicable because there are two events: "Miss Kansas 2015 (event held November 2014) and Miss USA 2015 (event held summer 2015)". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Road to the Crown" video reveals that the mayor of Shawnee declared May 31, 2015, to be "Alexis Railsback Day". Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I believe we should also consider BLP concerns. For example, pls see this article from my watchlist: "successfully ran two companies into the ground". An article on a pageant winner contained information on a minor shoplifing offense for 6 years: "...was charged with shoplifing from Target". So these bios are a double edged sword, and not always a good thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: What "unnecessary attack on the subject" are you referencing? @ Cunard: It is not WP:BLP1E but WP:BIO1E.

Bringing an article to AfD is an attack on the subject of the article. It is intended to delete content. Essentially the nom is saying, and is trying to get the rest of us to endorse the idea that the entire subject of the article is not worthy of wikipedia and that the work of all previous editors of the article have been worthless. Unnecessary comes from their failure to do a WP:BEFORE. Had they done a BEFORE, essentially meaning a simple google search, they would have found all the sources I added and wouldn't have caused the AfD to happen. Trackinfo (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we count every sentence towards notability Alexis is very famous. Counting the Miss USA 2015, for which she did not even place, is drawing straws and does not even gain honorable mention towards notability. Trumps derogatory comments could be directed at about 55 million hispanics so each of them have one check mark towards notability. The comments did not affect the outcome of the pageant nor was it stated that Miss Alexis possibly did not win the title because she was Mexican. Yes! @ K.e.coffman: BLP concerns not only should be considered but the WMF demands this.

"Just" the fact that Alexis won Miss Kansas USA is not sufficient for notability. Were it not for that one win, none of the rest of these discussions would matter.

Trackinfo stated "Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.", but in the same paragraph states "I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.". Which is it then, should we allow articles on every pageant winner, every pageant delegate at the national level, every teen pageant winner that "might" lead to a national title? We already have many, many coatrack articles and pseudo-biographical articles that will permanently remain under sourced, sourced with primary sources only, or not sourced. Why is that a goal at all?

You suggest there is a contradiction to my comments? Not at all. Alexis Railsback represents what is consistent with all contestants in the historically network televised Miss USA Pageant and Miss America Pageant. They all achieve WP:GNG news coverage for multiple events. 1) winning their state level Pageant. 2) the subsequent reign as their state level title holder 3) their competition at the upper level pageant. I sourced all three categories of coverage because this article is under attack. We shouldn't need to write that detail, but it exists. This article and articles like it should never have to go to AfD because all those sources exist for every contestant. Each spends a year as a statewide celebrity in addition to the two pageants (and really a third city level pageant before the state). I can't control the poor writing of hundreds of other editors, or can you. The failure of them to post those sources or to write the details of those title reigns does not mean all that coverage does not exist. Anybody doing a proper WP:BEFORE will see that and should lay off. The onus should be on the nominating editor to prove the sources don't exist. I did not mention other tournaments because are not as important. How do we know this? Because there is not as much coverage. And I could be wrong about the others because I haven't researched them. I have researched a number of these winners as they have been brought to AfD and I consistently find sources other deletionists seem to be blind to. That is a deliberate, disingenuous process in order to eliminate these articles based on their objection to the class of subject. Trackinfo (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marline Barberena was recently closed (non-admin closure) because of a vote count. The subject has 1 primary source, a Wikipedia entry, and one reference. That one, in Spanish, has a big picture of Karen Celebertti, and goes into detail about Miss Nastassja Bolivar and mentions Silhuetas SA, Miss Nicaragua 2013, Miss Nicaragua, Miami, Nicaragua, Moscow, Miss Universe, and a Mrs. Olga Isabel Cifuentes. Guess what I could not find? My glasses may be broke but I didn't even see Marline Barberena mentioned anywhere. A keep "vote" stated "as this is a national winner of a pageant that feeds into Miss Universe. The consensus is still developing, but while a lot of the smaller international pageants may not have national winners being notable, this is the biggest game out there." This biographical article has had 38 editors since 2014-3-16 and not one actual reference. Is this really a good goal for Wikipedia? Should we just throw away all the rules and let corporate sponsors have their way with paid advertising editors, or choose some point where we limit inclusion to policy and guidelines?

Most of these types of articles do actually violate BLP policy by lack of references alone but if this one, or Marline Barberena, and many like them remain, they will look exactly like they are now, five or ten years from now, because several small pageants, a "one time wonder" of one state win, and an entry in a national competition will be all there is. There is no "attack" on Miss Alexis and shame on Trackinfo if his reference was towards editors trying to make a better encyclopedia.

