< 3 July	5 July >

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Shenoy[edit]

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

Sources not reliable. There are no citations that verify that this is a living person or needs additional citations. There is also a tag on the page for the same. The sources provided as references do not verify the notability. Aa015 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2018 (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/2018 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a nonsense nomination is this? There are no citations that verify that this is a living person – absolutely claptrap! She is well and alive, and when one of the first of 146,000 hits we see is Times of India calling her "one of India’s top-selling novelists", it's time to get to work. Which means, sourcing and building the article. This nomination ought to be withdrawn. Sam Sailor 01:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Sam. It does nto appear that a WP:BEFORE has been done correctly, and current sourcing should not be a judgement for notability or whether or not to send the article to AFD. Article could use some cleanup, in my eyes. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perform a decent before search, put on a clean-up tag, perhaps do some of the cleaning up, and avoid a pointless AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination  Aa015 (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Lordkipanidze[edit]

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

Largely incomprehensible, no independent sources, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "winner of the first local democratic election of Georgia in 1991, Batumi" suggests notability if verifiable. (but what office did he win? city council, mayor, national parliament? "elected academician of Georgian Academy of Economic Sciences" also would normally indicate notability. As an academic, he has lots of publications, but Google Scholar doesn't show lots of citations. Google News doesn't have hits for him, but does have hots for an organized crime figure with the same name. ResearchGate lists him as founder of "Academy named after Economist A. Gunia" I don't know whether he has or had any official government or academic position, but he has taught at the university level. In short, I think he's notable but I can't prove it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being listed in the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia [1] is a further argument for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete - wow, this article is something. Almost unintelligible, seems to be copypasta, but I can't seem to find any particular source since most searches seem to just be returning Wikipedia mirrors. My only hesitancy voting delete comes from the fact the article mentions he was the first head of a province's economics ministry, which is enough to pass WP:NPOL. I can't find any independent sources of this however - everything else on the web seems to be Wikipedia mirrors, or other copypasata, possibly from the same author. Nonetheless, the article seems almost unsalvageable in its present state, and if any reliable sources are located it would probably be easiest to start over. There is no earlier history worth reverting to, and no logical merge target. Delete. MarginalCost (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SALT. I gave up even trying to figure out if he had a credible WP:NPOL pass or not — this is written so badly that even if he were the frigging president of Georgia the blow it up and start over principle would still apply. Also, this was deleted as an autobiography three times in 2009 and 2010 before the creator of this version, differently named but still an WP:SPA, showed up in 2012 — and Lia Palavandishvili's talk page wishes for a "happy future" are consistent with a pattern of comments wishing people a "happy future" when the subject was more openly trying to create the article himself. So I'm betting this is still an AUTOBIO, and I don't expect too many people to actually take me up on the opposite side of that bet. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not salt - this is probably a machine translation of kawiki without the section headings. The individual does probably pass NPOL - if he was indeed elected mayor of Batumi (which kawiki seems to indicate as well). The arguments for deletion here are mainly TNT / BLP policy (on sourcing). However this would indicate it might be possible to create an article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Professionals, Apart from the fact that Revaz Lordkipanidze was elected in the youngest years in the first democratic elections of Georgia and with his initiative the Ministry of Georgia was established, HE IS THE INITIATOR OF A VERY IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL ANTI-MONOPOLY STRUCTURE FOR IMPROVING THE LIFE OF THE POOR POPULATION AND PROTECTING OF THE LOCAL LARGE BUSINESS IN ANY COUNTRY. Revaz Lordkipanide is a BRAVE ANTI-TERRORIST fighter for peaceful economic relations and against dishonest monopolies in the world economy to a better life of a human. He is author of publications about religious base of economic growth, development of the formulation of experts from the European Union for the effectiveness of economic structural changes, US role in world progress and new structure of world market. For practice of inter-money system optimal stimulation and macroeconomic structure marginal efficiency, R. Lordkipanidze defines the force of economic competition (I=V/R) approximately as The Force of electric current. By indexes of Lordkipanidze law of economic competition, the less (till optimal levels) are output of monopoly and excess (bad-quality or needless) production (or services), the more is the force of competition. R. Lordkipanidze thinks differently from some classical views about competition. He writes, that we do not need the competition of an infinitely large number of "ants" in the economy - need a natural competition of diligent competitors, where all participants (not only small, but also large) of the competition do their necessary (effective) business (Ref. 2:93). To this, R. Lordkipanidze recommends, if we artificially increase the number of competitors, we can get a negative effect of "short circuit" with "overheating" of the market network. Lia Palavandishvili Lia Palavandishvili (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. We carried out the maximum editorial perfection of the page. Please, probably quickly remove the "cap" - the article is looked at by a lot of students and specialists. Lia Palavandishvili Lia Palavandishvili (talk)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 18:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable, and seemingly a history of WP:COI issues. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice in Your sincere creation and Please See news: Lordkipanidze R., American Studies on Economic Wonderworks and Goodness: My Half-Century Sincere Love and Scientific Interests. - Tbilisi, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326328169_American_Studies_on_Economic_Wonderworks_and_Goodness_My_Half-Century_Sincere_Love_and_Scientific_Interests_-_Tbilisi_2018_Philanthropic_Research_Academy_for_the_Digital_Library_of_the_Georgian_Parlia Lia Palavandishvili — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lia Palavandishvili (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural withdrawal of AfD nomination. Editor who moved article into main space has moved it back into Draft space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Quadir Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article existed in draft space, and despite four failed AFC submissions, and numerous attempts on their talk page to guide the article creator Ahanamirza on our notability requirements, Ahanamirza has opted to ignore advice and move the article into live space. I think I'm not the only editor who believes there might be some WP:COI and promotion happening here. Subject fails WP:GNG and there's no indication he meets WP:NACTOR.

Over the last few weeks, anonymous editors (who very well could be Ahanamirza editing while logged out) have inflated the article with garbage references, most of which wouldn't do anything other than proving the mere existence of projects that subject has worked on, projects that are not in dispute. I think they think that if they add a thousand crappy references, that somehow that will convert to subject notability. Some of the poor references being used:

http://www.emasti.pk - What is it, some random database?
http://www.famousfix.com/topic/abdul-quadir-amin - Wiki
https://www.yell.com/biz/london-academy-of-media-film-and-tv-ltd-london-6946432/ - A Yellow Pages listing to prove the existence of a school, not that the subject attended it.
http://www.indianprimebuzz.com/gold-bollywood-movie-cast/ - Cookie-cutter blog
http://www.bollywoodtimes.in/btdb/2018/08/15/13728/gold - Cookie-cutter blog. Probably a content scraper. Note the 25+ "stars" of the film as though "star" was interchangeable with "appeared in".
https://themoviean.com/gold-trailer-akshay-kumar/amp/ - Cookie-cutter blog. Probably a content scraper.

There are plenty of other poor references like these in the article. If we removed the bulk of the problematic sources, we'd probably be left with three Times of India references and one from Moviefone.com. There's also the unsourced WP:CRYSTAL violations related to future films the subject is purported to be in pre-production on. I don't know how anybody could know any of this unless they were directly related to the article subject. Now while we could potentially move back to draft space, I think the fact that the article creator took it upon himself to move a problematic article into live space is suggestive of less-than-good-faith editing, and if they're using Wikipedia to promote a not-yet-notable subject, that's obviously not consistent with our community values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – contributor has moved this article back to Draft:Abdul Quadir Amin — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Women (2019 film)[edit]

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

Premature article creation. Film hasn't entered production yet. None of the cast have even signed on yet, as they are still in talks. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl has been confirmed Torah28 User talk:Torah28|talk]]) 21:224 July 2018 (utc)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of casting status. As per WP:NFF principal photography must have started for there to be an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Little Women#Film until filming starts. At that time, the text can be restored to article status. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, at the least filming needs to have started Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft space per above comments Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not begun principal photography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, only in pre production - WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify, per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 18:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kapten & Son[edit]

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

At risk of engaging in a "move war", I decided to bring this to AfD. The single purpose account who created this article also shoved it into article space with a promotional tone and lack of reliable references. After I draftified it, they pushed it back. I still feel it's promotional, and below the quality of reliable references to satisfy WP:CORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam created by an account that has been confirmed now as a sockmaster. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Drewmutt: @TonyBallioni: The article is less promotional than it once was. (For example, I changed "retail partner" to "dealer".) Analysis of sources: There are enough valid references such as Fast Company and Forbes. I am less qualified to judge the German-language references, but InTouch https://intouch.wunderweib.de/ seems to be independent of the topics it covers, despite resembling a tabloid, and Horizont appears to be reliable as well. The German Design Award, awarded by the German Design Council, also appears to be notable. The Wikipedia article German Design Award says there are two awards with similar names, but this one is awarded by the German Design Council. The editor who created the article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, but the sockpuppetry happened after the article was created. One should obviously be suspicious about the article, but since other editors have improved it, I think the article is now adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you miss the created by a spammer sock part? See also native advertising. Sourcing doesn’t seem to meet the new and improved WP:NCORP, (as an example, Forbes is almost always excluded as a valid source under NCORP because of the contributor model). Anyway, the sourcing is crap, but even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t matter. We delete advertising, we don’t save it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The native advertising and the promotional tone lead to believe that this article does not meet WP:NCORP nor will it any time soon and I do not believe it can be salvaged. My, admittedly cursory, Google searches do not appear to result in any more useful sources. Waggie (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written in a very advertising/promotional tone that seems like it's advertising. Several sources are also advertising, and an online search turns up nothing but advertising. Fails WP:SOAP. Also created by a blocked sock and WP:SPA. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)d WP:GNG.[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni Promotional, fails WP:NCORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the new NCORP guidelines make it very hard for corps to get on Wikipedia. This one fails as per NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (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. There seems to be a clear consensus that the article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hoffman[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - A non-notable minor. He was part of a publicity stunt for anti-cancer efforts that was very well publicized. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough in-depth coverage over a protracted period of time from reliable sources to establish notability. Being a minor doesn't disqualify him. (At the same time, I can understand not wanting to have an article on a living minor who faced criminal charges or was a victim of crime, but that doesn't apply here.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly enough press to surpass WP:GNG. I don't believe it was a "publicity stunt" but if it was then it worked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously WP:GNG and still in the news with the 2018 ESPN article.--I am One of Many (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, passesWP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LasGiiDi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A few references here and there, but the content of those references doesn't signify meeting NMUSIC, and for GNG, the references themselves are either not significant or sufficient enough to meet my high bar for 21st century Nigerian musicians. Besides, I am of the opinion that NMUSIC is the safest way of accessing Nigerian musicians in this internet era, to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Element Fresh[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE check doesn't yield sufficient in-depth independent sources to pass WP:NORG. The interview cited in the article would not be considered an independent source. The remaining sources don't appear to be sufficient. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Undeniable UPE spam.Bunch of unreliable non-independent sources and PR stuff.Fails NORG comprehensively and by a mile or so.....∯WBG^converse 05:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable UPE spam. Creator has refused to reply to questions about his undenaible paid editing so it is fair to assume that all his edits are suspect over and above this article that fails notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as in-depth coverage is lacking. The chain also lacks a claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs are generally interviews. Dial911 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamesh Upase[edit]

