< 7 July 9 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 23:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Short Metz Grossman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anita Short Metz Grossman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources for her and Horton, or her and the HUAC. I suspect that the references are mainly about the productions and only make incidental comment on Grossman. If anyone could find a reliable source, it would be welcome. Rogermx (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 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. Enigmamsg 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ochs-Sulzberger family[edit]

Ochs-Sulzberger family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be copied in bulk from a genealogy website. As written, it contains no background on the family itself or its historical importance. Instead, it is a wide-ranging family tree, of which a few of the names are linked. The family connections could easily be incorporated in the individual articles. While an article on the history of the family would be useful, that bears no resemblance to the article that exists. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Wikiacc () 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take back my speculation about the use of a genealogy website. The rest remains. Wikiacc () 23:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is patently untrue that it is up to one editor to decide – anybody can take part in this discussion. You accuse me of not assuming good faith. On the contrary, I have no doubt you created the page in good faith. It is you who is not showing good faith by accusing me of not being "cleanly motivated". SpinningSpark 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tree list template is used on many pages. See Tree list template
  • I do genealogy so maybe that's why this makes so much sense to me, but I am also Jewish and live in New York City. I do Jewish genealogy as well as other types of genealogy. All of the information on the page in question is cleanly presented and is valuable information. I think this deletion request is why there isn't MORE genealogy on Wikipedia, this type of reaction and the reasoning. I am not sure why this is not clear to you from what I have explained, but this action is a real disservice to Wikipedia. Again, I ask you to reconsider and re-evaluate this methodology. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ca2james: AGF? It's not false. It's actual fact, which you yourself admitted to doing, to following my edits page to page. It's documented in the page histories and you said it on at least one Talk page or AN/I board, so that's not a question. The issue is you refuse to stop. If I was more like you I would bring you up on charges via AN/I. But I'm not you. I am simply repeating my request to recuse yourself on any page I am working on, on any administrative issue that might come up directly related to me. You are stalking my edits. It is chronic. I would request you stop. I think that is reasonable.
  • This made me laugh. You're saying that I don't understand there's more to Wikipedia than content?!? I guess that's how you justify what you do on Wikipedia, eh? The fact is that I don't think the content that I create is sacrosanct. I am just trying to add actual content and curate the best citations possible. I do a ton of work that is really really hard and not appreciated. I think that it is a common theme that Wikipedia "editors" who almost entirely focus on admin and enforcing WIKI:Rulez and don't do the difficult task of actually contribute content tend to take deletionist approaches to editing out of fear or maybe just plain incompetence. It's working at cross-purposes, like here, yet again. There is always an opportunity to discuss and/or assist in improving the information on pages. I don't see you doing that in your editing. I only see you and your editor friends deleting content and fixating on minutae, running me off pages and generally attacking content. I'm happy to collaborate if editors are adding content, improving content, etc. But don't lecture me about understanding Wikipedia. This is a continual personal attack on me that you must enjoy on some level. It needs to stop. You need to recuse yourself when I am involved until you can prove you will be more neutral and constructive. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: I'd suggest that instead of arguing a case for "keep" here, you and other interested editors edit the article to make it a better fit for wikipedia. Take a look, for example, at the Kennedy family article. It's far from great, but the substantive lede and history sections, and mainly restricting the family tree to notable members (especially for recent/current generations) would be a good start. (I intend to re-evaluate and update my comment to keep/delete/draftify later in the week depending upon status of the article at the time). Abecedare (talk) 01:16, 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. North America1000 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtfedd[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dirtfedd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability criteria and only a claim that they are one of the more popular bands in the Midwestern metal scene. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I found were these, but not enough to convince me they meet a notability criteria. http://metalholic.com/dirtfedd-interview-nebraska-metal-outfit-talks-mayhem-knotfest-influences-blythe/ http://noisecreep.com/dirtfedd-explain-their-journey-to-the-american-nightmare/ http://www.dailynebraskan.com/backstage-with-dirtfedd/article_0376d610-d418-55ce-b87a-14d92cf4187a.html http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/slipknot-s-clown-produces-dirtfedd-debut/ http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/slipknot-percussionist-producing-new-dirtfedd-album/ (both blabbermouth entries are brief mentions and are more about Slipknot's drummer doing the production than the band) https://www.alternativenation.net/best-metal-bands-state/ three sentences in the piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 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 keep. Enigmamsg 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of Thinking Big[edit]

