Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 3

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 as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C0nvexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The creator's username proves this is an autobiography (and again it's not notable). — Music1201 ^talk 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND #9 criterion has been met. WP:BAND #5 criterion slightly met. Jltompkins10 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Winning the 6th Annual Horry County Schools Technology Fair would not be seen as a major award. On Wikipedia major awards would be things like winning a Grammy or the equivalent thereof. Local awards rarely, if ever, qualify as something that would even give partial notability on Wikipedia. The only time they do qualify for even partial notability is when the award winner gains some coverage for winning the award - something which I'm not seeing in this situation. As far as the record label goes, from what I can see the article states that you (I'm assuming that you are the performer himself) have released your album on your own label. While this doesn't automatically mean that you are self-publishing your works, it's not terribly far off from this and a major indie label would be one that has gained enough coverage in independent and reliable sources, likely enough to merit an article of their own. I don't see where you've gained any coverage at all. I hate that this all sounds so harsh, but I need you to understand why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia heavily discourages people writing their own articles because it's so easy to see more notability than there might otherwise be and it's also extremely easy to take things personally. It takes a lot - an awful lot - to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia, enough to where the vast majority of musicians wouldn't pass notability guidelines. We've all seen situations where musicians can play regularly, but still fail notability guidelines because their only coverage were routine notifications of events. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where you pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Music1201: I think this could actually be speedied via WP:A7 rather than a full AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tokyogirl79: I was thinking that but wasn't sure. — Music1201 ^talk 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go ahead and close/speedy the article/AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 4 April 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 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Debate Tournament Resolutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I fail to see any encyclopedic value to this, just listcruft Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally part of the National Debate Tournament but was removed by someone because it was deemed too lengthy. I created a separate page and linked to it instead. It's the annual U.S. intercollegiate debate topic with thousands of students researching and debating it from a couple hundred schools. So, its not as if the resolutions are insignificant.

There are no sources and no context, nothing to suggest this is a worthwhile topic--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no better context and nothing else to suggest better solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 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 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemic (hip hop group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests any better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no third-party sources whatever. This is close to speedy material. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 10 April 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 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port 8789 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The port in question is listed as unassigned. Other, much more prominent ports (80, 22) do not have their own wikipedia pages, but instead are referenced in List of TCP and UDP port numbers. At best, it should be included there. Plandu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: port is not independently notable. As noted above, an entry in List of TCP and UDP port numbers is sufficient. No redirect required.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough. — Music1201 ^talk 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nomination, more notable ports are handled without their own page. This port has no evidence of WP:GNG notability on its own. Chris vLS (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this currently suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the lack of notability. However, bringing up ports 80 and 22 is little more than WP:OTHERSTUFF, unless a similar and relevant discussion was made regarding those and it was decided to not have separate articles (and then it is not so much "X has no article so Y should not have one", it is "per similar arguments as in the discussion about X, delete Y"). FWIW, currently, Port 80 is a DAB page pointing to TCP port, and Port 22 redirects to Secure Shell. Tigraan (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Much appreciated. (FWIW, I did do a general search for sources supporting notability.) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I can't imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we made an article for every single open port that an application might use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure that you can imagine that, unless you are singularly lacking in imagination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 9 April 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. consensus is too keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of subject's notability, to the extent required. There were thousands of foreign-born workers in Liverpool in the period of the subject's life, and the only reason for this one to be treated separately are that he was a distant relative by marriage of the Japanese emperor, and he adopted an apparently amusing nickname. Notability is not inherited, and the nickname itself is of little intrinsic interest (the fact that it's "funny" is not significant). The few sources that mention him give little support to claims of notability. The subject was a local character of insufficient notability to justify an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with regret since it's a funny piece of trivia. I can barely find any mentions of this person that would qualify as non-trivial per the WP:GNG—a couple of local news obituaries, mentions in trivia books, and that's (seemingly) it. Apart from notability I'm also slightly concerned over veracity. I couldn't turn up anything from a search in Japanese. Admittedly I might be putting in the wrong queries: the Silver Drum reference would at least be sound confirmation on that front, but I don't have the book—can anyone verify it/post the relevant quotation? —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that on the Silver Drum, I just noticed it's only cited to justify a claim about the princess who wrote it, not Murphy himself. Definitely leaning further towards delete in that case—without further verification this could just as well simply be a thing a Japanese immigrant made up. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wha? -- huh? Just three of the sources:

(1) Belchem is a scholarly book by Liverpool Univ. Press.

(2) Liverpool Gateway is a work on local history, not "trivia".

(3) Fritz Spiegl was for forty years a respected author and columnist (e.g. for the BBC's The Listener) on language and culture.

GNG's sigcov requirement is merely that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The coverage need not be extensive nor lengthy. Where little is known about a subject, little will be written, but the multiple sources that have written him up (at roughly 10-year intervals for fifty years -- sixty if you count a 1962 interview I've been unable to access so far) more than meet GNG.

It's not at all surprising there's no coverage in Japanese, since he spent almost his entire life in England (beginning before WW1), and the amusing name change does not, of course, add to notability, but neither does it detract. EEng 22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Belchem's notice of Murphy is a trivial mention (quite literally two sentences) sourced to Spiegl, and Spiegl's is in turn sourced to the local obituary. One would expect there to be at least some small notice in Japanese given the man's genealogy—I also note that I can't find any relatives of Princess Chichibu with the surname (native or assumed) of Yoshida for any permutation of kanji with that reading. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add: from checking the book, Connections – Liverpool Gateway is a "public art project" (quote from the foreword) comprising interviews with Liverpool residents, not a work of historiography, and the relevant part within it is a two-page interview with Murphy's grandson with no evaluation made of the claims. The idea of someone claiming close relationship to the highest levels of Japanese society simply turning up in England for unknown reasons and working menial jobs in the navy while not being present on any genealogical tables is possible but still pretty incredible—falling under the WP:REDFLAG of "exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources", I would think. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belchem's is not a trivial mention. Yes it's two sentences, but they're long and complex ones that succinctly summarize his life [1] -- and used, BTW, by Belcham to illustrate " 'the Liverpool That Was', a cosmopolitan heritage of Merseypride briefly embraced by Black Liverpool, until as Jacqueling Nassy Brown has noted, its history became as apart as its geography." Not that I know enough about Liverpool to have more than a vague idea what that means, but clearly it's a serious scholarly point. Belchem says, in fact, that Murphy "best personified" this heritage, so he's not dragging Murphy in just for giggles over his name, if that's what you imagine. And that Belchem cites to another secondary source is completely irrelevant as well -- not every source needs to have done original research from primary sources, and the fact that Belchem, writing for a university press, chooses to rely on Spiegl without qualification confirms Spiegl's reputation for reliability.