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

Minor roles only fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A complete dearth of in-depth or persistent coverage in reliable sources (either news outlets or the literature), so fails basic notability guidelines; Likewise, since the sources reflect an absence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", a "large fan base" or a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" by him, the subject also fails WP:NENT. Thus other outlets, rather than Wikipedia, is the way for this biography to go, until his career trajectory improves. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run of the mill character actor with small roles. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pkar tmor[edit]

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

Non notable upcoming or recently released film. Cannot find many sources on google. I was waiting to see if the creator would add something but this has not happened. It did have promo posters which were speedy deleted. I tried draftification but the article was recreated. prod tag was tried but removed. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be a television series, not a film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable TV series, with no RS establishiing WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2018 (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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2042 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

Meaningless content, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#2038 FIFA World Cup, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#2042 FIFA World Cup, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#2046 FIFA World Cup and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2046 FIFA World Cup, suggest salt Hhkohh (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We'll need this article eventually, but WP:NotJustYet]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubizuva (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to prevent overzealous editors creating it. Far too early. Giant Snowman 15:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made me chuckle. Fails WP:BALL - FIFA might not exist by then.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON, creator was roughly 12 years ahead of any reasonable schedule in creating this. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No information on it, yet. --MuZemike 18:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above as WP:TOOSOON. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon. there's no information about this out there except what year it is. MadameButterflyKnife (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, blatant case of WP:TOOSOON, subject fails WP:GNG outside un-notable routine mentions. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per WP:CRYSTAL and plain common sense. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:40, 6 July 2018 (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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2046 FIFA World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Meaningless content, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#2038 FIFA World Cup, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#2042 FIFA World Cup, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#2046 FIFA World Cup and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2046 FIFA World Cup, suggest salt Hhkohh (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same as the 2042 article, WP:NotJustYet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubizuva (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT to prevent overzealous editors creating it. Far too early. Giant Snowman 15:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made me chuckle. Fails WP:BALL - FIFA might not exist by then.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, way too early for this page to exist. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No information on it, yet. (Same !vote as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2042 FIFA World Cup) --MuZemike 18:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON Qaei ☎ 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the 2042 page, this is WP:TOOSOON. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on the 1st nomination and with other pages like this, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. SemiHypercube (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's simply too soon. I would also like to explicitly recommend against this becoming a redirect after deletion since before this was converted into a one sentence article it was at WP:RFD where it was clearing trending towards deletion and it would be a complete waste of time to wait 7 days to reach that conclusion again.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, blatant case of WP:TOOSOON, subject fails WP:GNG outside un-notable routine mentions. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, waaayyy tooooo soooon, i know WP editors and readers are fanatical about football but this is going a bit far:))Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per WP:CRYSTAL and plain common sense. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. There is no way the article could have any meaningful content for about 20 years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2018 (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. Appears to meet GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Pix[edit]

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

I think that this program's general notability is kind of questionable, as, since July 1, 2005, this article's only sole reference has been a link to Craig Hickman's website talking about the early years of Kid Pix, and all throughout this article's (as of right now) entire 13-year history here on Wikipedia, literally nobody has ever seemed to bother with trying to put any shape or form of third-party, reliable sources into the article, which, in that case, I think is certainly enough to make one scratch their head over just how notable this program actually is, and especially if you consider the fact that this is one of those Wikipedia articles that really don't seem to get a whole lot of activity as far as edits are concerned. Also, this article was created way back on February 25, 2005 by an IP editor (as that time was before Wikipedia only allowed registered users to create articles), who clearly does not actually seem to know much about this program aside from being a fan of it. I myself was a huge fan of Kid Pix Studio Deluxe when I was a very young kid, so it does kind of feel painful to do this nomination, but, in the Wikipedia world, we all know pretty well that everyone here should always base all of their edits and actions on objective logic instead of subjective emotion in order to prevent an sort of drama from being lashed on out, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 06:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The application seems to be quite old (1989) and there may be reviews in Mac related magazines. However, the article in question is really terrible (advert language everywhere...). I will try to add some more refs and rewrite (TNT), if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS to estabilish notability:

Pogue, David (August 1991). "Kid Pix 1.0". Macworld. IDG. pp. 152, 154. ISSN 0741-8647. (full page review)
Pogue, David (October 1992). "Kid Pix Companion 1.0". Macworld. IDG. p. 208. ISSN 0741-8647. (half page review)
Layola, Roman (March 2007). "Software MacKiev Kid Pix Deluxe 3X 1.1.1 Empower your peewee Picasso". MacLife. No. 2. Future Network USA. p. 64. ISSN 1935-4010. (half page review)

And there is even an Amiga version:

Lord, Gary (May 1993). "Kid Pix". Amiga Format. No. 46. Future Publishing. pp. 126–127. ISSN 0957-4867. (two page review) Pavlor (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know that there was an Amiga version! Oh well, I guess you always learn something new everyday, don't ya? ;) Also, I know that there's actually a review out there that Bob "Dr. Mac" Levitus wrote for the Houston Chronicle regarding Kid Pix Deluxe 3X way back in, I believe, 2009 or 2010. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 05:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources provided by Pavlor above.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Kobus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR, WP:NPROF (he published a couple of papers, teaching position), or WP:GNG - which is not established by the sources in the article nor in a BEFORE that shows some coverage, mainly Polish, around 25 google news items.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2018 (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 21:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Truth[edit]

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

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

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

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

Seems to be claiming notability as a musician but sources only discuss his arrest and I don't think they're sufficient per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 14:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It passed the general notability guideline originally, that's why the page got approved in the first place. The subject is being a target of harassment by people who want to have a speedy deletion I have ome to figure out, somebody took the time to edit the page and make it look like slanderous and derogatory things were being said on it. You can check the edit history. I can provide at least 10-15 references that provide at least the stoppage of the speedy deletion process. This subject, having made music for and with Layzie Bone, Sean Price, Infamous Mobb, Termanology, Reks, and Buckwild aall of whom have wikipedia pages themselves and provided references to that in the very least provide somewhat proof of notability even if this person is not "famous" per se,not evveryone on wikipedia is a famous a list or b list celebrity. Just the fact that the subject and the page is under attack by trolls sent by celebrities goes to show the notability of this subject. That along with th enumerous newspaper references and published work at the very least rule out a speedy deletion. Chg1990 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went on and checked the Serious Truth wikipedia page, and an unknown person who I am presuming is Z0 made edits on the bottom portion including false claims and accusations. Like was listed in the references, not only are there legitimate references to arrests as well as front page news articles from the eagle tribune to the New York Times but also reciepts from publishing companies publishing music and other published music with notable artists that also have legitimate wikipedia pages. This article was APPROVED and then someone went in and edited it afterwards with slanderous content and that's when it got put up for deletion. You can go check the edit history, anyone who edited the page who wasnt CHG 1990 was the one guilty of doing this Chg1990 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also have published work proving to have worked with lots of notable artists as well. I will provide any reference needed. It got approved from the references I had in the first place, it only got nominated to be deleted once one of the hundreds of people targeting the subject for harassment by Talib Kweli edited the page. You guys can go check the edit history. I spent a month working on this page for a friend who i thought deserved the page and he is being targeted for harassment by celebrities to the point where they are going and editing his wikipedia page that I made for him and trying to get it deleted. That alone in itself should be a reference. Chg1990 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already approved, there are multiple major news outlets for references as well as published work with major artists linked to their pages as well. What is wrong with the article? It passed all the guidelines, that's why it got approved in the first place. Now, after a day, someone tries to take it down? Chg1990 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a reference from the NEW YORK TIMES, multiple from the Eagle Tribune (both Gloucester Daily times AND the Salem News), from an Ohio News outlet on the Talib Kweli feud with pictures as well... The eagle tribune references, does it not say Christian Godinho in all of them and what was listed in the article was just that? Same with the other articles. We just waited a month and it got approved and now after it gets approved people want to consult about taking it down? The references are all legitimate. I see pages on here that have been up for YEARS with 2 or 3 references on them, of a discog and a magazine or website article or two and here we are with almost 20 references, 5 or 6 of them major news outlets with names and pictures and it gets nominated for deletion the FIRST day? What kind of circus is being run here? Chg1990 (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The infamous mobb wikipedia page has been up for years with 2 references... one a discog website and another one a magazine article, from a small publisher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamous_Mobb .... you mean to tell me that is more legitimate than 3 or 4 eagle tribune articles, a New York Times article, the talib kweli reference (that Ohio News Outlet scumbagged news and entertainment is owned by the Company: National Innovators Group LLC.), and also lots of published music from actual publishing companies as references as well??? So all i need to do for that page is replace all of there more than adequate and legitimate references with one article from a hiphop website like the infamous mobb page and that's more legitimate for you guys? I dont understand, something is going on here and I want to know what it is... when a page I created gets approved and then suspiciously someone reports it, when I have more than enough references for the page. What more can you possibly want for references, can somebody please clue me in? Chg1990 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If something is not written from a neutral point of view, let me know... I will change it. I'll change any small things that need ot be changed, but I don't see why it has to be nominated for deletion the first day it's up!!! That's bogus. It even passes the golden rule of wikipedia submissions and that's why it got approved in the first place. There are multiple newspaper articles talking about the subject not from his point of view or in his favor, and the talib kweli one mentions him as not the main subject too. The person who approved the submission followed the guidelines as did I when I submitted the article. What are your grounds for such a claim that this wikipedia should be deleted??? Can anyone let me know? The editor whose username is [[User_talk:Z0|Z0 Chg1990 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If you guys need actual hard copy proof of the new york times article, that the subject Christian Godinho was a student involved in the ivy ridge riots I can produce a hard copy of the transcript showing the subject was at the school and took part in the ivy ridge riot. There is nothing illegitimate about any of these references used, and even if there were for one or two... I could find you a couple handfuls of pages with 2 or 3 references that have been around forever. Shave off the excess of the Christian Godinho/ Serious Truth page and you still have double or triple that. I demand an answer as to why this is happening albeit so soon after it got approved. Chg1990 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC) [[User_talk:Z0|Z0 Chg1990 (talk) (talk)