From WP:BIO1E: "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Similarly, a person may be generally famous, but notable for only a single event.". However you want to stretch it this article on Alexis Railsback, who still only has some fame for a one time event, is a bio article, and is therefore mandated to be held to a higher level of sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment--it's still more than one event. WP:BIO1E does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One sentence, or one picture with a caption, contributes to WP:GNG. We see here more than one editor who openly admits to not making policy based GNG arguments. Nor are these arguments marked with WP:IAR, as the argument would then be required to explain why disregarding GNG helps to build the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk)
Comment BLP has drawn attention as part of the effort to deflect attention from the corpus of evidence. But WP:BLP is one of the few policies that is supported by the external force of law at Wikipedia. A search on WP:DEL9 shows only one mention at AfD. You'd think with the level of concern that there would have been many AfDs closed as BLP violations, but the inference is that our content contributors and bots together with a supported policy are doing their job. Note that the twice-cited WP:PSEUDO explains why the essay WP:Avoiding harm is an essay and not part of the BLP policy.

During the development of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, one of the principles considered was, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'"

This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a look at one of those articles cited to be an example of a BLP problem cited above, ref. The supposed BLP violation lasted all of three seconds before being reverted by Cluebot, [ref]. Nor was this an article about a pageant winner. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've now seen four examples of WP:OSE. Deletion arguments keep trying to reduce the focus of attention away from the entire corpus of evidence that this topic has received the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell). CNN is not a WP:RS(?) Only the pageant in Kansas can be allowed to contribute to GNG (since when does Wikipedia only like people who win?). And all of those sources in Kansas (width 410 miles) can be discounted as local as per WP:CORPORATION (cited by two to three delete !votes). Coverage in Orlando and N Y City is not really evidence, because, you know, pictures are for people to look at, and such pictures don't represent attention given to the topic by the WP:RS(?)
Yet this topic is truly a special case, as a state pageant winner who has transitioned to become a focus of national political attention, generated by the fallout from the controversy following the announcement of Donald Trump to become president of the US. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The analysis about WP:BIO1E is spot on and in any case it doesn't pass WP:GNG. GNG is not a free pass to an article - it is a guideline which needs to be seen in context of WP:NOT as well as WP:NOPAGE. We need to exclude sources with tangential coverage as notability cannot be inherited. This source for example cannot be used for GNG purposes because the article is about the event with a tangential mention of the subject. This is not significant coverage. (in contrast, an article about the subject with a tangential mention of the event would be useful). I'm also cautious about using local sources for GNG purposes because they tend to give disproportionate coverage to local events. Using local sources would make a whole lot of people "notable" which precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. The way I see it, the subject has received some coverage for being crowned Miss Kansas USA but the rest of coverage is tangential. BIO1E, so I am OK with a delete or redirect to Miss Kansas USA. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder WP:BIO1E applies only for "one event" by definition. Since the coverage is for more than one event and is over a reasonably significant period of time, it does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable for only one event is different from Coverage for only one event. The quality of coverage determines at what point is a subject notable for more than one event. Overhere, I still see a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. But also understand that just because one of those events is a state pageant it does not disqualify it from consideration. There is still the coverage of the two events and time period to consider. "Not automatically qualifying" is different from "disqualifying" or "not allowed to consider" (my quotes, for emphasis)--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl1942: you say that the newsweek article "is not significant coverage" (using a non-policy-based definition of the word significant). However, as I just posted in Further Reading at the article, two people who disagree with you are Robin Leach, of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and writer for the Las Vegas Sun; and Matt Drudge, well-known conservative political commentator, who now writes and reports from Miami. Whose opinion do Wikipedia editors follow here, Matt Drudge and Robin Leach, or Lemongirl1942? Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Drudge and Robin Leach are not Wikipedia editors, but I am. So we can follow my opinion ! OK, but seriously, the coverage in both their news reports is limited to one sentence along with a quote. This is trivial coverage. Had there been something more I might have considered, but a quote is very trivial. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that these are policy-based statements.
"Trivial" as used at WP:GNG is an extremely low bar. Trivial coverage is coverage like a listing in a phone book.
There is no reason to ignore one sentence. WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." One sentence can be trivial, but generally it is significant. One sentence can be used to write an encyclopedic sentence. A sufficient number of one-sentence mentions can satisfy wp:notability.
This is not to be confused with the other use of the word "significant" at WP:GNG, which requires a significant amount of significant (non-trivial) coverage.
There is also a difference in depth of coverage in "Beauty queens in Louisiana were in agreement with Miss Kansas, 19-year-old Alexis Railsback, a third-generation Mexican-American..." and something like "Alexis Railsback was born in Shawnee."
Calling a quote "trivial" is an incorrect analysis, as the quote itself is primary material, and WP:GNG doesn't consider primary material. However, the quote itself uses space in the source, indicates the editorial decision to select the quote, and carries the expected due diligence of a reliable source to quote accurately; and these are all evidence of attention to the topic. Since evidence of notability is cumulative, editors can't just say that the topic fails WP:GNG if they are ignoring significant amounts of evidence of direct attention to the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: @ Unscintillating; Thanks for your input. This is a compliment and not a slur. When I receive a rebuttal to something that is not just a whim reply I look at it closely. WP:Avoiding harm is certainly an essay. It has prominence on Wikipedia, with 44 editors weighing in, and I could show you where other "essays", that are supported by broad community support, has been used as a rationale to block or ban an editor by admins. I am very sure this is not needed because likely you, certainly myself, and other editors here, use other such community supported essays when it is warranted. Essays are not policy or guidelines but when they become used by the community at large they become part of Wikipedia standards. This "essay" has a lot to offer and concerning Pseudo-biographies (WP:PSEUDO), to borrow words from Mel B and Lemongirl942 is "spot on". That essay also mentions Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (that has involved 141 editors) in the same sentence (#3) and that is certainly something all editors should look at especially concerning BLP's. Using WP:OSE, or even GNG, as well as IAR, by themselves or as a group, could be argued as reasoning to have an article on every local weatherman (or woman) that is on TV, with local daily newspaper coverage as references, but all these policies, guidelines, and even essays, are used in conjunction to establish a criteria. Where do we stop? Local coverage used as a reference for content is important but not as sole reasoning for an article. Some editors would advocate for well referenced local city, state, or regional pageants. I have run into this concerning scientists that are published "within their circle" but have only primary sources or scientific journal essays, somewhat like Atul Kumar, that was previously deleted and appeared again, and there are editors that think there should be a limit. Trying to count trivial pageants, coverage that is actually some collateral damage (Trump) that actually did not affect the subject and should be on the appropriate pageant article, or in one case, that contains the rationale for keep "Please don't delete this article because she is going to compete in a national pageant and might win", does create a running count to by-pass WP:BIO1E. If a contestant won a Miss Best diaper" pageant, that is not notable, we should not count that as a rationale if she wins a state contest, for reasoning to have an article on Wikipedia because the subject is excluded from bio1E. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- worth mentioning if a contestant won a "Miss Best diaper" pageant and received significant coverage through third party reliable sources, they could be considered notable. It's not the participation in or the winning of anything that makes a person notable, it's the coverage of the person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New additions to Further Reading