The Federal Writer's Project was also, to a large extent, a public art (well, cultural) project that very much relied on oral sources. So what? Most of what's cited to Gateway are exactly the sorts of things one would find nowhere else e.g. the scar, the soft spot. Most or all of the rest is in the other sources as well, but I used Gateway exactly because it was open access so others could see it. I guess this is my reward for that consideration.

Spiegl himself lived in Liverpool, and that he quotes from (reproduces in facsimile, in fact) the obituary doesn't mean the obit was his only source of information, and it's of no interest to us whether he lists them all, unless there's some conflict among sources we need to sort out.

There's nothing REDFLAG here. He was born a commoner -- a relative married into the imperial family decades later -- and died a commoner, so I don't know why we should expect him to show up anywhere at all in Japanese sources. We take the sources we have at their word. REDFLAG is for men from mars, cold fusion, and claims that appear to contradict known fact and common sense.

How about if we take a breather so others can comment. EEng 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't born a commoner, though; Princess Chichibu's family on the male side is of the Tokugawa clan and her mother was of the Nabeshima clan, so he would be from one of those. Two sentences in an entire book, "long and complex" or not, is pretty much textbook WP:TRIVIAL (though one sentence more than just the one, I guess!) in terms of not representing any contribution to notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commoner: I was relying on Princess_Chichibu: "Although technically born a commoner, she was a scion of distinguished aristocratic families with close ties to the Japanese Imperial Family on both sides."

Textbook TRIVIAL: You and I must be looking at different textbooks, because the example TRIVIAL gives (as a trivial mention of Bill Clinton's high school band) is this sentence in a Clinton bio: "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" -- nothing at all like Belchem's coverage of Murphy. And the relationship between the book's quantity of coverage of the subject, versus the overall size of the book is irrelevant. You're acting as if coverage sufficient for notability has to be found all at once in a single source, which of course isn't true -- it's the totality of sources that matters.