I know it isn't the references. If an article + 3 or 4 is enough to ruin someones life in the real world and change the way people look at them all across the state and region of the country, it's enough for a wikipedia article!! http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/local_news/police-fire-peacocks-get-around-in-essex/article <---- halfway down the page under manchester, Saturday July 8th 9:40 a.m.: Christian Godinho, 26, of 141 Prospect St. in Gloucester, faces a charge of possession of a Class A substance, heroin, after the car in which he was riding was pulled over for allegedly speeding on School Street. Police said Godinho was sitting with an open box cutter on his lap, and that he and the driver could be seen passing something between them. Officers found a spoon and a small bag of what is believed to be heroin on his seat. [2] <front page news article Chg1990 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Chg1990 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I passed this for a reason. It establishes notability with several good secondary references. This article is not a stub typical non notable BLP. It contains hard information that is referenced. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep (see my additional comment a few entries below) - In fairness to the nominator, the article does need to be cleaned up and the text on the rapper's arrest record should be trimmed down. But that is not a reason to delete, when an "undue weight" tag would suffice. ~~Otherwise the information on the music has been backed up and I agree with the previous voters on the notability issue.~~ ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what should I change about the article? Chg1990 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What am I missing here with these keep votes? Pretty obvious vanity article by SPA editor. Sources for WP:MUSIC are self-downloads. No significant third party recognition for this subject turns up under either real name or recording name. User DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs): What “information has been backed up?” This article only sites YouTube, Soundcloud, i-tunes, Discogs, and Spotify. You are a veteran editor whose opinion carries weight, so if you can direct me to something third party or of substance regarding this subject as a notable musician I would consider changing my i-vote. As for GNG, simply being involved in incidents mentioned in the press multiple times--regardless of the reliability of the source--is, per the nomination, WP:NOTNEWS. None of them are about this person. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ShelbyMarion. The article was approved to move out of draft space by User:AmericanAir88, also a long-time experienced editor, and notability would have been investigated at that point. I am actually having second thoughts though, as at first I determined that info on the rapper's music was found in some of the articles that were otherwise about his arrest record. Info on that unfortunate side of his life is far more prevalent than his music so I modified my vote above. Meanwhile, the article is being vandalized and the initial AfD nomination ignored the article's history. Conversely, the most frequent editor is either associated with the rapper or actually is the rapper, but I'm not too crazy about saddling new WP enthusiasts with investigations when all they did is contribute to a new article a little too enthusiastically, while vandals merely get reverted whenever someone happens to notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting based on another voter's experience than actually assessing the article yourself defeats the purpose of this venue, sadly. This would cause poor articles to get through or good articles to be deleted. The editor whose username is Z0 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z0 - Not sure if that critique is directed at me specifically or at everyone, so I will try to avoid accusations, but note that I assessed the article myself and then admitted to re-assessing it based on Shelby's comment. Regardless, you (as nominator) still have not addressed the fact that multiple editors helped this article graduate from draft space to main space, after which it was vandalized. Several people find that history relevant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