Robin Leach (June 30, 2015). "Despite NBC pulling the plug, Miss USA Pageant on July 12 'will go on'". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 2016-09-21. Beauty queens in Louisiana were in agreement with Miss Kansas, 19-year-old Alexis Railsback, a third-generation Mexican-American, who issued a statement... Their appeal has so far fallen on deaf ears at the Peacock Network.
Tom Kludt; Brian Stelter (June 30, 2015). "Trump: NBC, Univision abandoned '51 wonderful girls'". The Drudge Report. Retrieved 2016-09-21. (picture caption) Miss Kansas Alexis Railsback says the Miss USA pageant is suffering because of Trump." " 'That's a personal decision that he made to make that speech and to run for president...', Railsback said.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this diff the nominator shows that he doesn't think that there is a problem with this article that needs anything more than normal editing. He was then told "Discuss before redirecting, but there is no discussion on the talk page. @Johnpacklambert: How is it that one moment you want to redirect this article, the next moment you ignore advice to discuss on the talk page, and the next your nomination is asserting that the topic should be purged? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for inclusion of a little known subject, that is still a BLP subject to a higher standard, with only fleeting and passing fame, and no actual notability, should be redirected or deleted. Arguments for keep is digging for needles in a haystack to make her famous or notable, and is an argument that supports having a billion other articles on nobodies (maybe advancing "other stuff exists"), only because she won a state pageant. Her comments about Trump were made while competing in one she didn't even place in, and this is utterly astounding since being a semifinalist in Miss Kansas Teen USA 2014 and 4th runner-up to Miss Kansas Teen USA 2013 are insignificant events, only leaving her the one win event for some notability.

Alexis did not place in the top 10, 15, or even 20 in Miss USA. Miss Natasha Martinez also made statements about Trump, and was a Miss California USA 2015. Miss Massachusetts Polikseni Manxhari (did not place in Miss USA), that immigrated to the US at age 5, said "It's a free country. People can say whatever they like, and that's the beauty of our country," "I wasn't really insulted. I just kept moving. I just took it with a grain of salt.". Jillian Wunderlich (Top 15) spoke out against what he said, as did 1st runner up Ylianna Guerra and others, so this is not something notable to count towards having a stand-alone article.