The Magic of Thinking Big (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book by a non-notable author (whose biographical article I have just nominated for deletion also). This article, like the author's article, is purely promotional. The only sources are primary or minor. In a search I could find nothing about this book in Reliable Sources, and I could not verify the claim that it sold over 4 million copies. If others of you are better at searching and come up with evidence that it is notable, the article will require a major trimming and rewrite to get rid of the promotional material and make it encyclopedic; WP:TNT might be preferable. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books -- I'm confused. Your saying it's notable, but !voting against an article. See WP:NBOOK. -- GreenC 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:13, 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. Enigmamsg 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Schwartz (motivational writer)[edit]

David J. Schwartz (motivational writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should have been deleted years ago. The subject fails GNG; the only sources are primary, and in a search I could find no secondary coverage. The article is so promotional it is embarrassing. I was going to remove the most blatant promotional material, but it would have meant blanking the whole article. Let's just delete it instead. We could redirect to the article about his book, but I intend to nominate that for deletion too, for the same reasons. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In further searching I found one actual reference - a scholarship offered in his name at Georgia State University - and in fairness I have added it to the article. My recommendation to delete has not changed. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Monitor 2011, 12 books Seth Godin thinks you should read, Boston, Mass.
  2. ^ "What's On Your 'Must-Read List?'." Broker. (October 2001 / November 2001 ): 797 words. Nexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2018/07/08.
  3. ^ Willoughby, M. 2015, "Ignoring fear", The Mississippi Business Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 11.
  4. ^ Johnson, L. 1999, "A reading list for those who want to succeed", Management Today, , pp. 98.
  5. ^ Clary, J.M., Hadari, M.K., Holmwood, A.B., Schmidt, S.A. & Shapiro, R.S. 1994, "Sales ideas from young Top of the Table producers", Life & Health Insurance Sales, vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 6.
  6. ^ Zailskas, S. 2007, "Book It", Professional Builder, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 29.
  7. ^ "You've Got to Read This Book: 55 People Tell the Story of the Book That Changed Their Life", 2006, Publishers Weekly, vol. 253, no. 27, pp. 68.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Do you think I should do it now - so that people can evaluate his notability (or lack of same) without all the distracting puffery? I have usually disliked it when people gut an article and then nominate it for deletion, but since it wouldn't involve removing any SOURCED material maybe it would actually make the discussion easier. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the idea. I pruned it a bit and think that most of whats left is sourcable. But feel free to go further. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Frayae. I think the subject can now be evaluated for notability and (I still insist as required by GNG) whether it has the required references to independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the opportunity to add some content from the magic of thinking big article, and a variety of mostly unreliable sources. Theres two claims which keep appearing but I can't verify, one is the oft cited 6 million copies sold figure, and the other is a claim it was a New York Times Bestseller. I don't know how to conclusively prove or disprove either claims so I have both in there. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I loved your edit summary "That's enough unreliable sources for now"! You have worked hard on this article, thank you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone & @MelanieN alt to join late for the discussion. Noted the page has been summarised perfectly. Thank you all for the edits. :) --Julius (talk)
What are you quoting from, StrayBolt? There are three references cited for this information but I was unable to use them to confirm it. The article contains one Reliable Source, namely the Georgia State University page about the scholarship in his name, but the only position it reports for him is professor of marketing.[3] You would think, if he had also been chair of a department or head of a sponsored unit of the college, that they would have mentioned that. (In any case I'm not sure that being chair of an independently funded department or subdepartment or whatever it was, is equivalent to holding a named professorship which would qualify him per WP:ACADEMIC.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Xenia, OH newspaper (it is in the article or search for the quote). Here is a GSU page saying he was "chair of the marketing department"[4]. The meritpages.com probably got his middle initial wrong from a typo like from here[5]. Perhaps it doesn't qualify under #5 where in his case it was an organization-named annually(?) sponsored chair, but not an endowed chair. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged a reply. Since they said they were unsure, moving does not seem inappropriate (unlike the norm of not changing people's posts). You can delete my reply if you move it. StrayBolt (talk) 20:07, 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. Enigmamsg 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of I Know What You Did Last Summer characters[edit]

List of I Know What You Did Last Summer characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNIVERSE WP:FANCRUFT detail of character bios from I Know What You Did Last Summer (film series). Article content has no citations and is rehash of plot from films, providing no additional character exposition. Many characters appear in a single scene and/or are not integral to plot of film nor series. AldezD (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 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. Enigmamsg 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Flood[edit]