listen, can you guys critique me on how to make the page better? I'm actually the talent manager for said artist, a paid manager that he got not long ago. He is currently in a feud with Talib Kweli, a rapper iwth over a million fans on twitter and I can provide evidence of all of that. He had Theo Huxtable from the cosby show hating on him in an instagram post along with pete rock, and all the celebs listed in the talib feud page. Thank you for protecting the page though. There is another small news outlet thats about to publish many, many pictures of the feud (talib kweli went on a tirade the past 10-11 days about my client, at one point staying up for 4 days on end posting about him every 10-12 minutes)... he was close friends with sean price, has worked with many people who have official wikipedia accounts and I put those links up to provide evidence, not to promote. If those should be taken down, thats fine, or slimming down of the music links. Some of those links are music that I personally PUBLISHED for him with a publishing and distribution label my client is signed to for a year, his second time (noting the singles released in 2013 or whenever it was). Like I said before, Christian isnt famous. He's just starting to get known, it's obvious the fact that he has handfulls of people editing slander into his page that has to count for something? What unknown person would have that many people targeted for harassment because he created a wikipedia page? There are numerous sources, and second hand sources, and if they need to be beefed up...fine, I spent a month working on this for him and i wasnt planning on stopping after it got approved. I see articles about producers from massachusetts like Statik selektah, or the ohio rapper Charles hamilton who it says at the tops of their pages that the sources are weak and need to be changed and yet their pages have been up for years, go look if you dont believe me. Infamous mobbs page has 2 sources thats been up for years. Those are incredibly weak sources as well. Can we be constructive here? It got approved, it's getting more upvotes that are proven to not be sock puppets and from legitimate people who are not my client, we established that it barely passed the line...why tear this person down? Why not let us know where we can do better, and we will do it? Thank you guys... any feedback is appreciated, if you think its only for promotion we will take down a few refs. I just wanted to have proof that my client has worked for and produced for the people we claim. I have evidence of everything listed even further in pictures and hard documents but i know that doesn't fly on here. Chg1990 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment by the way, that publishing and distribution label is record union. The music is released on itunes, spotify, google play, tidal and more. You can gather that evidence by searching up aggravated mayhem serious truth means of production or posted up on any of those places. I saw over at the massachusetts rapper joyner lucas's page, where i got the idea to do this in the first place for my client, that half of his references or more are published itunes links. My client isnt famous like i said, but legitimate..he's known for more than a few things. I mean for the love of god, after talib kwelis steady promotion campaign of him, the whole state of massachusetts knows...most of his hometown has been asking him why people from all across the state and country are asking them about him. If you need evidence, go talibs twitter page, go to one of the sources i put up that has only a few of talib kwelis tweets about it, or i could upload them somewhere... I have hundreds of documented tweets from talib kweli sharing half of the sources listed here. The one about the fascists house fire, the one about the drug arrest, the one about the salem mass incident with his cousins. This man has been on a steady slander campaign against Christian for almost 2 weeks now, and having his fans bombard the page with slander as well. Like i said, suggestions here...we should be trying to build this page up with suggestions on how to make it better, not tear it down because people want to be malicious. the only reason this page got submitted for deletion is because of the targeted harassment from talib kweli, a famous celebrity who has it out for my client. Chg1990 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors who edited the draft before it was accepted were only fixing the formatting and bare links. It looks like only the author and some other new editors have edited the article significantly. The vandalism has little to do with this discussion as it can be sorted via this AfD. My nomination is mainly because the subject as a person is not notable enough to merit an article. Some of the keep votes are just "there are references" but those references aren't good enough per the GNG and I've tried looking for more in GBooks, etc, but couldn't find anything helpful. Either way, I don't see how other editors editing this article or trying to graduate it has anything to do with whether it should be deleted or not. The editor whose username is Z0 20:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the original decision, due to the fact numerous legitimate news sources were referenced, hard proof was given as to the fact this subject is notable in some aspect. You don't have to have a front page article written about your collaboration with notable musicians to show that you have worked with them. The page could always some work, which article is perfect? Also up-voting this because it seems like there might be an ulterior motive to trying to get this page taken down, I see people outside of the original editor have made edits to this page putting in slanderous language and trying to get it taken down as well. This page is legitimate to me. Irishguy360 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Irishguy360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Appears some people are trying to brigade this page and edit in some questionable, slanderous accusations and pass them off as facts Yuktova (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Yuktova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep American Air 88's original decision to approve this Wikipedia entry is solid, I checked the references and it adheres to the notability guidelines in my honest opition. CarolS1957 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — CarolS1957 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I've started an SPI here. The editor whose username is Z0 03:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's no sock puppet...investigate all you want, I'd encourage it. Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chg1990 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Chg1990 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd actually bet money that the ip addresses are not only different, but they're not even in the same state. I know for sure of the first one, because I didn't make any of them...and you know you can not use a vpn on wikipedia. Chg1990 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment can somebody please lock the serious truth page from being edited by vandals trying to slander the page? someone keeps posting that Serious Truth is a woman beater and is harassing talib kweli. You guys can't see the targeted harassment??? Every 5 minutes i have to go back to the page and edit it again. Whoever it is, keeps doing it and you can see it in the edits. Can someone please address this I have been speaking on it for days now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chg1990 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any notability here. There are references, sure, but nothing is about Serious Truth. There's links to iTunes, which if used improperly are only promotional. A search for references didn't turn up anything I would find as helpful in establishing notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have certainly heard of Serious Truth. His productions and collaborations are prolific. It seems to me that Z0, aka KingandGod, whose page got a fresh start for harrassing people with malicious rollbacks is sockpuppeting to rub out a known Boston Area artist much like IrishGuy tried to do to prevent Termanology from getting a Wikipedia page until he had to close his account and assume a new handle. There is clearly enough world data here to substantiate the existence of the page, and Z0 is just having an aspie fit and trying to suppress an artist's notability. BobinArlington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.20.213 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — 66.30.20.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Per AmericanAir88's original reason for approval UltraMagnus^speak 20:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Thank you guys, I want to become a part of the wikipedia community and work on pages. It means a lot to me that people are approving this page. I have another page too, a legendary studio engineer by the name of Michael Cohen. I was at his studio today with Christian and he showed us an album he's working on with Joni Mitchell...I was thinking about making him my next page for submission, here is an article that i'd start with. He's an emmy award winning, grammy nominated producer https://patch.com/florida/sarasota/michael-cohen-opens-signature-sound-recording-studio-sarasota-florida-0 Chg1990 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ as spam. Clearly the autobiography of a man with a high opinion of himself. No chart positions. Alleged record label, "Aggravated Mayhem", seems to be the man himself too, so there is no label to speak of. Just glancing at the edit summaries of the article shows up feuding and legal threats. The referencing is abysmal. There is the alleged LP, Means of Production, which turns out to be an EP. Never mind notability, this fails on verifiability. You simply can't cite text saying "On July 10th, 2017 he was arrested in Manchester, Massachusetts and charged with possession of a Class A substance." to discogs.com! The sooner this is deleted the better for everybody. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote from "Speedy delete" to Speedy delete and salt due to the persistence of the disruption here in particular noting the threat to keep on resubmitting the article added below. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the USA even have the notion of a "Class A substance"? We do here in the UK but I was not aware of the same classification being used in the USA. The fact that Class A drug is a redirect to Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act makes me think that it is just a UK thing. It seems that the equivalent in the USA would be called "Schedule I" under the Controlled Substances Act so what is the talk of "Class A" in Manchester, Massachusetts rather than Manchester, England? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ mainly per Red Phoenix. Notability is not established. The only thing which appears substantive is the nytimes piece, but has nothing to do with the subject's notability as an artist. The other links are to his music, which don't qualify as proper references. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Jip Orlando (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote from delete to Speedy delete and salt. I think the activity here is enough to warrant a WP:G11. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment ^^^ apparently this talib kweli fan is in such a rush to slander my client and tear down his page with the targeted harassment that he forgot that on wikipedia you're supposed to sign your name after....false vote and sockpuppetting by a famous celebrity against Christian, like yall have not seen this all along Chg1990 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this insinuation to be offensive. Kindly strike your comment. I simply forgot to sign my post that time. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refs fail to establish notability as a musician, or for anything else. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the fact that Christian has published music with not only famous and well known but legendary artists such as Sean Price and Bone Thugz n Harmony, has produced for the likes of Reks, Termanology, Krumbsnatcha, Gangstarr foundation, Big Twins from Mobb Deep and provided the sources of that information and these artists can back it up themselves if asked, has had songs produced for him by Buckwild of DITC crew, the most legendary crew in 90s hiphop, the fact that he has had multiple front page articles written about him, was covered second hand in an article about talib kweli and his harassment of him, the fact that the harassment is taking place on here, wikipedia of all places, and theres evidence of that...the evidence is all over twitter as well. I have hundreds of documented instances where a twitter verified celebrity with over a million fans has been going on a tirade against my client now for almost 2 weeks. Just because the references don't go together perfectly, means the page should be speedy deleted? Like i said up there, in my comments halfway up, lets try to build this page up with constructive criticism, not slander someone and help add to the targeted harassment being manifested by Talib Kweli. It's easy to see here with all of the sockpuppett profiles editing christians page that something is going on, yall are the ones who protected the page. Chg1990 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 21:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment by the way, I know red phoenix is a failed artist and musician who gets his kicks by trying to get anyone who isnt dr dre deleted out of sheer malice and jealousy, Z0 made this new account originally to make a vanity page for promoting his own shit...yall act like you aren't above it. Half of these delete comments arent even relevant. There is a class a substance here. Where are all these people coming from anyway? targeted harassment from talib kweli. Like i said with all the vandalizing edits. That's where its coming from. My client has had a feud with talib for some time now. How is it better for everybody if it gets deleted? How is any of this professional? Yall are doing the website a bad look deleting something over personal reasons and letting sockpuppet bandwagoners who are on a slander and harassment campaign dictate this. 3 deletes in a row over the span of 10 minutes and people arent even signing after? What kind of shit is that? Obviously someone who just made an account to slander someone, like i keep saying Chg1990 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"My client...."? So this is undeclared paid editing. Wikipedia takes a very dim view of such editing which can quickly lead to the account being blocked from editing Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm a failed artist and musician? That would mean my life is actually significantly cooler than it is. That's nice to know I'm something I never knew I was. @Chg1990: I'd warn you that most experienced Wikipedia editors actually have a WP:CLUE. I would recommend that you read WP:COI as well as WP:NPA and reconsider your comments. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is confusing you with me, Red Phoenix ^talk, based on what I wrote about myself on my user page. Either way, he's wrong; I've never created music of any kind. Anyway, I don't think he'll be wrongly accusing either of us any longer as I notice he has been blocked for sock puppetry, canvasing, COI and other abuses. And considering the editor who approved this article in the first place has now done an about face, apologized and nominated it for SALT (see below) I hope wikipedia won't be troubled by this guy again. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment you know what, delete the page for all I care...I'll resubmit it with the same references and more over and over again and keep gaining references.My friend was been established for a while and only took time off when sean price died out of depression, but now hes back making music and a couple of lowlives on wikipedia who have nothing else better to do than to target a page that was approved with slander, harassment, hatred and no constructive criticism. Notice how nobody has any constructive crit? it's just all vague slander. These people are in and out so fast they probably didnt even read the whole page nevermind going in to check the refs, and i know you mods can see it. You admins or whatever. A page is already up and its apparent the subject is going under an intense harassment campaign by someone with enough clout and pull to do so. With more refs on the way anyway, whats the use of taking it down when its probably just going to get put back up again after july? by then ill have more references for my artist. Like i said, he's having an article written specifically about him and talib on a news source owned by a legit LLC. He has placements in popular hiphop mags and websites coming up too. Whatever. and no, no one is specifically paying for this to be edited. can you say the same about all the people paid to target my friend for harassment? fuck off for real. He only pays me to submit his music for placement and to publish his music. He's right here dictating to me what to write, off the clock. You people are fucking strawman central. Do what you want with the page, it will be resubmitted with more sources, and this time by a family member, by a friend, by anyone but me or him thanks you you guys giving us the perfect guide to get one put back up. Didnt know there was such a rigorous criteria. Targeted harassment is what it is Chg1990 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments - 1) do not personally attack other editors, comment on the article not other voters. 2) do not add claims of criminal behaviour or violence without a citation to a reliable third-party source (ie: not a Twitter feed, not an Instagram post, not a gossip site). Please read WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPPRIMARY carefully. 3) "I'll resubmit it with the same references and more over and over again", no, because you'll be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (the point here being to punish Wikipedia for deleting the article). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Comment Not to claim a profound expertise here over the Sega music experts, armchair kingmakers, and the UK environmentalists from Old England, but in New England if you produce tracks for anyone like Krumbsnatcha, Big Shug, Slaine, Reks, Termanology, Edo G, or for crying out loud, Sean Price, you are notable in East Coast rap regardless of whether you have charted. BobinArlington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
delete and salt this and related pages Not even close to N and the obvious and aggressive promotion has nothing to do, with what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Delete and salt User:Chg1990 said "my client". If he really is your client Chg, then I have no choice but to file a COI as you are in contact with the person you are editing the page on. I did not know you were in relation with the person when I passed the article. Had I known that, it would be a guaranteed fail of AFC for COI. I apologize for passing this despicable editors article. Thank you nominator for starting the sock puppet investigation, he has been reported to the proper authorities and is temporarily banned. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have an NYT article, an article from another news source, and a bunch of things that are thoroughly unreliable as sources for anything except (at best) details of musical releases, not reliable for broader topics like the lives of those responsible for the musical releases. NYT doesn't even mention this person as far as I can tell; I don't see either christian or godinho, and it really doesn't provide significant coverage of anything except the event itself and the company operating the school. And the Salem News article is just a story about guys being punished for a bar fight, and once again it doesn't mention the subject of this article. Given the author's/authors' clear willingness to cite lots of minor sources, I strongly expect that they used anything and everything he/they could find, which makes me strongly doubt that there's significant coverage in actual reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:BIO-related analyses above, and Salt both this title and the subject's real name, based on the promise to recreate and obvious WP:NOTHERE disruptive editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the itunes, spotify, youtube, and similar nonindependent sources are dispensed with, all that remains are two newspaper articles, one of which doesn't mention the article subject, while the other doesn't deal with any matter related to his claimed notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salt and Delete -- Rubbish AFC accept. Zero evidence of notability. Snow close, please....∯WBG^converse 03:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is...spotty...at best.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Article does not demonstrate notability and seems to be either COI or UPE written, using poor sourcing, solely for promotional purposes. Since an editor has said they will continually recreate the article I believe we should take them at their word and salt the title as well as any obvious alternate titles/names which could be used. Jbh ^Talk 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability. Most of the "coverage" is of his arrest, which falls under "one event"; or about other people, thus falling under WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. The fact that almost everything has been done by his publicist/manager, who has been canvassing off-Wiki, is secondary to the failure to meet our standards of musician notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One good RS, and the other references refer to an event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable references. Dial911 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2018 (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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 10:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In My Feelings (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. The sources (excluding The Fader) in the article only discuss the song's album not the song itself. The editor whose username is Z0 14:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Can we not waste time with a deletion discussion and just redirect the article to Scorpion (Drake album)? The redirect serves a purpose, so there's no point in deleting the page entirely. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ultimograph5: I see you've redirected the article. I'm not sure if this is allowed during an ongoing AfD discussion or not, but I support redirecting and you may care to weigh in on this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - reverted while AfD is in progress.PRehse (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep. I did not realize this song will be a single Just let the article snowball. If editors prefer not to keep for now, then just redirect instead of deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not significant enough coverage to have a stand alone article. Redirect to the album page. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album page. Eagleash (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now The single will gain more coverage later on in a week or two, when it charts and more people are aware of it's existence. But as of right now, there's no problem with it being a redirect. Honestly though, just redirect the article and leave a good summary. There's no point in having these discussions to try to delete pages such as this one. DovahDuck (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After thinking about it a little further. Even if the article is redirected, in a few days the article is most likely going to be recreated due to there being even more media coverage over this new Drake single. So there’s honestly no point in deleting or redirecting the article if it’s just going to be recreated in a few days. Although theorizing that this song may chart in the future should be seen as WP:CRYSTAL, which is a valid reason for an article to get redirected. Like user Another Believer said earlier, it’s best to just let the article snowball. Four days (if we’re talking about the ‘’Billboard’’ Hot 100) without any significant chart positions being shown for the single won’t do much damage. Within those four days, the article can be improved a significant amount, as we seen from the contributons that user Nice4What has made to this song’s article. DovahDuck (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song will be released as a single in a week, charts will soon show it's high position (Spotify and Apple Music indicate this), and this is will be Quality Control duo City Girls' first appearance on the charts. Nice4What (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not realize this would be released as a single. It will very likely be high on the charts, making it satisfy criteria 1 of WP:NSONG. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Since it is a single now, it needs to stay, and it should be moved to "In My Feelings", without "(song)". JE98 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the current In My Feelings article from a redirect to a disambiguation page, since another article about an EP titled In My Feelings already existed. Nice4What (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nice4What: Didn't catch that, thank you. JE98 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2018 (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 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