The subject's story is a simple one, but one which has been repeatedly told in RS. Now, again, can we please wait for others to comment? EEng 00:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: What he said. Reported by a number of reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems that he meets notability requirements, if barely. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this delightful article seems adequately sourced. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, Totally keep. reliable sources available. VanEman (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like, totally keep, dude! It's a radical article! EEng 22:10, 10 April 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 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roseville High School Auto Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an individual vocational program at an individual high school, with no credible or sourced claim of wider notability. The only source here is a self-published print-on-demand book written by the author of this article, who clearly has a direct family relationship of some kind with the teacher of the course (their surname is too rare and distinctive for it to be a pure coincidence that they both have the same one) -- which makes this a conflict of interest flying in two directions at one. None of this suggests that the course warrants the attention of an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GROUP, with the only refs I could find being either self published or WP:NOTRELIABLE. crh23 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this program does not warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, sources indicate that it is a noteworthy aspect of the high school (e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7]), and I would have !voted to merge this to the high school's article, but for the improvident fact that the school doesn't yet have an article. So instead I will suggest userfying this content until such time as it can be incorporated into an appropriate article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: None of the sources Arxiloxos cites would meet the GNG, I'm afraid; they're all fleeting mentions of the subject of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. That the auto shop is an integral part of the high school I don't question -- my own high school's vocational wing was an integral part there as well -- but I doubt it's any more noteworthy than its English department or football team, elements of high schools that don't commonly achieve their own articles. Ravenswing 06:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a local school's local program, no signs of Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Arxiloxos that this article could conveniently be merged (shortened) into a future article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan), but non-notable drafts aren't supposed to be left to languish indefinitely in userspace. If and when an article about the school comes into being, one would hope that the author of this article has saved his text privately; if not, I'll be happy to provide it for him at that time. But not now. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Letitia (SP-398) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per... article? It is a boat that very little is known about, as per the article. It couldn't possibly pass WP:GNG, as it is barely known to exist! N.B. I'm pretty sure that [8] is an uncredited wiki mirror, so no WP:Copyvio. crh23 (talk)
• Comment. I see no evidence of any hoax at all, what gives? Could the ship be the first Letitia covered at http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TSS.Letitia2sistershiptoi.html? There is source North Atlantic Seaway by N.R.P.Bonsor, vol.3, p.1014 given there. That is a ship built 1912, converted to a hospital ship for WWI. It was wrecked near Halifax Nova Scotia in 1917 which does not preclude it being on the way to the U.S. The link uses "TSS Letitia" which uses the ship prefix TSS for "Twin Screw Steamer" which does not preclude it being a U.S. ship. The image at the link uses "HMHS" prefix for "Her Majesty's Hospital Ship" suggesting it was taken into British service, but conceivably it could have been transferred between services, starting or ending in U.S. service. [Update: From this source on Canada-related hospital ships which includes the image, it is clear that it was a British ship.] Or, as the current article suggests, it may merely have been considered for use by the U.S. Navy, per Navsource: in 1916 "the U.S. Navy began a registry of privately-owned pleasure craft and yachts that were available for patrol service in the event the United States was drawn into the conflict." Those ships considered are the ones listed at Navsource's "Section Patrol Craft (SP) and Civilian Vessels (ID) Index" page. And note at disambiguation page HMHS Letitia there is "HMHS Letitia (1912), which served during WWI", showing as a redlink entry. Which brings me to the following suggestion/vote, below. --doncram 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but move to HMHS Letitia (1912) and edit the article to describe the hospital ship (which is clearly notable: the link above, a chapter on it in a dive book, with interesting detail about its service at Gallipoli, and multiple mentions of soldiers shipped on it such as this. Let the Talk page show (including by link to this AFD), that there was a mystery USS Letitia listed in the U.S. Navy's register, which may or may not have been this ship. And I think it would be okay to mention that potential confusion explicitly in the mainspace article, too, perhaps in a footnote (simply stating: "In the U.S. Navy's register, there was a U.S.S. Letitia listed" without asserting any opinion). Handling the article this way keeps the edit history intact, giving credit properly if verification is obtained, and allowing future editors who might be looking for the U.S.S. Letitia a way to see what happened when the wp:SHIPS wikiproject editors were working their way through the Navsource list of ships, most of which are Wikipedia-notable. --doncram 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: Are you kidding me? There's nothing here to keep! Heck, I'd be fine with a A7 on the ground that there's no assertion of notability here. My suggestion to Doncram is that if he thinks there ought to be an article on HMHS Letitia (1912), he's free to create one, and blessings upon it. But I see no reason whatsoever to keep an edit history or attribute "credit" for an article with no meaningful content, with a subject that was a different ship in another country's navy. Ravenswing 06:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of Wikipedia of giving credit to contributors through attribution in edit history is not to be so casually dismissed. Here there is some confusion, but it is clear that Mdnavman, who is still an active editor, identified correctly in 2010 that this was a ship considered by the U.S. Navy for use during World War I, and wrote carefully. The limited article said nothing incorrect. It never stated that the ship was in the U.S. navy, i.e. "in another country's navy", it said it was listed for consideration: no one is disputing that. Assuming the ship identified by the US Navy was in fact the hospital ship, which may yet be confirmed by additional sources, the move preserves edit history that was valid, and it avoids the affront of deleting an article created by an editor. In AFD process in general there should be more appreciation of work done, and more effort spent in preserving and developing rather than dismissing and tearing down. --doncram 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this credit perfectly easy to dismiss, thank you. It's a garbage entry of the sort that brings disrepute on Wikipedia as a legitimate resource, and the only difference between it and (say) a promotional article on an SPA's garage band is its use of grammar and formatting. The "OMG we need an article for every possible item on this list" mindset has led us to such pointless entries as Mali at the 2006 Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican City, "work" worth neither appreciating nor preserving. Ravenswing 21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly, and I doubt the creator of this article cares about this old item, and I think I overstated a bit. My general concern about AFD is more about when the contributors involved are new and/or they don't have a substantial amount of other contributions surviving. I don't mind if this article is deleted. Still I happen to think it is a tad better to convert it to become an article on the hospital ship, or to be a redirect to a section for it within a list (say a List of hospital ships?). --doncram 01:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy with no mention of it, I am adding mention now. --doncram 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Draft instead as my searches found nothing better and the current is still questionable for keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We might possibly want an article on the Royal Naval hospital ship, but this is about an alleged US ship, whose very existence seems doubtful. We should not normally have articles on things of that kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 April 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 I'm Not There. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grain of Sand (Fictional Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a "film" which exists only as a fictional plot point within another film, with no reliable sourcing or real-world context to demonstrate a reason why it would warrant a standalone article as a separate topic from its parent film. Wikipedia is not a fan site on which every individual plot point in a film automatically warrants its own separate article, and the only "sources" here are the parent film itself, and a review of that parent film which contains only minimal content about the film-within-a-film -- so this topic should certainly be discussed in the article on I'm Not There, but nothing here warrants a separate article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into I'm Not There. Very little independent coverage of this "film within a film", and nothing worth putting in a separate article. crh23 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as it's actually not currently mentioned there and there's simply nothing to suggest an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Something to be careful about with merging is that a lot of this seems to be written from the specific viewpoint of the editor and as such, really comes across strongly as WP:OR. It's also sourced heavily to only this review of I'm Not There, so there'd need to be other sources as well. I'm not against merging, just saying that this needs a lot of work and judgement before merging some of this information into the parent article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge cautiously into I'm Not There, per Tokyogirl79. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Fictional Films. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 9 April 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. A Google search turns up nothing about this film, and the article doesn't include any sources. It does have an IMDb page, but that leads me nowhere. JudgeRM 17:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Quickly fails WP:MOVIE, and WP:GNG for good measure. No independent, reliable third-party coverage, the IMDb page is about it (and is, of course, insufficient) crh23 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Where the hell is this movie? I'm looking every and can't find even a single source mentioning it. Clearly a WP:HOAX editorEهեইдအ😎 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, at least I now know it exists, its just so tiny on the notability scale. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's possible that this exists, but I kind of doubt it. It doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources, and the only results seem to be user-generated content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no signs of any applicable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a Syfy movie that stank so bad it vanished from embarrassment. WP:NF failed on all counts. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at least the Sharknado films are fun to watch, and are actually notable unlike this film editorEهեইдအ😎 22:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It exists. That's about all I can say on this movie. TV movie of very little note. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Er, how do we now know the film exists, again? But I'll assume it does, per above. Non-notable, indeed deeply obscure. (And a homicidal mammoth? No, no! Defamation of friendly creatures!) Bishonen | talk 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Per nom and comments. — Music1201 ^talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on social networking platforms and blogs) WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC: his only release to date is an independent mixtape, the airplay component is tied to Soundcloud streams and a single standalone radio station rather than a national network, and nothing else here even tries for any other NMUSIC criterion. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every musician on earth is automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies one or more Wikipedia inclusion standards, must be shown for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources, no notability. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 04:11, 8 April 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 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The page contains no assertion or evidence of historical or other significance, and I couldn't find any either. The cited source may confirm his existence, but certainly nothing to rise to the level of WP:GNG. Article was created by apparent SPA account, User:Johnwilsonisbae. Speedy deletion challenged on the basis that "Fighting in several notable battles is significant." Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. Like Russell's teapot, perhaps there is significant coverage in period print sources, but, based on the article, I doubt it. I don't have access to the print source given in the article, but I assume it's WP:ROUTINE and may has reliability problems as well (per WP:SELFPUBLISH, a will or similar document, even one reprinted in a governmental index, is not going to be a reliable source for its subject's life accomplishments).  Rebbing  17:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Fighting in several notable battles is significant" is the sort of garbage rationale worthy of a trout slap. By that token, one can reasonably claim that soldiers in most armies in wartime all qualify, millions upon millions. Obvious GNG fail. Ravenswing 07:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Not surprisingly, there's nothing out there about this guy, just some author with the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I myself have improved these types of articles but this one is still particularly questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, should have been speedied. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly NN. WE cannot have an article on every veteran, whom somebody comes up with in their family history research. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 April 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 00:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WGC-Dell Match Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON Event is a year away and dates are not official yet. Article is basically a copy of the main article and 2016 event. It contains no info on the 2017 version. I tried to make this into a redirect but article creator reverted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP There are a couple of things that need to be addressed here. Firstly, for special events that are held annually (such as certain golf tournaments like this one), it's common for a Wikipedia editor to prepare the article six months to a year in advance, and there typically not only isn't any problem with it, but additionally other editors usually help out to get it prepared as much as possible, regardless of the date the event is to be held. (This is the first time I have ever encountered someone being bothered with this common practice.) Also, this business of preparing an article up to a year in advance is done frequently in not only golf, but also auto racing, tennis, and the Olympics. Look at the Masters and other articles of its kind for this year, and you will find they were prepared a year in advance with no problem.