Check this out: The supposed bio information link, apparently from her college Johnson County Community College, which would be a primary source (her college, closely related to the subject, etc..) about this person, has issues and returns "We seem to have misplaced something... The page you are looking for cannot be found.".

These "skeleton" bio's are created, and unless something in the future adds to notability , they remain poorly sourced mini-BLP's especially when there is only manufactured notability. That is a fact and a reason why I would think only the subjects relatives, someone involved in the pageants, or someone wanting an article about everything in the world on Wikipedia, would actually try to keep an article on her. She may one day be "famous" or "notable", maybe not, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should wait until then because winning anything, especially only one event like a "Miss Best diaper" pageant or even "Miss Kansas USA 2015, does not make someone "notable" without multiple secondary sources.

Throughout this protracted AFD, wiki-lawyering supporting keep with things like "but look at the "Further reading" that was added", and after 3 deletion nominations, there just is not enough (multiple) secondary sources to back up notability.

@ Paul McDonald, show me where everything listed under the "Personal life" bio section, supported by a dead primary link, is not considered original research. The content is not supported by source and even if you slide in a link to a pageant bio in the "External links" section, to use as a reference, which would be a primary source and not acceptable on any article let alone a BLP, and certainly not using a link in the external links section for a reference, is further proof of a lack of notability. This is why trying to manufacture notability does not work and fails WP:BASIC that states "...significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". The best reason in support of not having a stand-alone article is "It's not the participation in or the winning of anything that makes a person notable, it's the coverage of the person.", and there is simply not enough "coverage" on this person with only the one state title win. Otr500 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Otr500 I agree with everything you've said here. I just wanted to clarify the JCCC link - when I did a major clearout last week, I left that one in not to support any form of notability but simply because it verified the statement that she attended that institution. As of last week the link was live. But yeah, I agree with everything else you've said. Just because there's passing references to her in articles doesn't mean they support notability, which is why I did a significant copyedit and removed most of the fluff. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out when I completed the references I pasted the link twice, hence it showing as a dead link. Have fixed it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you should ask me on that particular issue because I have not addressed it, but if you like--the entire "Personal life" section is sourced from Johnson County Community College as a sort of "here's one of our students that did something cool" articles. It's safe to say that JCCC has nothing to do with the pageant, and it's also safe to say that JCCC is not owned by anyone in the Railsback family--with the added detail that it's an academic institution I'd call it safe to say it's not "original research" -- it's therefore just as useful as any other "personal life" section from the biography pages on Wikipedia: interesting information worthy of conclusion, sourced, reliable, third-party sourced data. Doesn't violate any policy and is a "nice-to-have" section. If anyone thinks that section should not be in the article, that's fine--that's an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the link although it is still considered a primary source. Look, I come to these discussions with no bias or any past or future issues with pageant coverage on Wikipedia. I do have issues with attempted incremental changes to policies and guidelines. "If" we don't like them then let's work to get them changed or try to follow them for the betterment of Wikipedia. We are not suppose to build a biography of a living person on primary sources and there should be "multiple" independent coverage. I am not against more local coverage as long as it is substantial as proof of notability. Personally, if I was closing this, and there was a parent article, I would redirect. Some closers will not !count a move for redirect and use a criteria of "Keep", "delete", redirect" or "merge", keeping them separate when making a decision. This is not entirely fair but knowing this tends to make editors !vote delete instead of redirect if they think it will be seen as a very weak keep.