Joseph Flood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small city. Only cited sources are city records, an unpublished memoir, and his obituary in the local paper. No evidence subject meets the WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 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. Enigmamsg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pals for Life[edit]

Pals for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination for this page due to its apparent non-notability based on the hour-long conversation on IRC with the page creator arguing with DragonflySixtyseven about getting the related image deleted. From the edit history it looks like various parties have been attempting (and failing) to nominate the page properly, so I'm being nice and doing it for them. I have no opinions on the page, and have not done any BEFORE. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 8 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. North America1000 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kisi Se Dil Lagaake Dekho[edit]

Kisi Se Dil Lagaake Dekho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film that fails on WP:GNG. No credible evidence of notability can be found as per WP:NFO or WP:NFF. Hitro talk 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 8 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. Enigmamsg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan 101[edit]

Orphan 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 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. Enigmamsg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Social Action[edit]

Center for Research and Social Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as far as I can see, fails WP:GNG. Promo The Banner talk 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 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. The first "retain" opinion does not address our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Peace Community[edit]

Mother of Peace Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic: What does God think?
  • But "common sense" points out that the few sources are all we can expect from such an embarrassing, though outstanding, work. Jzsj (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I believe that God will reward those who keep up the struggle for all that is good, and especially of benefit to the poorest of the poor. Jzsj (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, take the God talk and stuff it into an available orifice in a wall or something. It is entirely inappropriate to come to AfD and talk about how god will reward you. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They will be rewarded with a place in Heaven but without sources they will not get an article. The Banner talk 13:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's up to you, for the benefit of the 158 or so orphans, not for me. Jzsj (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Mother of Peace Community assists abandoned, orphaned children - NewsDay Zimbabwe". www.newsday.co.zw. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
  2. Marufu, Ntombizodwa G. THE CHANGING SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY: THE CASE OF CHILDREN’S HOMES IN ZIMBABWE Pages 140-142 Diss. University of Zimbabwe, 2014.
  3. Olamide, Young (2017-10-25). "Man arrested for raping and killing Reverend Sister while she prayed - INFORMATION NIGERIA". INFORMATION NIGERIA. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
  4. "Orphanage houses over 100 children". Zimbabwe Independent. June 28, 2013. p. 10.
  5. New African. IC Magazines Limited. 2002.(Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)
  6. "Community leader honoured". News24. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
  7. Brooks, Jesse (January 12, 2012). "Bay Area Churches Support Zimbabwe Orphanage". The Post News. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
  8. Thompson, Theresa (August 25, 2015). "Artists help to raise funds for orphanage". The Oxford Times. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (editted to number cites 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
WP:RS? Anyone? The Banner talk 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a waste of other editors' time and resources to try and pass off such poor sources as supporting the notability of the article. The second source given above is a dissertation. Not RS. The third mentions the fact that a woman who got murdered who happened to pass by the orphanage the day of her death. Trivial. The fourth source is ISSU.com. Self published, not RS. We do not know what the fourth source says, as it is only snipped view. The seventh source, the postnewsgroup, is not independent as at the end of the article it calls for donations. The Publication also looks sketchy. The last source, the Oxfortimes, is in-depth about a fundraiser for the orphanage, but only a passing mention of orphanage. As The Banner says, these have serious RS problems. At most we are looking at one or two reliable sources, and they are not very high quality. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to (2), a PHD thesis can be a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Grace Ntombizodwa Mugabe's thesis has recieved significant coverage in the mainstream meadia [7] [8], but the coverage tends to indicate this thesis is not considered a reliable source.
With respect to (4), the Zimbabwe Independent is a mainstream newspaper. The fact that is is distributed via ISSU.com does not discount it’s credibility.
I agree that (7) is not a RS. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources:
  1. Ndangariro, Ndangariro. "Mother of Peace gets early Xmas present". The Herald.
  2. Sifile, Vusumuzi (April 13, 2006). "Zimind donates to two charities - The Zimbabwe Independent". Zimbabwe Independent.
— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, another two sources of corporate-see-how-good-we-are-to-donate-a-minimal-amount-of-money type. The Banner talk 09:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These two new sources are news reports about small donations to an unknown school. Like most of the reporting here, it's local trivia. The problem with this article and most of the other small Jesuit school articles at hand is that they have been created out of a belief that Jesuit organizations serving socially and economically under-represented and under-serviced populations are morally well-served by having first-world English Wikipedia articles that may help their status, even if the sources are nonexistent or inadequate. It's God's work, thinly veiled, to put it plainly. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense" would suggest that the country's newspapers have no reason to showcase that such an effort is needed. And the orphans don't buy newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nationwide project with the government kicking it off because of the AIDS epidemic. This is not just one project like many others. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mistake my suggestion here to delete the contested article with my personal sentiments about such projects. But, per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is explicitly not the means or the place for advocacy or agitation or even sympathy for a cause, no matter how noble the cause may be. Wikipedia may, as a foundation, assist good causes in many ways, but the content itself is shaped according to encyclopaedic policies and guidelines. We keep, or at least I try to keep, separate the encyclopaedia from the activism. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be too much to expect that Wikipedia's reviewers and deleters start going by the same playbook? For two years and nine months I went by the guideline that a charity with national scope and one reasonably independent source was notable, it seemed like "common sense" and satisfied the reviewers. Now I find my articles subject to a new playbook. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 16 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. Enigmamsg 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retch (rapper)[edit]