Secondly, it was of no surprise when we found who is trying to do this deletion. The user in question has an extensive history of years of arguing with Wikipedia editors and making their online experience quite uncomfortable. The user in question also has 8 blocks on their record and threats of several more blocks from administrators who are tired of their troublemaking. I fully expect that the article will stay up as it is, as there is no credible reason for it to come down, even with a redirect; if there had been a legitimate reason for the article not to exist yet, I'd not have bothered to create it at this time. And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability. This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain you start in with personal attacks against me without proof[9] and which earned you a week long block[10] over two years ago. Do you really want me to ping the blocking administrator so he can decide if another and even longer block is necessary?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter what the nom has done before, this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. This page should be created only a month or two before the event, not a year beforehand. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Raised eyebrow time: for an editor of Johnsmith2116's longevity to claim that he'd never encountered a TOOSOON complaint about a sports event before can only suggest he's new to editing sports articles; I've seen this quite frequently over the years. (Such a claim is also untrue: he was warned about incivility in terms of CRYSTALling two years ago. [11]) The standard defense is that TOOSOON doesn't apply where there is known information backed by reliable sources concerning the tournament. But that's not the case here. With the exception of the date change, the infobox is copied from the 2016 tournament article. The only cited reference plainly refers to the 2016 tournament, and not to the 2017 one.

  That aside, whatever Johnsmith2116's irrelevant complaints about the nom may be, they're trumped by his threat that his buddies are prepared to defy the community's consensus here, and put this non-qualifying article right back up should we decide to delete it. For my part, I'm happy to add the page to my watchlist should it be deleted through process, and get a G4 speedy on it should that happen. In the words of a wise editor, John, is this the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not an article, it's more like a template waiting to be filled in. Wiki is not a crystal ball. After (if) the event occurs then write the article, otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse. The Results section borders on idiotic. Samf4u (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree it is WP:TOOSOON and the sole reference is the "Format Overview and Glossary", which is entirely generic and does not even mention the 2017 event. It seems to fail WP:GNG on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator If this AFD is closed as a delete, I propose that the article be SALTed for 6 months based on the article creator's threat (Quote- And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability.) above to recreate the article[12]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as noticeably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 10 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Roller Coaster Rumbler violates WP:GNG Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Roller Coaster Rumbler[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep [13] is something, but clearly there were paper reviews [14] for example. This is an old game, sources will generally be paper-only. Hobit (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that (1) those mentions are reviews, and (2) that they exist? czar 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the paper if that's what you are asking. But yeah, I'd say that the abime.net link is believable--compiling things like that is what it does. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Multiple reviews referenced at Mobygames. - hahnchen 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Indexed reviews from reliable non-English languages publications (video game magazines). So sources do exist, but they're unverified, untranslated, and thus this article is very unlikely to be reliably expanded in any reasonable timeframe. czar 11:00, 6 April 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 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A few passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. SSTflyer 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply none of this suggests any better signs of a better notable article, certainly not convincing for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pretty poorly written article and sources (in the article) seem to mostly cover him as one of a handful. Ideally they would be covered as a group. His name is very common and so he's hard to search for. I suspect he meets WP:N but I can't find enough solely on him to prove it. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SwisterTwister. I conducted web searches under several different terms, but the most I was able to turn up were some social media profiles and a few YouTube videos. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 22:48, 8 April 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  12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Biographies, sourced only to a single local history book, of two brothers notable only as early local settlers and business owners in a single local area. Neither article provides or sources any evidence of wider notability -- and while it's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, it takes a lot more sourcing than this to demonstrate why an international encyclopedia should maintain the articles at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This guy ran the general store in a town. His other actions rise out of that fact. This is not enough to make one notable, especially with one book that is a history of that town as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all suggesting better improvements and at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 10 April 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 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International Relations Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only notable event seems to be the visit of the Thai PM and none of the sources reference this society. Other sources are not independent suggesting non notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The presence of famous people doesn't confer notability and the society itself hasn't attracted much (if any) coverage as far as I can tell, so it fails WP:CLUB. All the independent coverage I can find is trivial per WP:SIGCOV (i.e. of the form Famous Person X said Y at the Oxford International Relations Society). —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mostly notable for a single controversy, it is still notable (see sources in the article). Hobit (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet none of the sources reference this society, they reference the college or the Thai Society. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Agreed with Aloneinthewild. Could you be more specific on which sources? If this is in reference to the Thai controversy, as far as I can tell none of the articles even mentions the International Relations Society. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CLUB quite signally. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability and, at best, can be mentioned at the University's article. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 7 April 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.  Sandstein  14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article failed to meet the terms of Wikipedia notability through Basic criteria and Additional criteria. No reliable sources. Three of the five references are dead link. Otherwise no strong Third-party sources. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 07:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see why journalists shouldn't have their own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping. Journalists do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person seems to be the editor of a widely read newspaper The Express Tribune. I searched a bit and I did find independent sources like [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] as well as passing mentions here [20], [21]. I would say the article subject is notable, but the article in its current form needs to be trimmed down. Keep article but trim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So It would need additional sources as you provide and must be trim. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now actually as the article is still questionable overall and the Keep votes are not confident enough to suggest this will be better improved especially considering the article's current troubled state. Delete for now at best, Keep only if it's noticeably improved and, if not, Draft instead for future uses, and imaginably return to mainspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The most informative of the sources cited by the article is the Global Journalist story,[22] which is half interview transcript and half capsule bio. The latter might be the result of research and analysis by the reporting staff, but it reads like the average self-supplied author bio. The rest of the cited sources are largely written by him. To this I can add only one piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[23] It's a fluffy everyman story about his relationship with his teenage daughter, but at least it's about him rather than by him. These are insufficient to pass any notability guideline.

Lemongirl942 has listed seven additional sources above. The deepest is most of a paragraph in the Herald (Karachi: Dawn Media Group)[24] which describes the self-censorship he has found necessary in Pakistan. The rest are generally of the form "Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, said" followed by a brief quote. More of the same type are available. The problem is that networking with other news organizations, exchanging quotes, and getting your paper mentioned seem to be a routine part of the job of editor. Just because a journalist has been quoted by a dozen different media outlets, doesn't make them notable.