180 Nutrition[edit]

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable company. The references that are indepedent barely even mention the company (some don't seem to mention it at all). This company lacks a depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH). This article was created deceptively by a single-purpose account by hijacking a redirect at the title nutritional and then moving it to this title. ANDREVV (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small nutritional supplements company. Very little coverage in a BEFORE. Sources in article are mainly interviews or based on PR.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Icewhiz -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable weak coverage, most of the references are interviews Heshiv (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No solid RS - fails WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2018 (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 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Talent Awards (Indian Award)[edit]

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

~~Non notable award that is not covered by any WP:RS. 2Joules (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, nto enough coverage to prove notability. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No solid RS for this - fails WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2018 (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 Grave Digger (band). MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Dead (Grave Digger album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grave Digger (band), this is just speculation for now (WP:CRYSTAL). I'd already done this, but was reverted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to the artist article Grave Digger (band) as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R with possibilities)). (The script Sagittarius+ can be useful.) Redirecting per ATD-R after a proper WP:BEFORE can always be tried before nominating for deletion. If the notability guideline for recordings can be met in the future, the article could be resurrected. Time will show. Sam Sailor 00:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. It turns out this article is, yes, only trivially different than the same author's previous Islamic Perspective on Human Rights (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 10:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in Qura'n and[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY - might be a recreation of another recently deleted article on the same topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Perspective on Human Rights - this article is also sourced in large part directly to the Quran, with personal interpretation, as well as multiple references to Wikipedia itself. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you took out all the original research, synthesis, and personal opinion, you might have a title left. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nominator. Not an encyclopedic article, and seems to be full of original research. Violation of WP:NPOV as well. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...and ...?" The title puts you in a state of suspenseful anticipation ... only to be be disappointed over the usual religious nonsense, POV and OR. Del per WP:DEL14. Sam Sailor 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khyati Singh[edit]

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

~~No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking nomination by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no other contributions (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeeya Shaikh[edit]

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

~~No mention in reliable sources. Telegraph does not discuss her indepth and www.wn.com fails WP:RS. Awards are unsourced and non notable. 2Joules (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FaunaDB[edit]

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

A product/company which is not notable. Does not meet the notability guidelines for companies or products. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an interesting product but there are insufficient independent sources to establish corporate or technical notability. Mcewan (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Serverless Computing page calls out FaunaDB, and it was originally linking to their website. I made a page for it and will find the respective sources to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.80.4 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Some coverage of funding rounds etc., not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Basie (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note that the article should NOT be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyer25 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without even providing a reason for its keeping here?--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 21:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that way, but the comment was misplaced so I expect a new user. @Harmony944: heads up, your signature contravenes WP:SIG#EL and should not contain a link to your twitter page. Consider changing it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:30, 10 July 2018 (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 Bullet for My Valentine. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason James (musician)[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED does not meet WP:NMUSIC as subject is not notable as a solo recording artist. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bullet for My Valentine. Not independently notable as demonstrated by a search of media sources and especially U.K. sources. I searched both Jay James and Jason James and came up with nothing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:18, 4 July 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superbloom Capital[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/Kevinleu currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts, pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kleubay. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another bitcoin craze VC. Found in 2017. gnews has less than 10 relevant hits (so the media is not taking notice of this). Sources in the article seem to be mostly related to the initial launch in 2017 (with around 10-30 million dollars - which is rather small).Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Covert advertising. Given the sockpuppetry, I would have deleted this article immediately using the blockchain sanctions. MER-C 11:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam for the next Bitcoin. For size comparison, an ordinary college cafeteria produces $10 million of goods. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (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 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avy Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the award category of "Best New Starlet (Fan's Choice)" is not significant. Mainstream appearances do not rise to the level of WP:ENT.

Last AfD closed as "Keep" in 2007, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing, such as: "over 100 films and nominated for two AVN awards". PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shame we can't keep based on looks tbh, Anyway no evidence of notability, Hasn't won any notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This yet another "meets of WP:PORNBIO" vote ignores the fact that a fan award falls short of the well-known and significant industry award standard at WP:PORNBIO. Winning just any porn award does not automatically meet the guideline. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no official consensus for that NightMoves Award is not well-known and significant industry award, so. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus on this point, reflected in the outcomes of multiple AFDs. Moreover, the NightMoves awards fail PORNBIO on its face, sincethey are not "industry awards", but are made by a local, giveaway magazine for a single city. No "official" consensus here means there wasn't an RFC, and 99+% of the time here, consensus is clear enough without one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting an award in an industry that gives out awards like candy is not a sign of notability. If this does in fact meet the pornographic biography notability guidelines it is high time we scapped them for more meaninful guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs need better sources than this. Fan awards don't cut the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 10 July 2018 (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 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia O'Lovely[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed "Urban X Award - Hall of Fame" is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shame we can't keep based on looks tbh, Anyway no evidence of notability, Hasn't won any notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only award win is the Urban X Hall of Fame. Editor consensus is that Urban X does not qualify as a major industry award for WP:PORNBIO purposes. The article makes no credible claim of meeting PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no official consensus for this. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic performers. It is high time that consensus against some of these non-notable awards be respected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO per my comments above. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely fails GNG, but man thats a nice picture - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:24, 9 July 2018 (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 Chicago#Culture and contemporary life. The weak consensus to delete at the time of the last relisting has turned into a relatively stronger consensus to do so. However, there was also a reasonable argument that the content could be merged elsewhere; the festival is a viable search target, hence the result of "redirect". This leaves the option to merge the old content into the Chicago (or related) article, or even food truck rally as suggested by a participant. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Food Truck Festival[edit]

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

Proposing article for deletion, as this article was authored by the festival's creator User:Maned Owl Events (now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for promotional text). This festival is not like Chicago Blues Festivals and such. It's a commercial festival requiring fees for admissions. The articles referenced do not give notability as many do not reference the actual festival or not from notable sources. Banchasana (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*CommentCorrection this festival is like the Chicago Blues Festival which has a Wikipedia page as tickets are free. The event is reported to have free tickets by the Tribune. Thelegaldude (talk)7:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Extremely off-topic
*Comment. I opened a sock puppet and check user investigation for the page creator and Thelegaldude if that matters to anyone.[[3]] --Banchasana (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. There is no evidence of either. Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence. --Thelegaldude (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment. This user is not assuming good faith. In fact, they formed a private facebook user group which I am apart of and purposefully decided to destroy this event/rally on facebook, yelp and wikipedia. And I am countering them. This is a personal attack that does not belong here. (Redacted) The post mentioned targeting them for deletion was erased, but I screen captured and will figure how to upload. This is one of my hobbies and I don't agree with their methods. --Thelegaldude (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs) This is not a personal attack. The creator of the original page was blocked for promotional text and spamming. There is a process to follow for blocked accounts, [[4]]. " If your request is declined, do not create a new one". Using alternative accounts is sock puppetry. Discussion and evidence is on the sock puppet page. --Banchasana (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence not your personal opinion. I am member of the private (Redacted) facebook group you all used to discuss stopping, no sockpuppet, this organization (Redacted). You all purposefully attacked this organization and (Redacted) in the group made a post stating,"I flagged their Wikipedia page for speedy deletion (seriosuly? they had a wikipedia page." I will post momentarily as soon as I figure out how. --Thelegaldude (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Please note that attempting to post what you may believe to be any editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY and goes against the very nature of the Wikipedia community. Review the WP:PRIVACY guidelines before posting external links to any user. I would take some time to breathe. --Banchasana (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely off-topic

*Comment. I opened a sock puppet and check user investigation for the page creator and Thelegaldude if that matters to anyone.[[3]] --Banchasana (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. There is no evidence of either. Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence. --Thelegaldude (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This user is not assuming good faith. In fact, they formed a private facebook user group which I am apart of and purposefully decided to destroy this event/rally on facebook, yelp and wikipedia. And I am countering them. This is a personal attack that does not belong here. (Redacted) The post mentioned targeting them for deletion was erased, but I screen captured and will figure how to upload. This is one of my hobbies and I don't agree with their methods. --Thelegaldude (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs)