There is some direction to redirect when possible and "Find sources" if they are available. I am alright with that but currently, according to multiple policies and guidelines, and not just a selective one or two, there is not enough references to support a stand-alone article. I didn't make "the rules", nor did I assist in forming them, but the community at large so I feel compelled to go by these unless there is a clear reason to ignore them. Even then this policy is subjected to a broad community consensus. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, that includes This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. is also subjected to directives from the WMF. We have multiple policies and guidelines that must be satisfied for article inclusion, that are more stringent with BLP's, and not wikilawyering one or two as a reason to keep while excluding the others. Otr500 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you'd noticed above but I actually voted to delete this ;) I agree with all of what you're saying. There are some articles which did pass notability and those I was firmly in support of keeping but this doesn't pass the bar. So I'm on your side with this one. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST CLOSURE Someone please close this. It's been relisted once (20 days ago) and has been open for 28 days. I think we've plumbed the depths of the discussion. Something may have fallen through the cracks in the admin side of things...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the Delete votes as there has also been consensus at AfDs as it is that there's no automatic inherited notability from pageants themselves, the sourcing offered here are still not actually satisfactory, and it would be a noticeably thin article still at best. The article contains nothing else aside from this said information, attempts at hopes of substantiating better are thin since they simply add sources but no actual convincing. The first AfD was quite troubled with comments as it was not clear, the second was because of massively nominating all, or else this would've in fact be deleted sooner, as that alone was also actually enough time to have convinced us otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ There is no consensus that al lstate beauty contest winners are notable; judging by the results of discussions, I think there is for Miss America, but not for the others. We could establish such a rule, either b specifically adopting one,or my consistent decisions at AfD, but we have not yet done so. Therefore all arguments based on that line of reasoning are really saying "I think these out to be (or ought not to be) always assumed to be notable. My view is that they should not be. The GNG is sensitive to the amount of material on the subject. For a subject like this, which is extensively covered in the press, there ought to be very good sources--a borderline case in this area should be considered as not notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are not recognizing the argument in this specific case. This is an example that should lead to such a consensus. This case has over 20 sources, many of which indicate coverage of her STATE title and subsequent reign before she ever got to the Miss USA Pageant. That is WP:GNG upon which we base WP:N and all the sub articles that support various subject areas that lead to WP:N. We assume these sources exist for all such title winners to save the need to search for them in each case as they are brought to AfD by serial nominators. Just because many editors don't post these sources, or in the case of the sources I posted and had removed here because they give excessive detail about her reign, does not negate their existence, here or elsewhere. Trackinfo (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Since this is your 2nd !vote, and you've never responded to my ping after your first !vote, let's repeat that discussion to compare your two !votes, and see if we can get more of a response.

Delete. violation of the policy NOT DIRECTORY. Winners of state0-wide beauty contests do not meet the notability standard, except for the ones that are part of Miss America. The trivial nature of the sources in this instance confirms it. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)```[reply]

I'd love to know where you made up that piece of rubbish. Nowhere here has it been affirmed that USA titleholders are any different to America titleholders. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: That's the same kind of idea that calls the American League the "Junior Circuit" league in baseball, "It is sometimes called the Junior Circuit because it claimed Major League status for the 1901 season, 25 years after the formation of the National League (the "Senior Circuit")." Miss America dates back to 1921. Miss USA didn't start until 1952, so the idea that Miss USA is a startup competition might well remain with people who grew up in the 60s and before, but as quoted above, Miss USA received 38 million viewers in 1979. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't see anything relevant. Please clarify. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote from DGG stricken. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's how articles on notable pageant winners look like: Trish Regan and Jane Badler. The state level pageant win gets one line in their bios, and that's how it really should be. The article under discussion here is a WP:PSEUDO biography and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is based on a fallacy, as notable pageant winners may or may not look like the two cases of WP:OSE cited. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the statement earlier in this AfD, "the essay about a 'pseudo' biography is an argument to redirect". WP:PSEUDO says, "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." Thus your delete !vote is inconsistent with the redirect essay cited. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, the topic is more prominent in the article on Miss USA 2015 than in the Miss Kansas USA article. The second Kansas City Star article (a newspaper based in Missouri) stated,

“

She was the first Miss USA contestant to publicly sound off on the controversy created by pageant co-owner Trump’s comments last month referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals. She appeared on CNN after she spoke to The Kansas City Star. Latina magazine this week spoke to all the Hispanic contestants at the pageant, including Railsback, who said: “Well, I didn’t agree with his comments. I was offended by what he said; my family, they were also offended. I definitely understand why people are reacting the way they are. What he said was very hurtful. I mean, it’s caused a lot of problems, not only for the pageant, but for people across the nation.”

”

The transcript for the CNN live on-air interview mentioned in this quote can be seen here and here. This 2nd Kansas City Star article seems to be particularly in-depth, because I cannot find on Google another reference for the quote attributed to Latina magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thank you to Cunard for researching some sources. Unfortunately, none of the three he found impress me.

[39] perfunctory coverage in a local media outlet.
[40] not as local as the Shawnee Dispatch article above, but still, perfunctory coverage in a state newspaper. There's no in-depth coverage here. There's a bunch of fun facts that's basicly an interview.
[41] is not about her. It's about a group of people she belongs to, i.e. Latin pageant contentants.

I short, I don't see that this meets WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So following the paragraph in which I say, "This 2nd Kansas City Star article seems to be particularly in-depth...", you say, "There's no in-depth coverage here" about the exact same source. Your post identifies as a "fun fact", "She was the first Miss USA contestant to publicly sound off on the controversy created by pageant co-owner Trump’s comments last month referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals." Your !vote ignores WP:GNG sources such as one that was in the article at the start of the AfD, Davila, R. G. (January 2015). "Alexis Railsback - Latina que representara al estado de Kansas en Miss USA 2015". Ñ Magazine. Kansas City, MO: Enye Publishing. pp. 20–21. Retrieved April 15, 2015 – via issuu., and sources by CNNMoney and Robin Leach that have been prominent in the discussion here. As per the guidelines identified to you when you posted at this discussion,

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.

Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That magazine seems to be some local non-notable magazine. We don't use these sources for GNG. Quoting someone, "If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year." --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: WP:IRS does not state that reliable sources are defined using WP:Notability. The WP:OSE about a small town newspaper has no relationship to this city magazine. Enye Publishing is listed at Worldcat ref, and zoominfo ref states that they have seven employees. Do you have evidence that this publisher lacks a reputation for fact-checking? Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas City Star article of "fun facts" is "in-depth" because it provides encyclopedic biographical details about her:

She won Miss Kansas in 2014, earning $57,600 in scholarship money. It was her third pageant.
She lost Miss Kansas Teen USA twice.
She has a fraternal twin sister, Ashley. She has a brother, Jordan.
Her mother, Robin, is a second-generation Mexican American.
Her father, John, is of German descent.
She enrolled at Johnson County Community College.
Alexis Selena Railsback's namesakes are Joan Collins’ character Alexis Carrington on Dynasty and Mexican-American singer Selena.
She worked as a hostess at Carlo's Copa Room restaurant in Lenexa for up to 30 hours per week to fund her pageant expenses while she was attending school.

The Latin Times article is about her and the other Miss USA 2015 contestants. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I consider the nine-sentence discussion of her to be "more than a trivial mention".

The Shawnee Dispatch article, while local, contains numerous encyclopedic biographical details about her. By itself, a local source wouldn't be able to establish notability, but it helps contribute to establishing notability when there are statewide (The Kansas City Star) and national (Latin Times) sources available.

Cunard (talk) 18:47, 24 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebdo-

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

No reliable sources indicate that this ever even existed. Online conversion websites are notorious for accumulating fluff. The idea of the hebdometre as the distance from the pole to the equator is appealing, and the etymology is plausible, but it is beyond implausible that the French would have used American spelling; there is zero evidence of the existence of "hebdometre", and only Wikicopies for "hebdometer". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found evidence for the name "hebdometre" (strictly, hebdomètre, in French): Journal télégraphique 1883/04/25 (A15,VOL7,N4) Gallica refers to "Monsieur Clausius" (Clausius?) as proposing the name "hebdomètre" for 1/4 of a meridian. So at least there is evidence for "Hebdometre", but still none for the prefix hebdo-. I suggest that plausibly the name "hebdomètre" could be mentioned (somewhere??) as a non-adopted unit. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I don't see what your actual argument is here. I mean, you make an unsubstantiated claim that "Online conversion websites are notorious for accumulating fluff" (notorious to whom?) and use that bald assertion as the basis for completely ignoring the citations on the article, and that still leaves unanswered why you believe this constitutes "fluff" therein. The fact that you've found some productive use of it in an historical source seems to directly contradict your assertion that it's merely "fluff" and simply begs the question of what definition you are using for the term "fluff" other than something you don't happen to like. Given the importance of the development of the metric system within scientific history, aren't abandoned units and prefixes of at least historic notability? Van Isaac_WS^cont 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that "No reliable sources indicate that this ever even existed." Do you have a reliable source which suggests that it did? Among the community of people who have looked at the quality level of the uncounted number of "online conversion sites", the opinion is not that they are reliable sources, because they typically copy anything from anywhere. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

The point is that there is at least one historical quote suggesting that at least one significant person (Clausius) mentioned the word "hebdomètre" at least in a personal communication to at least one other significant person (the author of the Journal télégraphique article) as a name for the distance from pole to equator. This is obviously made by combining the Graeco-French prefix hebdo- with the word mètre, but is not evidence that anyone ever suggested hebdo- as a productive metric prefix to be attached to "gramme", "litre", or whatever. I think therefore that a mention of hebdomètre in an article about the origin of the metric system would be totally justified, because of course I agree with your last sentence. But the article at present is a total distortion. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your argument is that the article should be merged somewhere. So why not withdraw the deletion request, figure out which article you think would be the best repository of the content, and start a proper merge discussion? Van Isaac_WS^cont 18:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is no content in this article of value. None of the three sentences is actually true as a logical proposition; at least the tense or mood of the verb would have to be changed. And there is no credible evidence for the existence of the supposed topic of the article -- the independent prefix 'hebdo' as opposed to its proposed (but not adopted) use in 'hebdometre' in the original definition of the metre -- currently sourced to two websites. I can give you a PPB ("proper printed book", a pejorative expression intended to point out the silliness of assuming that anything in print must be true or even meaningful) reference, but it is one which has been shown to be full of infelicities, and is almost certainly the sourced scraped by the websites. Do I understand that you think this is a spiffing good article? If so I will withdraw whatever. It is simply not worth wasting more than a certain amount of time on nonsense. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is normal for articles to have weaknesses at first, but they continue to develop and typically increase coverage, depth and general quality over time. If you see shortcomings, you should fix them rather than delete the article. Deleting articles because they have weaknesses is counter-productive.