Perhaps he can satisfy criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALIST, "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Wikipedia itself cites articles he has written only 4 times. Google scholar shows a dozen citations spread over half a dozen of his articles. Google books returns many false positives, but if one further limits the search to after when he began his career (1990) and by the names of papers where he has worked, one gets 11 (Dawn) + 9 (The News) + 8 (Indian Express). These are not notable numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think every journalist deserves a page, but this guy seems to. I think it's more appropriate to keep it and add a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable? LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero attempt to explain how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the sources in the article meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N no additional comment is needed. But if you prefer: [25] is a source solely on the topic. [26] provides both an independent biography and documents an award from Stanford University. In addition he has been interviewed by The Guardian about the paper he's the editor for here as well as by the Washington Post [27]. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. the supplied sources are not in-depth about the subject but merely confirm his role. Secondly most of the keep votes presented here make no real attempt to explain how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What most !votes do doesn't matter. That sources have been provided (both in the article and above) is all that matters. Just saying that "sources aren't in-depth about the subject" makes one suspect you didn't read the sources since at least one is purely about the subject... Hobit (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My perusal of the sources offered here and in the article reveal far too many passing mentions and primary sources. An example is this, which Lemongirl942 seems to consider comprehensive coverage (as it's grouped with several as "independent") and then offers two that are "passing mentions" separately. This example is most definitely a passing mention, rather than the comprehensive coverage needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia context. The most convincing argument I've seen for meeting notability criteria is the argument by Worldbruce, but I don't think it's quite there. For Hobit, I have read the sources, and this is my conclusion. The article simply having sources isn't sufficient, the sources must be reliable and of sufficient quality. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 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 Evildead. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live.... From the Depths of the Underworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Meets no part of WP:NALBUMS. No independent discussion of the album to be found. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well....... it would appear that all Steamhammer/SPV GmbH releases should be deleted, it would seem that you are playing favorites. This album meets all requirements for relevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryn davis (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• there are two sources shown I will remove the wiki source.... problem solved
• There is no evidence given for notability. The source given is "Wikipedia Article: Evildead" which just seems recursive. The source for a Wikipedia article is another Wikipedia article. That just can't be considered good enough. Maybe the page is work in progress, but if nothing better can be found it should be a Delete Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Evildead. Neither of the sources cited is reliable, and I found no other coverage. It's already covered adequately in the band article. --Michig (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Evildead. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM as there is no independant analysis to be found. Also, @Caryn davis:, if you think those other articles also fail WP:NALBUM, propose them too!crh23 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band. No reason to delete history however. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Evildead, no independent notability. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 7 April 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  14:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable fragrance. Being endorsed by Taylor Swift is not enough. Greek Legend (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely solid enough for any merge and none of this actually suggests any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm not sure being endorsed by Taylor Swift is a good thing, but regardless, my Google searches turn up nothing to help this pass WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Just an ad.VanEman (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep easily meets WP:N. Are people even doing web searches before !voting to delete? [28]. We've got Glamour, MTV, Daily Mail, Hollywood Life and more. Hobit (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - this is out-rightly promotional and there is nothing outstanding about it that meets encyclopedic magnitude. Kansiime (talk) 04:45, 11 April 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Nothing in news. Greek Legend (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this imagines better applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If they're notable, I don't see it. Fails WP:BAND. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to easily meet WP:BAND#5. Hobit (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial references made up mostly of non-notable music blogs and the like equals zero evidence of coverage or references by non-trivial independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of the WP:BAND#5 issue? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to you, Hobit, while this band involves some level of contributions from a hodgepodge of musicians who are, in some cases, unquestionably notable, the band (or project?) itself lacks verifiable evidence of accomplishment or notability. The references provided are fan blogs and the band's own website. If the article provided non-trivial, independent references it would go a long way towards getting me to consider changing my vote, but I'm not even sure that would be enough. The band's social media efforts on Facebook have resulted in little more than 150 likes, and the founder's You Tube channel posting of the bands videos average less than 1,000 views. While such evidence is not within wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, something tells me there's not much "there" there, if you know what I mean. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply. I'd say it still pretty plain this meets WP:BAND#5, but your points are reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not my field, but even I can see that this is a clearly promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not notable and fails WP:BAND Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:21, 14 April 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 SNOW Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The links are mainly the subject's blogs and appears to be self promotion or publicity. Considering the criteria for Notability in media and arts, she does not appear to be influential, has contributed no new theory or technique, does not contribute significantly to a well-known body of work, nor has she significant critical acclaim. EvidentAnalogy (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the subject's notability is well-established in mainstream media per WP:ENT. Granted, the current article may rely too much on blogs and unsourced claims (I did some improvements on 22 January on that), but that's a long way to having it deleted for an alleged lack of notability. I'm also in favour of adding a "Criticism" section if the current page seems too promotional. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable female comic. All that is lacking are a couple of additional sources.--Tallard (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: no doubt about her notability. Additional sources should probably come soon --Nattes à chat (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs improvement, but if there was any doubt about her notability, the Goldsmiths incident should have tipped the balance irrevocably. --129.89.206.38 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep additional source:3 Feb 2015 The telegraph: Kate Smurthwaite: the comedian who confused no interest with no platform http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11386478/Kate-Smurthwaite-the-comedian-who-confused-no-interest-with-no-platform.html --LaMèreVeille (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the delete request is from an account which has no previous contributions. I think this deletion request is in bad faith and should be removed immediately. I am aware of the Wikipedia "good faith" policy, but to create an account with the sole intent of asking for a deletion is suspect. Could this account be a sockpuppet? --Tallard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted, I hadn't noticed that yet. I've guarded this page against many vandals, usually they edit from an IP address and have an obvious malicious intent by smearing the subject's reputation. This one may be the sneakiest yet in creating an account (likely an SPA) and almost correctly filing a formal deletion request, which still looks like a thinly veiled attack on the subject's reputation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Satisfies notability criteria. Years of being a standup comedian & her board membership of British humanist & feminist organisations is sufficient for notability in Britain. I know Kate & I was connected to Goldsmiths College for 10 years. There has been a clique at Goldsmiths that have emerged in the last 2 years that seeks to silence free speech that they disagree with. The deletion request is coming from a malicious intent