This is not a personal attack. The creator of the original page was blocked for promotional text and spamming. There is a process to follow for blocked accounts, [[4]]. " If your request is declined, do not create a new one". Using alternative accounts is sock puppetry. Discussion and evidence is on the sock puppet page. --Banchasana (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please remember the rules: Remember to assume good faith, Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence not your personal opinion. I am member of the private (Redacted) facebook group you all used to discuss stopping, no sockpuppet, this organization (Redacted). You all purposefully attacked this organization and (Redacted) in the group made a post stating,"I flagged their Wikipedia page for speedy deletion (seriosuly? they had a wikipedia page." I will post momentarily as soon as I figure out how. --Thelegaldude (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that attempting to post what you may believe to be any editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY and goes against the very nature of the Wikipedia community. Review the WP:PRIVACY guidelines before posting external links to any user. I would take some time to breathe. --Banchasana (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Putting aside any weak references, the remaining ones are enough to demonstrate notability. Being a commercial festival does not detract from notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The recent edits by Thelegaldude (talk · contribs · count) have improved the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient number and depth of coverage here to clearly pass the WP:GNG. Many notable events sell tickets: concerts and museum shows come to mind. That the article creator had a COI is not relevant if the current article is neutral, as it seems to be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local sourcing and events of interest only to a locality are still not enough to make something notable, even if in a big city. That the creator was a spammer is exceptionally relevant because native advertising is a thing and simply having an article on the 5th most viewed website on the internet is a form of advertising, especially if the text is controlled by you. Neutral tone does not make it not spam. We delete spam, regardless of notability, even if it doesn’t meet the ridiculously strict G11 standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually as per WP:PRESERVE if there is a spammy article about a notable topic, we do not delete it, we edit it to remove promotion. It is simply incorrect, and against policy, to say that a neutral article about a notable topic is spam. Otherwise we should never have any article about a corporation or business, as any of them may benefit from having an article here. Now the question of whether this is of purely local interest is relevant -- purely local events are often not considered notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - False. That is editing policy, not deletion policy, and WP:DON'T PRESERVE is equally there. It is up to editorial discretion how we deal with spam. Finally, WP:NOT is our exclusion policy, and is controlling over any editorial policy: it is directly part of the deletion policy and is equally part of WP:N to the GNG. It is impossible to pass the notability guideline while failing the policy of WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense, or at best incorrect. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is about content that failsverifibility, fails WP:NOT or fails WP:NOR. This article is supported by multiple sources and is clearly verifiable, nor is it in any way original research, nor does it fal under any of the sections of WP:NOT. WP:NOTSPAM says Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. This article is written objectively, is neutral in tone, is sourced to multiple reliable independent sources, quotes negative as well as positive impressions of the event, and cannot reasonably be described as promotional. If a former version of the article was promotional, that is quite irrelevant. Now i will grant that if the event is considered too local, that might make the judgement fall against notability, but that is significantly different from being SPAM, and is something for each editor expressing a view here to comment on. But if th4e topic is in fact notable, than the intentions of the original creator don't matter (if they did, the article could be deleted and promptly recreated by a good-faith editor). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for making my argument for deletion for me: you've just described native advertising, which anyone who has done any work in any type of external relations field would recognize. No one writes PR and advertising the way you are describing it anymore, and if they did, they aren't worth the money you pay them. Simply having a page here where they make it seem like it is neutral but get to select the content that is covered is a form of advertising, and this is the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of AfDs come to. You are basically arguing that we should include the advertising that is best at its job. No, that's not how Wikipedia works we delete spam. As this content does entirely fail WP:NOT, so therefore cannot be included, and WP:DON'T PRESERVE applies if you think the editing policy has any relevance here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - False. This does not fail the policy of WP:NOTSPAM. As all potential spam/advertisement wording and tone has been neutralized, revised and/or removed. Furthermore, the information passes the notability criteria The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met: WP:N WP:ORGCRITE comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs)
    - It is impossible for an advertisement to pass the notability criteria because WP:NOT is equally a part of WP:N to the GNG, and a spammer working to make their advertisement get on Google just makes it more of an advertisement. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyBallioni Again, Nonsense. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is about content that failsverifibility, fails WP:NOT or fails WP:NOR Thelegaldude This article is supported by multiple verifiable and notable sources. If a former version of the article is promotional and lacked notable sources that is now irrelevant. (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article now has national notability as the gathering of food trucks at rallies has a Guinness Book Entry which is notable.WP:N The record is 121 and the Chicago Food Truck Festival is 50. Thus, being notable as food truck rallies have World and National notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis food truck festival is also synonymous to a food truck rally. And food truck rally's or festivals occur throughout the World. The largest rally to date is the Tampa event which made the Guinness Book of World Records. This event is in fact of national notability because it connects to a larger notable project, food truck rallies in the Guinness Book or World Records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NEVENT; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or hyper-local. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn 2015, the Global advertising agency Adweek, the second largest trade publication in the World covering global advertising, mentioned the event. Thus ending the local interest argument. Thelegaldude (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found another source adding more notability. Efficient Gov reaches 43,000+ local, county and state government officials each week across the World, and they wrote an article providing significant coverage about the permitting process for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. Thelegaldude (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERG Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multi-year coverage by the Tribune (a RS) suggests notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Barkeep49, yes, but it is a local reliable source for the Chicago area. That needs to be taken into account. Of course they are going to cover minor local events: that's what they do in addition to their regional and national coverage. We typically don't count the local interest stuff, even if it is by a high quality source like the Tribune or even the NYT. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyBallioni In 2015, the Global advertising agency Adweek mentioned the event. Thus ending the local interest argument. Thelegaldude (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyBallioni This feels like handwaving away GNG. I think it passes, as exemplified by the Tribune coverage I noted above, thus my keep !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. The GNG is so vague as to be meaningless, which is why we have guidelines like NCORP that tell us what it means. We don’t keep utterly local nonsense like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyBallioni Found another source adding more notability. Efficient Gov reaches 43,000+ local, county and state government officials each week across the World, and they wrote an article providing significant coverage about permitting process for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. Thelegaldude (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyBallioni Found another source from a newspaper in another state. http://www.laportecountylife.com/entertainment/gatherings/69906-don-t-miss-out-on-the-top-events-along-the-south-shore-line-june-2018 Also, the evidence, to show notability, must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition WP:NRV This is clear recognition from LaporteCountylife.com in Indiana. Thelegaldude (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, please learn to link your sources so people don't have to waste time googling things and hoping they find your same results. Second, if this is your source, the fact that it's labelled a blog (see the URL) should tell you that we don't consider it a reliable source for the purposes of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCorrection, reference to the Chicago Food Truck Festival in Adweek is not a trivial mention like Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. WP:GNG Unlike, the mention about Bill Clinton, the article was not about jazz bands but specifically about Bill Clinton thus trivializing the statement about a jazz band and three blind mice. However, in the Adweek article, the subject of the article is specifically about Summer Food Festivals lean on digital marketing. And it specifically is written about festivals throughout America that use digital marketing. Chicago Food Truck Festival is one of those festivals and in no way is a trivial mention. The name was not just used in passing but specifically to show this summer food festival also leaned on digital marketing and doing so drew 10,000 people. Furthermore, ADWEEK took the time to create a bold title link for Chicago Food Truck Festival. Then the article is specifically about Summer Food Festivals. That is no trivial mention like Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton that mentioned he was part of a jazz band called the three blind mice. This article was created to specifically to highlight Summer Food Festival throughout America that lean on digital marketing. It then specifically talks about Chicago Food Truck Festival using digital marketing and drawing over 10,000 people. Chicago Food Truck Festival is one of those few Summer food festivals. There is nothing trivial about that. Furthermore, this event has referenced links from NBC television and WGN radio. These are a notable sources which clearly passes the notability test. Thelegaldude (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

*CommentThis festival is like the Chicago Blues Festival, Chicago Jazz Festival, Taste of Chicago, Chicago Humanities festival, Chicago Reggae Festival, Chicago Festival Ballet, Chicago Maritime Festival...the list is exhaustive, which all have a Wikipedia pages. And none of the events have any notable sources. In fact, some even only have two sources unlike the Chicago Food Truck Festival which has multiple notable sources. So why are specific users targeting to have this festivals deleted? Chicago Food Truck Festival offers free tickets as well, as stated by the Tribune. Thelegaldude (talk)7:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Multiple sources are required for notability. The Tribune is only one, and it's local.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitchymeatbag In 2015, the Global advertising agency Adweek, the second largest trade publication in the World covering global advertising, mentioned the event. Thus ending the local interest argument. Thelegaldude (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting to sound like spam. That is obviously WP:USERG. Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per TonyBallioni. Thelegaldude's argument that a mention in Adweek means that this topic passes NCORP/GNG is invalid. A simple mention is not in-depth coverage, and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of notability. Footnote 3 of the GNG clarifies that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source" (emphasis by me), so multiple reviews by the Tribune qualifies as a single source, which again is not enough to clear the notability hurdle. This goes especially so for local sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Premeditated Chaos**Twitchymeatbag Found another source in another state. http://www.laportecountylife.com/entertainment/gatherings/69906-don-t-miss-out-on-the-top-events-along-the-south-shore-line-june-2018 Also, the evidence, to show notability, must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition WP:NRV This is clear recognition from LaporteCountylife.com in Indiana. Thelegaldude (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One single sentence stating that an event exists, in a totally WP:ROUTINE list of other events, in what basically amounts to a local advertising rag, does not constitute any sign of notability whatsoever. Go read WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH and don't post any more sources here until you can explain in detail how each one meets the criteria required to support notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correction, reference to the Chicago Food Truck Festival in Adweek is not a trival mention like Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.WP:GNG Unlike, the mention about Bill Clinton, the article was not about jazz bands but specifically about Bill Clinton thus trivializing the statement about a jazz band and three blind mice. However, in the Adweek article, the subject of the article is specifically about Summer Food Festivals lean on digital marketing. And it specifically is written about festivals throughout America that use digital marketing. Chicago Food Truck Festival is one of those festivals and in no way is a trivial mention. The name was not just used in passing but specifically to show this summer food festival also leaned on digital marketing and doing so drew 10,000 people. Furthermore, ADWEEK took the time to create a bold title link for Chicago Food Truck Festival. Then the article is specifically about Summer Food Festivals. That is no trivial mention like Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton that mentioned he was part of a jazz band called the three blind mice. This article was created to specifically to highlight Summer Food Festival throughout America that lean on digital marketing. It then specifically talks about Chicago Food Truck Festival using digital marketing and drawing over 10,000 people. Chicago Food Truck Festival is one of those few Summer food festivals. There is nothing trivial about that. Furthermore, this event has referenced links from NBC television and WGN radio. These are a notable sources which clearly passes the notability test. Thelegaldude (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WGN is a local radio station. The NBC link is listed under local news. The adweek link is behind a paywall: can you provide the text?Twitchymeatbag (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Twitchymeatbag Found another source adding more notability. Efficient Gov reaches 43,000+ local, county and state government officials each week across the World, and they wrote an article providing significant coverage about permitting process for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. Thelegaldude (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitchymeatbag That is no trivial mention. Adweek specifically chose three Summer Food Festival and wrote how each leaned on digital marketing. That is not a trivial mention like Bill Clinton playing in a Jazz Band called the three blind mice.WP:GNG