Despite your claims that there were no reliable sources, I just added a bunch of sources, including several which are high quality reliable sources per WP:RS. Two of them are historical sources documenting the usage of the prefix in the 1880s and 1890s among scientists. From this alone it should be obvious that many more sources must exist, they just need to be found. The majority of historical sources do not show up in search engines, so not having many Google hits does not mean anything for historical topics such as this one.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Metric prefix#Obsolete metric prefixes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded and copy-edited the article somewhat, rewording some potentially misleading statements and putting the prefix in its historic context. I have also added a bunch of sources I was able to find in short time, including some high quality WP:RS. I am not aware of any untrue statements in the article. Two historical sources clearly document the international usage of the prefix in the meaning of 10^7 in the 1880s and 1890s among scientists. This already warrants an article about it, and it's clear that more sources must exist. As usual with historical contents, most of it does not show up in Google - but Wikipedia is not a collection of today's mainstream knowledge, but aims to document and put into context the knowledge of the world, past and present. So, for historical topics, you typically have to dig deeper and search for sources in libraries and museums. This, however, may take time (sometimes years) and effort, so it would be unwise to delete an article with possibilities just because it is still developing. I for one would definitely like to learn more about the history of the prefix, much more than what could be put into another article only mentioning the prefix. In fact, I think, (after my recent edits) the article already has more info than what could be put into f.e. the metric prefix article without creating undue weight there, so it seems like a good idea to keep the info in a separate article with a focus on this particular prefix only.

Actually, we have dedicated articles about all metric prefixes, including the obsolete ones, including some which were used only in specific contexts, and they all started as weak stubs, most of them have been through deletion discussions with similar (weak) arguments as given above, but as soon as someone really started to dig a bit deeper and dedicate some time, enough interesting contents and sources could be unshelved to warrant separate articles, and over time the articles grew to document sometimes long forgotten but still interesting and important pieces of history. There is no reason to assume why this should not happen with the hebdo prefix as well.

I also think having one main "broad concept" article (metric prefix) surrounded by separate articles for the individual prefixes discussing their specific history and containing mostly the prefix-related details is the best-possible organization structure for this contents.

Therefore: keep.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies! Since there is clearly no support for deletion, I tried to close this as keep, but User:Godsy pointed out on my talk page that this was technically wrong. I would like to suggest that this "prefix" (for which there is no evidence of independent existence) be moved: either merged into the metric units page, or to a separate article Hebdometre. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many possible outcomes other than deletion for an AfD. Might as well give a discussion that already exists and has garnered attention a chance to play out, instead of starting a discussion elsewhere.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the nomination has been withdrawn. Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: following the comments above, and my bodged attempt to withdraw this, I would like to propose that this should either be Moved to 'hebdomètre', or Merged into "Metric prefix#Obsolete metric prefixes". Personally I cannot see that there is enough to say about the hebdomètre to make a whole article: the name was proposed during the 19th century, so there should be quotes, and perhaps some discussion of the fate of this name. However, there is also a very strong case to me made that there is no "metric prefix" as such here at all: there is no evidence 'hebdo' was ever attached to any other unit as a general 10⁷ multiplier at all. So given the general preference for the largest possible number of articles, I will put my !vote (if I have one, WP:RULES being beyond me) behind a move to hebdometre, with or without the accent. Since this is 19th century, I can't see any reason to use American spelling. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't think it is a "metric prefix", you shouldn't suggest to merge it into the "metric prefix" article... ;-) But more seriously, hebdo is (or was), of course, a metric prefix. The well documented fact that it was used in conjunction with metre, proves both, that it is a prefix and that it is metric as well. We don't know, if it was used with other quantities (quite possibly not), but this would not invalidate the fact that it was a metric prefix. You are, apparrently, implying, that a prefix must be useable with all quantities to be a prefix - this assumption is true for SI prefixes, but it is not for metric prefixes in general. Hebdo is no SI prefix. For as long as we don't state otherwise in the hebdo- article (and we do not), everything is fine in this regard.