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NN minor-league hockey player, ephemeral career. Subject was deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs, and was banned by the community from new article creation. Ravenswing 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability issues. — Music1201 ^talk 04:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable with no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 10 April 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. Katie^talk 23:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Gregson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable person; no sources; doesnt link to any article. Originally under CSD A7, moved to AfD after Contest for Speedy Deletion undetermined. Music1201 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gregson-Hadley House, ref its nomination form. Gregson appears to have had minor notability in the development of Siler City, but not enough to meet GNG or ANYBIO, or to make a useful article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing especially the article's current context. I'm also not optimistic about the Redirect mentioned above because he's currently not mentioned there and I'm not finding anything solid to confirm a Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, completely unsourced. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: The Gregson-Hadley house PDF (http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/CH0477.pdf) has a reasonable biography and links Gregson to the Gregson-Hadley house. This is thus sufficient and reliable (edit: though WP:ONESOURCE) to construct a referenced biography, however I still don't believe Gregson meets GNG/ANYBIO as his notability appears purely local to Siler City, so would still stick with the Redirect proposed for this (also applied to Julius Clarence Gregson), with no objection to redirection to Siler City if that article ever incorporates Gregson into its early history).^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although one potential source suggests notability, I can't see how this person passes WP:GNG as anybody notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 12 April 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a two year old musical group. Fails WP:BAND for lack of sufficient available sources. - MrX 12:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply not yet solid for the applicable notability and would certainly need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, and googling "Knaves Sheffield" finds only social media and blogs. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Unable to verify that the information comes from a reliable source.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 10 April 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 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss United Continent titleholders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list of winners of a pageant that was deemed not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent (2nd nomination) The Banner talk 12:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Unable to verify that the information comes from a reliable source.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article for the pageant itself is now deleted or else I would've suggested moving there, nothing convincing for keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 10 April 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 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International country rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like WP:OR, fails WP:GNG as there are no independent sources The Banner talk 11:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR and unsourced and a subtopic that fails GNG. I thought we deleted this page before, or something very similar. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 5 April 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 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable company. After stating the company's name and nationality none of rest of the content of the article content or the references is about the company or its products. A WP:BEFORE search on Google delivered no usable results. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nothing substantial in article to assert notability, Google gives very little, references in article don't mention the company, they're just listicles. crh23 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The company’s own website doesn’t even show up in a Google search, let alone any secondary sources to establish notability. giso6150 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain the article: Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers. Wikipedia, for many years, has a bad reputation because those individuals. Asking for "deletion" is an extrem mesure, especially in this case, because the article is not offensive at all. In fact, it has, today, six references, based on different sources. Give the author the chance to gradually improve the article. Wikipedia's sources are voluntary contributors, not professional writers. So, you should be very cautious before considering an article for deletion. Lots of Wikipedia's articles are about enterprises, corporations and individuals. Not all of them are popular or famous. And not all the articles on Wikipedia are totally conform to its edition policy. So, just remember our Freedom of Speech. Energyelectrofree