Article content
Summer Food Festivals Lean on Digital Marketing to Boost Expansion Millennials eat up social media By Lauren Johnson May 15, 2015 New York-based food festivals want to attract millennials this summer. So, naturally, they are turning to social media. This weekend, two New York festivals—Harlem EatUp and Brooklyn Flea's Seaport Smorgasburg—are leaning on Instagram and Facebook to take over Manhattan. Harlem EatUp marketer Herb Karlitz and notable New York chef Marcus Samuelsson—who runs eateries Red Rooster, Streetbird and Ginny's Supper Club—want Harlem to have the same foodie reputation as Brooklyn has developed. And, they are off to a good start, having pulled in big-name sponsors like The New York Times, Time Inc., Citi and Coors Light while already picking up 6,000 followers and fans on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads The four-day event, which kicked off yesterday, includes dinner parties and talks with well-known chefs like Bobby Flay, Ted Allen and Jacques Torres at Harlem restaurants including Sylvia's, Dinosaur Bar-B-Que and Jin Ramen. Interestingly, Karlitz said that while young adults are into food festivals, it's mainly because of the eats and not the celebrity chefs. "Millennials are definitely going to food festivals and events where they find value," Karlitz told Adweek. "They are more attuned than the generation before them in terms of really trying to take the best of what culture and lifestyle marketing offers. They get their information digitally, which is why we have big digital campaigns going on, particularly with our magazine partners." When it comes to his last point, the festival is running ads on NYT.com and Time Inc. digital properties. Social Expansion Also this weekend, Brooklyn Flea's Smorgasburg, which has become a summertime staple in Brooklyn, opens up a new Manhattan space at the South Street Seaport with eight restaurant vendors and a bar. The team is also expanding this summer by setting up food stands in shipping containers on Brooklyn's Coney Island boardwalk and serving ethnic dishes at a new location in Queens' Long Island City. Additionally, Smorgasburg will be open in Brooklyn Bridge Park and Williamsburg's East River State Park on weekends as it has been for the last few years. To get the word out about each endeavor, marketing staffers are pinging the brand's 186,000 Facebook, Twitter and Instagram followers. Social also gives the vendors a bit of free promotion, said Eric Demby, founder of Brooklyn Flea and Smorgasburg. "It's also a collaborative platform on some level where we almost act as a representative or an agent for hundreds of vendors," he said. Smorgasburg's summer expansion is due in part to the market becoming a place where millennials not only go to sample new food but also take their parents, according to Demby. "We mostly use our digital platforms to reach the under-40 audience, although a lot of parents are on Facebook, too," he said. Digital Food Trucks Lastly, 20 food trucks—famous for their social media prowess—will serve up dishes at the second annual Chicago Food Truck Festival next month. Each truck has its own marketing—sandwich joint The Fat Shallot boasts more than 9,000 followers across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram—but the event itself relies heavily on Facebook for marketing. Chicago Food Truck Fest counts roughly 3,880 Facebook fans and 1,000 Twitter followers. "Using the same strategy, we drew 10,000 people last year—so if it isn't broke, don't fix it," said Chicago Food Truck Festival rep Alex Blackshire.

Article content

Summer Food Festivals Lean on Digital Marketing to Boost Expansion Millennials eat up social media By Lauren Johnson May 15, 2015

New York-based food festivals want to attract millennials this summer. So, naturally, they are turning to social media. This weekend, two New York festivals—Harlem EatUp and Brooklyn Flea's Seaport Smorgasburg—are leaning on Instagram and Facebook to take over Manhattan. Harlem EatUp marketer Herb Karlitz and notable New York chef Marcus Samuelsson—who runs eateries Red Rooster, Streetbird and Ginny's Supper Club—want Harlem to have the same foodie reputation as Brooklyn has developed. And, they are off to a good start, having pulled in big-name sponsors like The New York Times, Time Inc., Citi and Coors Light while already picking up 6,000 followers and fans on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads The four-day event, which kicked off yesterday, includes dinner parties and talks with well-known chefs like Bobby Flay, Ted Allen and Jacques Torres at Harlem restaurants including Sylvia's, Dinosaur Bar-B-Que and Jin Ramen. Interestingly, Karlitz said that while young adults are into food festivals, it's mainly because of the eats and not the celebrity chefs. "Millennials are definitely going to food festivals and events where they find value," Karlitz told Adweek. "They are more attuned than the generation before them in terms of really trying to take the best of what culture and lifestyle marketing offers. They get their information digitally, which is why we have big digital campaigns going on, particularly with our magazine partners." When it comes to his last point, the festival is running ads on NYT.com and Time Inc. digital properties.

Social Expansion

Also this weekend, Brooklyn Flea's Smorgasburg, which has become a summertime staple in Brooklyn, opens up a new Manhattan space at the South Street Seaport with eight restaurant vendors and a bar. The team is also expanding this summer by setting up food stands in shipping containers on Brooklyn's Coney Island boardwalk and serving ethnic dishes at a new location in Queens' Long Island City. Additionally, Smorgasburg will be open in Brooklyn Bridge Park and Williamsburg's East River State Park on weekends as it has been for the last few years. To get the word out about each endeavor, marketing staffers are pinging the brand's 186,000 Facebook, Twitter and Instagram followers. Social also gives the vendors a bit of free promotion, said Eric Demby, founder of Brooklyn Flea and Smorgasburg. "It's also a collaborative platform on some level where we almost act as a representative or an agent for hundreds of vendors," he said. Smorgasburg's summer expansion is due in part to the market becoming a place where millennials not only go to sample new food but also take their parents, according to Demby. "We mostly use our digital platforms to reach the under-40 audience, although a lot of parents are on Facebook, too," he said.

Digital Food Trucks

Lastly, 20 food trucks—famous for their social media prowess—will serve up dishes at the second annual Chicago Food Truck Festival next month. Each truck has its own marketing—sandwich joint The Fat Shallot boasts more than 9,000 followers across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram—but the event itself relies heavily on Facebook for marketing. Chicago Food Truck Fest counts roughly 3,880 Facebook fans and 1,000 Twitter followers. "Using the same strategy, we drew 10,000 people last year—so if it isn't broke, don't fix it," said Chicago Food Truck Festival rep Alex Blackshire.

Thelegaldude (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now I think the pro-delete arguments are stronger but I am not satisfied that an actionable consensus to that effect currently exists so I am going to relist this for further discussion. Please remember to stay on topic, cite WP:PAG where possible, don't repeat the same points over and over again, and for the love of G-- PLEASE BE PITHY. This discussion is already in WP:TLDR territory.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is an interesting one, article created by a spa (that was subsequently blocked as promotional name/edits) back in April 2017, nothing much happens with it then out of the blue it is nominated for deletion by Banchasana, an editor who hasn't done any editing for around 5 years, thanThelegaldude (a spa) appears to defend/add to the article, cue accusations of sockpuppetry, and harassment; we've had "keepers" who say that there are plenty of significant references, and "deleters" counter this that they are local/incidental. might i suggest a redirect to an appropriate section in the Chicago article (it has a "Festivals" subsection) and a sentence added there as a compromise? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad someone can see the irony here. However, the thing is each of those festivals in the Chicago article each have stand alone WP articles with no notable articles. That is not a compromise. Why is Chicago Food Truck Festival being "accidentally" tagged for deletion as other Chicago festivals on the list have no notable sources? Come on Coolabahapple, even my daughter can see what is going on here. Thelegaldude (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thelegaldude, I'm going to echo the statement I made at the SPI a few weeks ago (as well as Ad Orientem's comment on the relist) - you've said your piece, and now you're getting close to crossing into NPA territory. I'm pretty sure there's nothing else you could say that hasn't already been said by you, so I highly suggest that you step back from this for a bit and let other uninvolved editors comment. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC) updated/edited 17:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Keep. The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. WP:AUD Chicago Tribune is a National and Regional newspaper. The 8th largest circulated paper in the US and the largest read newspaper in the Great Lakes Region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune The Great Lakes region of North America is a bi-national Canada-American region that includes portions of the eight U.S. states. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-food-truck-fest-0621-story.html

Furthermore, Chicago Food Truck Festival is an event, and has sustained coverage from its start in 2014 until now in 2018. Sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events WP:SUSTAINED
Furthermore, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. WP:EVENTCRIT An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. WP:LASTING Chicago Food Truck Festival is Chicago’s first food truck festival which also lead to the first time ever federal legislation was proposed by a US Senator at the event. https://chicago.eater.com/2015/6/29/8861743/sen-mark-kirk-calls-for-fewer-food-truck-

Also, Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. And events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. WP:GEOSCOPE Chicago Food Truck Festival has demonstrated long term impact on a region through sustained coverage, catalyst for federal legislation, and bolstering economies for small businesses as the references show.

NBC5 also featured the Chicago Food Truck Festival. NBC5 is (WMAQTV), and WMAQTV is not only a local station. It is broadcast via cable and even reaches as far as the East Coast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAQ-TV https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-food-truck-fest-season-begins-479002573.html WGN reaches MI, IN, IL ABC7 reaches multiple states as well. http://abc7chicago.com/food/food-truck-fest/1293370/Thelegaldude (talk) 8:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally, if an article fails notability, all editors are to conduct a good faith search to find more sources and place a notability tag on the article to alert others. As a spa I have found over 5 and counting alone. WP:FAILN Thelegaldude (talk) 8:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete-Per PMC and TonyBallioni.∯WBG^converse 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Food truck rally as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 11 July 2018 (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 21:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Thought and Ethics[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article; only finding passing mentions in various searches. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is being used as a WP:COATHANNGER for an attach on Intelligent design. The theory that the universe has a designer cannot be proved, any more than the rival theory (atheism) that there is no God. Any claim that science can prove atheism is equally pseudo-scientific. Its argument is circular, as the conclusion is actually among its assumptions. I do not know this organisation and thus whether it is notable or not, but Intelligent designis a widely held belief and WP cannot dismiss it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:COATRACK. StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are 60+ results on newspapers.com about the organization, which may be used to improve the article (which is poor in its current state).[5] In the meantime, the article could/should be stubbified. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable organization based on coverage available, even if the article could use a major rewrite. Involved in a high-profile court case that found ID to be religion and not science. I'm not opposed to WP:TNT, but we should definitely have an article on the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Anachronist. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources are weak and do not show that this org pass GNG requirements. While creationism is notable not all organizations related to it are notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2018 (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 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stockdale Country Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP / WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft for a nn golf course. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of historical interest, passes WP:GEOFEAT Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a run of the mill country club, less than 100 years old. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (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 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Nidhi Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and also fails to meet WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the references are non-notable. No newspaper coverage found. Dial911 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2018 (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 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Jane[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient reference material to sustain this article. There's a photo caption (with no other mention of the subject at all) in "Economic Times". The rest are self-published or "about the author" type blurbs. I've tried some various searches for additional references ([6], [7], [8]), but can find nothing aside from blogs and reprinted press releases. As such, I do not believe there is enough independent and reliable source material with which to write this article, which makes it essentially impossible to resolve its COI issues. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO etc especially given that the all three books she authored were self-published (no reviews in reputable publications either) and the "article in Economic Times" was a paid advertorial. Abecedare (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Abecedare clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Indian businesswoman, she is certainly notable. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so? She appears to work as a consultant in Hong Kong, though both the article and her web-site are super-vague about her actual activities. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per deleters - very thin details here. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a) She is notable enough as an author considering her 3 books, research papers, and numerous articles. (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8407442.Sandhya_Jane)

b) Since the publishers of these books are different, they all can't be self-published. Second Spring (may be self published), Sojourn of Life (Authors Press, who are well-known academic publisher) and Business Analysis(ANISAN Technologies) (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sandhya+jane%22&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXlZ7G_pPcAhVKa94KHb-uAyAQ_AUIDygA&biw=1242&bih=563&dpr=1.1) Self-published authors must also be considered as an author as notable authors such as Virginia Wolf, E L James and many other have published their own work. c) American academic journals and ACM Digital library are beyond influence. After careful studying the links to the articles, it doesn't seems they are paid articles. d) All the new sample references are fully functional. About image searches, we found many images linked to her work. (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sandhya+jane%22&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9OTu_pPcAhVD62EKHeDuDz8Q_AUICigB&biw=1242&bih=563&dpr=1.1#imgrc=JPfxcJIYQ98FQM:) Hurshu1410 {t · c · p · b} 10 July 2018 (UTC) — Hursh1410 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Since the publishers of these books are different, they all can't be self-published" makes no sense. They can. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above comment was made by a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandhya001). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 11 July 2018 (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. Sandstein 21:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously brought to AFD. That deletion discussion can be found here. This article is full of WP:OR, factual inaccuracies, WP:SYNTH and mainly one source. Also, is this article a list? No one seems to know. I won't bore you so I would copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page - with editions. See below:

I'm surprised this article was not deleted when it was last brought to AFD. My first question is: Is this a stand-alone lists? If it is, I'm not seeing any of the guidelines being adhered to here. However, I'm more concerned about the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, factual inaccuracies presented in this article, and the almost single source (the wonderful Southern Poverty Law Center) who have provided no sources or their research methods. Sorry, but even sources have to cite sources or tell us their research methods. Some of us do not live in the US, and just because an American organisation says so does not mean we have to abide by it on Wikipedia. That in itself calls into question the notability of this article as not receiving significant coverage to merit a stand-alone article (or list). Ignoring SPLC's expansive claims for a minute, I have gone through the other sources in this article. The article states:

"Several fringe groups have been described as either holding or promoting black supremacist beliefs. A source described by historian David Mark Chalmers as being "the most extensive source on right-wing extremism" is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an American nonprofit organization that monitors all kinds of hate groups and extremists in the United States."

The editor then went on to cite David Mark Chalmers (2003). Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 188. ISBN 0-7425-2311-X [9]. However, there is nothing on that page that talks about Black supremacy/supremacist. In fact, there is nothing in that book that made any reference to "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist". Although the page in question (p. 188) did mention the SPLC, there is nothing on that page or book that supports the bold claims made above - which is the subject of this article. There are several references in that book on White supremacy, but nothing on Black supremacy. The book made one reference to "Black separatist", and that can be found on page 181 [10]. I don't know about anybody else, but to me, "Black separatist" is totally different from "Black supremacist." I have gone through the corresponding Wiki articles but found that they are merely translations of this page and almost all of them have even fewer sources or no sources at all. Another sources cited for the above bold claim is Brett A. Barnett (2007). Untangling the web of hate: are online "hate sites" deserving of First Amendment Protection?. Cambria Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-934043-91-2. However, there is nothing on that page, not even on that book that used the term "Black supremacy" or "Black supremacist." The term used is "Black separatist" just like the first source above.[11] Again, several references to White supremacy but nothing on Black supremacy/supremacist. Other than the above two references used in this article, all the other refs came from the SPLC website, with the other ref from the Associated Press (MSNBC) - a copy of which I found on NBC [12]. Only the multiple SPLC refs and the NBC article mentioned anything about Black supremacy. I am surprised how experience editors have overlooked these issues and allowed this OR and non-notable article to stand for couple of years.

Furthermore, there is no citation from reliable sources for the definition used in this article. The lead credited the SPLC but provided no citation. Although we do not usually bother with inline citations in article leads, this article is controversial and the definition very new - provided by no other than the single source (SPLC) who invented it (if they even invented it), and not evident in any of the reliable scholarly sources cited. That is just one of the multiple issues I have with this article. This article should be deleted for the nonsense it is. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2018 (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/2018 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments first of all, as one of the editors who supported WP:TNT at the last nomination - but who has subsequently been involved in a massive clean-up, I'm not going to vote for now. BUT, nothing about the present wording implies that seperatism and supremacism are synonymous, or indeed connected, so there is no WP:OR there. The reason that the def is not cited is that almost no one has defined what black supremacism IS, and even fewer written about it in any detail. Chalmers is used to characterise SPLC, not the SPLC's claims, so that again is not WP:OR - it may be superfluous, but it isn't WP:OR. SPLC have characterised some of these groups as 'supremacist', or sometimes so, and they are one of the few reliable sources to have written ANYTHING about the topic at all. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some cleanup, but I see enough sourcing in the article and on Google Scholar to support an article. Some of it refers to the "myth" of black supremacy, but that can be discussed in an article of this title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to share these sources with us? Links please! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people

[14] His critics accused [Malcolm X] of preaching racism, black supremacy and violence …

[15] in South Africa it was to a fear of black supremacy that the architects of segregation and apartheid appealed as justification for their actions. But no evidence survives that black resisters ever proposed their own upside- down version of apartheid …

[16] whites saw the slogan [Black Power] as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy

Hopefully that's enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no! But thanks for the links. Let me go through each of the sources you have provided, but before I do, I think we first need to establish what is notable as far as Wiki is concerned. For an article/topic to be notable: it must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.." ; ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" ; and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...". [17] Now that is out of the way, lets go through the links you have provided in the order you have provided them:

Link 1. This article has nothing to do with "Black supremacy". It is actually about the racial disparities, and the racist and unjustified rape trials of Black American men most of whom were wrongly accused - as per the cases presented in that article. It also shows White men rape (especially rich White men) being covered up. There is practically nothing about "Black supremacy" in that article, and even what you have quoted above you took out of context. We don't accept WP:SYNTH on Wiki. Here is the full quote of what you have provided: "Later, when it became evident that these conspiracies, plots and insurrections were fabrications that never materialized, the popular justification for lynching was modified. During the period following 1872, the years of the rise of such vigilante groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia, a new pretext was concocted. Lynchings were represented as a necessary measure to prevent Black supremacy over white people—in other words, to reaffirm white supremacy." Due to copyright reasons I am unable to post more. However you can find that on page 185 - 186. This trivial mention which was taken out of context is not even addressing "Black supremacy" but White supremacy. Therefore, this article fails WP:GNG.
Link 2. I take many issues with this link. If we were to use this link and/or article for any Wiki article, we will be breaching several Wiki policies. First, this website is unreliable. Second, this is a lesson plan. Third, this is a biography of certain individuals and has nothing to do with "Black supremacy" hence the trivial mention which again was taken out of context (see the link for the full quote and context). Last but by not least, it is a trivial mention and therefore fails GNG.
Link 3. Your third link is a reliable source, but even that source debunked the notion of "Black supremacy" as evident on page 11-12 (some of which you have pasted above). Here is the full quote: "It was also clear that a full-blown black supremacism—do to the whites as they have done to us—was rarely, if ever, seriously advocated by credible black leaders and intellectuals in either society [i.e. the US and South Africa]. In the United States, such a turning of the tables was of course a physical impossibility—except perhaps in the Deep South during Reconstruction, when whites complained of a "black domination" that never actually occurred. But in South Africa it was to a fear of black supremacy that the architects of segregation and apartheid appealed as justification for their actions. But no evidence survives that black resisters ever proposed their own upside–down version of apartheid". Again, no "Black supremacy" here. Further, the passage is more about White supremacy "the architects of segregation and apartheid" as in the case of the USA and South Africa respectively than it is about Black supremacy. The "Black supremacy" remark was also a trivial mention which was taken out of context.
Link 4. This is an extract rather a visible full body of work that I can access. Again, you left out the a full body of text which is useful for the purposes of context. Here is the full quote: "Blacks and whites understood black power to represent very different concepts. Where blacks understood the concept to mean either fairness or black unity, whites saw the slogan as representing blacks' demand that white supremacy be replaced with black supremacy." The extract is more about the demonization of Black Americans than it is about "Black supremacy". Sounds more like White supremacy to me than Black supremacy - as evident in the last sentence.

This means that, the only relevant link you have provided is the third link despite it being taken out of context as demonstrated above and in that source. Therefore, even if we are to take it at face value and overlook everything else, the article still would not pass GNG as it has not received significant coverage from various reliable third party sources. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power-enwiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the problems and concerns noted by the nominator are, by and large, editorial ones which can be solved through editing and the consensus process, and do not speak to the notability of the subject matter, which is different from the quality of the article. I would also note that the nominator, User:Senegambianamestudy, has, according to this has never edited the article, except to nominate it for deletion, which means they have never attempted to fix the problems they perceive with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not expect me to waste my time fixing an article which does not deserve to be here in the first place due to its lack of notability - just to name a few. This goes beyond editing. The main source here is SPLC. The scholarly sources cited do not even mention the term.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should indeed expect you to improve an article before nominating it for AfD. See WP:BEFORE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable articles that needs work can be improved. None notable OR and synth just to name a few should be deleted as per Wiki policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wiki policy and the difference between the two. I noticed that none of the editors voting for keep has provided any refs substantiating their claim as to the notability of this article. I'm sure the closing admin will take that into account when closing this deletion discussion. Black separatism is notable and there is an article for that. This goes beyond needing work. It is not notable. If I didn't do BEFORE, I would not have dissected the sources cited as above. I provided links and gave a rationale explanation as per policy. Please provide links substantiating your claim as to the notability of this article? That's how it works here. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but shift the article to be about the term. That's what I argued during the article cleanup here: Talk:Black_supremacy/Archive_4#The term or the belief/ideology?. I see that the article reverted to the latter, which I disagree with. Also, the "Discrimination" sidebar should be removed. I'd be okay with keeping the article on these conditions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable; but, does need copy edit work along the lines of what BMK and K.e. suggest. An article should not be deleted based on the grounds it needs work. Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us how this is notable when none of the scholar sources cited made no reference to the term? The mainly one source (SPLC)is the only one that referred to the term. This is more than needing work. This is something else: Not notable. Black separatist is notable and there is an article for that. This is something else. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2018 (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 21:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Süreyya Hiç[edit]

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

There are not enough independent and reliable sources to prove the article's notability. Rapsar (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage found in contemporary resources, Google Books or newspaper archives. --GGT (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are not enough to prove the notability of the person. Besides, nothing found on Scopus. Dial911 (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (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.