We have separate articles for all metric prefixes, so naming this single one hebdometre rather than hebdo- would unnecessarily create an inconsistency and unsymmetry in the organization of the information for no apparent benefit over the already existing and rather clear structure. That's why I think simply keeping it as it is (and further expanding the article) is a better solution.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge Metric prefix, perhaps create separate subsection? Fruitmince (talk) 20:37, 11 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wage War

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails GNG and NMUSIC. --Goroth (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was the one who declined the speedy deletion request, because it had at least 1 reliable source (Alt Press) and they're signed to a mid-level record label (Fearless Records). Still unsure of my stance, currently looking for sources. Seems likely to be out there at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument that the band got signed to Fearless Records was invalid in the first AFD debate. Alternative Press was not described as an reliable source neither was the chartings on Billboard Heatseeker, Hard Rock and Alternative Albums Charts. Even touring in Europe where the band played major European festivals Rock im Park and Download Festival and being on the whole Warped Tour wasn't an indicator for notability. --Goroth (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not state any of those things as reasons it was notable, just merely that they could be indicators that sources may be out there. Also, you're stance on Alt Press is incorrect - there's a consensus that it is reliable on the WikiProject level per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about Wage War I started back in the end/at the beginning of the year I used sources like Alternative Press but it was criticized that the sources I used weren't reliable. --Goroth (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know their exact criticisms or objections were, so it's hard to comment too much, but the general notion that Alt Press is not an RS would be incorrect, or at least not the current consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the last AFD debate here. --Goroth (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's linked above, and I saw it on my research when declining the speedy delete. It didn't look like a very good discussion or a very strong consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Source hunting has found:

These 3 sources are listed as usable per consensus at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. They dedicate an entire article to the band...but the article's are rather brief:

These 2 sources are of unknown reliabilty, but discuss the band.

These 2 sources show some of the higher profile stuff they've done at least:

http://www.billboard.com/artist/6778693/wage-war/chart shows their album/songs charted on some of the Billboard charts.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/new-found-glory-sum-41-good-charlotte-top-warped-tour-lineup-20160322 shows that they're participating in rather high-profile - The Warped Tour - the biggest music festival in the U.S.

This sort of coverage, while not the strongest strictly in terms of the WP:GNG, still make me think that there's coverage out there somewhere. It's very rare to find a band that has charted and participated in such a major music festival that doesn't get enough coverage to scrape by the bottom of the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used Alt Press for my article version, I linked the Billboard link in the article and it got deleted. My article version was more extensive than this one. I even wrote about the tours they participated, the festivals they played and even that they played Japan and Europe. --Goroth (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's like all the indicators of there being sources out there exist, but I'm having a hard time finding the actual sourcing itself. I wonder if there's anything available in print magazines that we don't have available to us online... Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is something available in print magazines but this band just started. So this band won't get more than a passage of space. Maybe we have to wait until the band announce their follow-up album. I guess the new album could get more successful then. --Goroth (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chitta Kukkad

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

Don't know if this is intrinsically notable. Please discuss. Mr. Nair Talk 08:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Rushing

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

Article was previously PRODed by Eeekster, PROD tag was removed, am now bringing here to AfD. Article's single reference is to a passing mention for being the recipient of an award— it contains no information that could be used to create a standalone article. Google searches turn up repeated hits for his résumé at shootonline.com which appears to lack independence from the subject. Although the subject looks like he has won a national competitive award for music video cinematography, I could not find any substantive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to substantiate a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wak keep. I see 2 moderately significant awards for two different films, so I think that's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two decent references Talk Podcast and Vimeo interview Here I would advise the editor source more references if salvageable. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada men's national intercrosse team

AfDs for this article:

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

A quick google search finds no reliable sources that indicate this subject passes the general notability guideline. Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

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

- Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Concert Chorus

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

Non-notable choral group, part of a host of articles on groups and clubs of the University of the Philippines which are not notable but for which articles have been created. Lacks any references. As this is not a "subunit" of the larger university, a redirect is not an appropriate option. KDS4444 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are available traces of this group's worldwide performances. As a first reference I added a Glasgow Herald review of a performance in Aberdeen, and there are also brief pieces in media elsewhere:(Washington Post 1992 – via HighBeam (subscription required) , Oakland Tribune 2006 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), as well as local media. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 08:14, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Roe

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

No reliable sourcing found. Very few notable credits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just did a quick skim as well and can't find anything substantial or additional. Appears to fail GNG. BlueSalix (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has been noted specifically as a musician by at least one musician press source [42] - if there's one more I'd say he'd pass - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would this count as a reliable source? [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, but not for ascertaining notability - though there's lots of sources with Jerry Roe as Grant Lee Phillips' drummer - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with David Gerard about RS of Tidal. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable drummer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Modern Drummer article referenced above by User David Gerard is a good source, and if this article winds up being kept it really needs to be included among the references. That said, it is so far the only good source, and unless more can be cited then it fails to add up to significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, if there was one more I'd say keep - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 6 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.