This obviously can't be taken seriously for saving the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energyelectrofree, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules, especially the ideas of neutral point of view and notability. Swistertwister, please don't bite the newbies. JHCaufield - talk - 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bite the newbies? "Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers" is egregiously uncivil, a baseless personal attack, and I'm issuing a civility warning to Energyelectrofree, accordingly. I see he'd never been warned for removing the Afd tag with an edit summary that is another personal attack, so I've issued another warning, which is his 3rd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shawn. The last time I looked, WP:BITE didn't say we're obliged to roll out the red carpet for aggressive COI editors. Nobody has bitten them. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete There is nothing to indicate notability for this outfit, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is little to indicate notability on a Worldwide scale, much less notable to the English-speaking world. plus advertising Winterysteppe (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: PROD was removed by creator of the article. First reference is the company itself, second and third provide the definition of the latin term motus and a generic description of a drone. Last three references are about uses of drones but do not reference the company, as far as I can tell. Nothing sufficient to support a claim of notability. EdChem (talk) 11:53, 10 April 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) Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I couldn't find a single RS source Greek Legend (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The title is misspelled, that's why the nominator was not able to find any sources. The common name is Akhuni or Axone (see [29][30][31][32]). utcursch | talk 04:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources given by utcursch are enough to establish notability, so keep and move to Akhuni. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there's an older AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axone (curry) about an old and badly written version of this article. Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This just shows why some articles need multiple spellings. I never use the search function inside Wiki anymore.VanEman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I meant to comment sooner, this is convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per utcursch's comment. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 20:59, 7 April 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. Katie^talk 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails to meet the WP:GNG or WP:Music guideline for notability. A google search reveals no reliable sources to verify this article's content. 4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have nominated this for CSD under sections A7 and G11 per the Copyvio report clearly noting evidence of copyrighted material. Music1201 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @SwisterTwister: Your !vote is a bit vague here. Could you please clarify what you mean by "none of this". Is this just based upon sources listed in the article, or did you perform any additional source searches? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a highly notable Oromo figure. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly locally known musician and party leader. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely unsourced article and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 12 April 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. There is clear consensus not to have an article about this. A selective merger has been proposed, but does not find consensus here. Considering that a talk page merge proposal has also already been closed as failed, I'm deleting instead of redirecting. Should consensus later emerge to cover this topic at Donald Trump, as a testament to the quality of U.S. political discourse, the relevant material should be available on the talk page and can be copied from there.  Sandstein  12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Fingered Vulgarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Definitely not encyclopedic content. If really necessary, the content could be merged into Donald Trump, however I vote to delete it completely, since it has absolutely no importance in the description of Mr. Trump and is (imo) on the verge of being considered harassment. rayukk | talk 11:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Trivial recentism. Imagine how many articles you can create for every nickname every celebrity has been called. The term 'unencyclopedic' has been used loosely before but it clearly applies here. Spellcast (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Spellcast: How does a phrase that originated in the 1980s qualify as "recentism"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in the sense that since his campaign is currently big news, trivial unencyclopedic things from the past are being given undue attention here. Spellcast (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 years isn't "recent". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, Spellcast isn't saying that the original use of the phrase was recent, but rather that its attention in popular culture and the media is recent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhere – Of course, this is rather silly, but perhaps the mention can be merged to an appropriate article, as per WP:PRESERVE relative to the decent coverage the topic has received. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, it is not encyclopedic at all, and it does indeed verges on harassment. I understand that is easy to view D. Trump negatively, but wikipedia should include comedic insults? Specially as a separate article? A lot of details form Trump's past are dug up, including "sensations" like "my date with Trump, " or "I showered with Trump" etc. This 30 years old expression would probably be forgotten if wasn't refreshed already, and soon will be forgotten by the media. Bialosz (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Bialosz: How are you able to predict whether or not the topic "soon will be forgotten by the media"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Northamerica1000: Spellcast explained it very well already, in his comment abouttrivial recentivism, he made a good point.Discussion about powers of predictions, mine or yours ;), would be pointelss. Bialosz (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect. Per Northamerica1000. The notoriety and duration of the comic "feud" and the pervasiveness of the nickname are substantial. It should be borne in mind that although right now Trump is primarily being viewed in political terms, he's also had a long career in the entertainment world, and this content is thoroughly appropriate in that context. (At some point it may be appropriate to spin off a separate article or articles on Trump's career in entertainment and his media profile.) In the meantime I think this material, written in an appropriately NPOV tone, is appropriately included. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Closer note – There's also a simultaneous merge discussion occurring at the Talk:Donald Trump page, at Talk:Donald Trump § Proposed merge with Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Closer note – An additional merge discussion is also occurring at Talk:Donald Trump § Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I live (thankfully) an ocean away. I'm already familiar with this term. Some political insults are trivia, some stick. Some become defining of particular politicans: Nixon and Clinton, sweaty and unshaved or cigars - you all know instantly which goes with which. This term was coined thirty years ago and it's still in use. I can hear references to Trump's "dimensions" on my national evening news broadcast in a whole different country. This is a notable term with legs (I have no idea if he has short legs). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "sweaty and unshaved (Nixon)" thing related to a history-changing event/public reaction when presidential political debate was newly broadcast on TV versus the radio. The "cigar" thing related to Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding, again having significance relating to a historic event. Do you have any similar historic significance to offer re the "short-fingered" thing? (If not then I'd say your comparison argument breaks down.) IHTS (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't work by historical significance here, we work by the independent attention paid to it. This issue has garnered attention - fanned substantially by Trump himself. It also matters less if Nixon was unshaved or was even seen as looking unshaven - what matters is that the newspapers discussed it the day after. Clinton didn't smoke a cigar in the hearing, I don't even know if cigars were mentioned, but they were certainly mentioned in the press. The finger issue has received that same attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your two examples (do you even know what the cigar reference you made is about?; it appeared you did, then subsequently that you don't) had some historical import/significance, so was reasonable to assume you chose them in whole/part for that reason. Now you're saying historical significance is irrelevant to notability, and the only basis you give for notability is the thing got "attention". If I tell you that being in print or generating attention and therefore references isn't sufficient for WP:Notability, it just might just kill me by boredom. (So I won't.) That apparently is your single argument, without qualification towards editorial judgement (save the element of some degree of historical significance, which you said is a ghost). IHTS (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Btw, is there a separate article on Nixon's beard-stubble? On Clinton's cigar? On any/all of the various alleged Presidential/Presidential-candidates' peccadilloes through the years? Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, we do have Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing on the cigar or its close relative, The Blue Dress, or the stubble... Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt that extremely derogatory memes can have articles in Wikipedia. We can have this kind of raw racist shit but somehow Trump's short fingers are immune? Makes zero sense - apparently the NOTABILITY standards for political memes are far more flexible than any of the "deletes" here are aware of. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes, but as far as I am concerned this conversation ended with Barack the Magic Negro. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone really need to do the cliche thing and link you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe those subjects merit an article, maybe they don't. But the fact that they exist right now is not an argument that this one should. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fyddlestix if you actually read what I wrote here I have explicitly said that I am not making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I said was that the community standards for NOTABILITY and what constitutes an "attack article" seems very low in this topic area. You are surely aware that various topic areas have their own tweaks on the basic NOTABILITY standards. People can disagree but do not distort what i am saying. Just don't do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - First, it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. While other editors have edited the article, the entirety of the content was contributed by a user who has been persistently promoting a comparison of Trump to Hitler. Even if none of that were true, the article should not exist independently of Mr. Trump's main biography, if at all. I suppose WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that some mention should be given in the biography, but WP:NOTSCANDAL suggests that this type of content falls short of our goal of being a serious encyclopedia. Technically, the article should be deleted because Acroterion has removed the attribution required by WP:CC BY-SA, although I don't fault him for it.- MrX 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure the attribution chain is any more compromised by the removal of the originating username than if intervening usernames are redacted. I'd propose starting over again if that's an issue, though it's a bit bureaucratic. I have no view on the actual notability issue here. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Article is not encyclopedic in the least.CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - If this material is worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all (which I seriously question) it can be dealt within the main Trump article. Obvious troll is obvious, we shouldn't be giving crap like this the time of day. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Rayukk and Spellcast's arguments—at most, this might deserve a single sentence in the article Donald Trump, if that. Moreover, if, as MrX says, the content of the article was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, it should be deleted for that reason as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'strong keep i saw the posting at BLPN about this and came here just to check it out, thinking "hoax" or something but the number of legit sources that discuss this in depth was surprising to me. Meets GNG by a mile. About the G5 speedy tag, this has been worked over extensively (by MrX, ironically) and so the tag was no longer applicable - I am the one who removed it. That said, given the overwhelming "delete" response, i would of course accept a merge to the main Trump article. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (modify, after seeing what other kind of political memes we have articles for; paying mind to the genre standards for NOTABILITY is important Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)) (striking Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  I think it's worth mentioning that my work on the article consisted of removing the most glaring WP:BLP violations and using Refill to fill in references.- MrX 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, which constitutes a review and acceptance of the content added by the banned user. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but in case there's any question, I do not accept the content added by the banned blocked user.- MrX 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The topic is name calling with Graydon Carter is the perpetrator, Trump the victim. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says in part: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 19:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of sources discussing this, which satisfies WP:GNG. As long as the article doesn't focus unduly on the current news, it's not a recentism issue. For a similar case, see "Confessions of a Republican", an old topic which has also been brought up in reference to Trump's current campaign. clpo13_(talk) 19:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't merge. Crap material like this belongs in the Urban Dictionary (the dictionary, not the article on same). IHTS (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Silly, but seems to meet WP:GNG. Funilly enough, today I read about this "concept" on Dagens Nyheter [33]and saw a sketch that mentioned it on yesterdays SNL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this phrase is of enduring WP/encyclopedic interest and noteworthiness and was created by Spy Magazine back in the 1980s - over 30 years ago - to refer to Trump then why was an article on the subject just created yesterday? The phrase was created by Graydon Carter and re: this Carter/VF essay Carter has continually repeated the phrase because he has the VF pulpit and admits he employs the phrase as a way to jab at Trump. Who wrote all the captions in the VF column I refer to above?...Vanity Fair/Graydon Carter. Why should Wikipedia give credence to an infighting wrestling/schoolyard shouting-match between Carter and Trump? Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMO this could have been speedied per G10 as an attack page (recognizing that ridicule is a form of attack). A merge or redirect is out of the question. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete trivial gossip Josef9 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect The Trump article needs a sentence on this topic, but that's it. Absolutely no standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Trump article need a sentence on this? It seems like it certainly doesn't need this kind of non notable attack material added to it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete with no merge. Insults aimed at currently running political candidates are very common, rarely notable, and never encyclopedic. This is no exception. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as either G1 or G10. Outside of that, it's pointless trivia and recentism. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see the notability in this topic. If there is consensus to merge, then I would have no problem going that route as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because you've just deleted half the sources Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was mainly an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. If you go through my edit history, I have done the same for other pages as well, and after three sources that say the same thing, nothing is really gained when you have ten sources that all state the same fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. "

That's not an argument, that's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excess sources always impress that the case for notability was weak to begin with. So to weed them is productive & helpful towards making any case of notability. What's nonsense is your accuse of nonsense. IHTS (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or better Merge. As Jytdog says, remarkably well sourced over a period of years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is to be kept at all, it should either redirect to Spy Magazine or to Graydon Carter's article. This seems to mostly center around a "feud" between the two that includes the phrase but isn't limited to it. Most of the coverage on this specific phrase is relatively recent despite it being used in the 80s, as it's from the past few months with the exception of a handful of articles written in October of last year like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

recent sources doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM. This is an almost thirty year old meme and of the 33,000 google hits of which many are low quality, here is one from 1989, one from 1990, the cover article from 1999 Jewish Weekly, Newsweek in 2004 completely just tossed in, a nice 2006 NYT piece by Christopher Buckley, 2004 Globe and Mail in the headline of a review of the Apprentice when it first came out, slate in 2006 again in reference to goings-on on The Apprentice, Gawker in 2008 picking up the gawntlet, national post in 2006 remarking contemporaneously with Trump making his quote about "In fact, my fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." " which he did away back then in 2006. And there are many, many over the decades. It has been a touchstone since it was coined and hammered on by Grayson. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Come on, in a supposedly international encyclopedia? It's ridiculous. Also having an article with this name is intrinsically a BLP vio. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

User:Bishonen apparently for politicians the NOTABILITY standard is much lower and BLP is more lax. See Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that, Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes. Not to mention Macaca (term). And we do it for brits, apparently: Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. I am not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I am saying that for this genre of articles, these are the community standards. This article is way more strongly sourced than almost any of those. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?) OK, I expect you're right; this actually is the US- + GB-pedia, not an "international encyclopedia" at all. However, I don't understand why you and other keep !voters argue per "well sourced", as the nomination is nothing to do with sources. I don't see a single delete !vote complaining about sources. Massively sourced doesn't help if something's undue, trivial, and insulting to a living person. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I hear you kind of. But again it seems that for politicians that standard is very very low. Again, Barack the Magic Negro which has never been AfDed and was even on the front page as a DYK. That is WP's standards for this sort of thing. (as for the global thing, Trump is likely going to be the republican candidate and the world media is very aware of that) Trump has spent most of his career in the tabloids and this description stuck to him then and is still stuck to him. I cannot see how it is even close to being as demeaning as Barack the Magic Negro. I am baffled - really baffled - by anyone freaking out on "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" in light of the standards we have. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in BLP that says "this stuff doesn't apply to politicians." Trump is clearly the victim of a crude verbal attack and we should WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The other rubbish should go too.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we went through this nonsense in 2012 (and probably 2008 and before), and I argued for deletion for pretty much every one of these things last time around too. Wikipedia should make an effort to stay above the fray and not act as a proxy battleground for these politicians and their supporters. I know; it's hard to type that without laughing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't funny or cute to me, and this is why I don't edit about politics. This phrase is sourced out the wazoo by multiple people (not just Grayson) for nearly 30 years, and people are having a cow. But Barack the Magic Negro is just fine and hey DYK worthy. Barak. The... Magic. Negro. A proud, proud, Wikipedia article indeed. A good reminder for me to stay the hell out of topics where there are poor sources and active online communities. There is no reason here. Ya'all will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Per your comparisons in this discussion, don't forget about Piggate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm that article is so long! and exists. oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's cute or funny, I'm saying these articles are ridiculous. What's funny is the suggestion that WP will somehow not get sucked into political battles. I knew it was impossible when I said it, but it's still something to strive for. If it makes you feel any better, we did manage to delete Obama Eats Dogs. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an attack page. I'm no fan of Trump at all, but that's straight-up an attack page from a non-reliable source who's only purpose is to deride Donald Trump. Delete and salt ! KoshVorlon 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge. See Talk:Donald Trump#Proposed selective merge of only one sentence from Short-Fingered Vulgarian. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge. Per QuackGuru, we should migrate one sentence over, with a reference, then delete the article under this title per WP:BLP. --Jayron32 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP states that we can't say critical things without sourcing that they already have an independent notability outside WP. This does. It has had such for thirty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consesnsus is against a merge. My proposal is a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE notes that Wikipedia should not give more prominence to a concept inside Wikipedia than it receives outside. Mentioning the concept in Donald Trumps article would be in line with the relative importance of this. Dedicating an entire, stand-alone article is a BLP violation of its own self because of the undue level of prominence it gives to a minor issue. --Jayron32 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNDUE. Merge with NO redirect if really needed to keep any of this content. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as although this could be merged as stated at the talk page, this is likely best deleted as I still no solid signs of a future. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete Not worthy of a stand alone article and if deemed notable enough can easily be covered at the main page in a simple sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was created by a sock of a now banned user and it will be nothing but trouble to keep it. Jonathunder (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not simply delete. A selective merge would be a reasonable compromise. There's ample RS to demonstrate that the phrase has notability and is not just a recent creation. Tricky Dick is likewise a redirect to Richard Nixon, with a single sentence and cite for this usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge and I'm noting that even some editors voting Delete are saying that they'd be okay with including a sentence or two on the main Trump article (under media coverage?) about this. I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article (and deletion of those Obama articles should be considered, too) but the fact is that this reference to short fingers comes up and it could be an element of the Trump campaign that readers are looking for clarification of. It would be BLP violation if Wikipedia stated Trump had these fingers while I think it's fine to include a mention of Grayson's term to indicate Trump's frosty relationship with NYC papers and magazines over the past three decades. It's part of his public profile, it's a feud that Trump brings up himself. It's the feud that is notable, not what Trumps fingers are like that matters. So, I vote for a neutrally worded, explanatory statement on the Trump bio would benefit readers, whatever their political leanings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Totally frivolous page. Also BLP restraint. — JFG ^talk 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Donald Trump as not passing GNG, and as violating BLP. (This has been mentioned in mass media, but fails GNG by itself; it only makes sense in terms of the main article.)epicgenius @ 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think it violates BLP, and want to merge it to a BLP?! IHTS (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt fails GNG, operates as a coatrack attack on a living person. -- Callinus (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Donald Trump. Certainly notable, we've even heard of it in countries with sane elections, but not worthy of a standalone article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not need a separate article about every individual nickname, pejorative or otherwise, that somebody comes up with for a public figure. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial name calling is not encyclopedic nor is body shaming. --DHeyward (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]