Retch (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page had been PRODed and speedied multiple times since 2016 for the same reasons as in the note tags here, appears to be non-notable and no reliable sources other than self published ones. Additionally this act and most of the linked associated acts have been repeatedly linked to sockpuppets (for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Rtjfan) that exist only to promote them. Looking at the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinluciddreamjr of the creator of this page this appears to be yet another set of promotional efforts for non-notable musicians. JamesG5 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imrich Barta[edit]

Imrich Barta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag [9], removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs ([10], [11]), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP [12], where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability [13], [14]. In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content [15], [16], [17]. Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags [18] [19], [20]. All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:
  • Refs ##1,2,4 [21] are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
  • Refs ##3,6 [22] are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" [23], though he was not alone in that [24] according to the source.
  • Ref #5 [25] is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
  • in Ref #7 [26] the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.
These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted [27] after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP [28] (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica [29]. In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He [had] created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 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. Enigmamsg 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CloudBuy[edit]

CloudBuy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. No significant coverage Uhooep (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 8 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. Enigmamsg 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South End, Moncton[edit]

South End, Moncton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is extremely questionable whether this neighborhood exists or not. The only place it comes up on the internet is this very article. Besides, even if it did exist, the population is minimal and there is nothing distinguishing it from the rest of Moncton. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:48, 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. Enigmamsg 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emet Comics[edit]

Emet Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Much of the page was copyvio (a direct copy-paste of the company's titles), and page is also promotional in tone. Secondary coverage limited to trade publications, which WP:ORGIND recommends against using to gauge notability. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 9 July 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? 10:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Carters[edit]

The Carters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains no content that can't be included / isn't already included in Everything Is Love or the artists' respective discography articles. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With no personal comment intended, who gives a fuck? Wikipedia never worried and hopefully never worry about what social media's tittering about. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 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. Consensus is that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Westerhout[edit]

Madeleine Westerhout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't have articles about secretaries. There now seems to be a tendency to write about everyone working at the White House for Trump, even in the most junior role; we don't do that for any other country. Her job is a menial one. Tataral (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Faroe[edit]

Anna Faroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable singer. Clearly WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 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 keep. Enigmamsg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line G (Buenos Aires Underground)[edit]

Line G (Buenos Aires Underground) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub about a subway line that probably will never be realized and there is not enough material to expand the current page. There is no real project, so it is a hypothetical line. I think it is enough to talk about it on the Buenos Aires Underground page (as already happens; This page does not add any information), at least until there are further developments. Wind of freedom (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly the "will probably never be realized" claim is OR and isn't in and of itself sufficient reason to delete an article. As for claims that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article, I have edited a number of Buenos Aires Underground related articles at great length and seen many sources referring to Line G. Off the top of my head, information which should be added to this article includes:
- When a Chinese company offered USD 1.4 billion a few years ago to finance and construct the line in return for operating concessions. This was turned down because of concerns with the turnkey tender.
- A most recent expansion plan included Line G with plans to reroute it through the centre of the city instead of terminating at Retiro.
- This was actually one of the first planned lines back in the 1930s, but the company opted to construct Line D instead. As such, it has always remained a high priority in expansion plans and all sources indicate it will be the next line to be built after Line F.
Given all this, the best solution would be to expand and update the article. There's plenty of content to add here without cluttering the Buenos Aires Underground Article and the project has significant noteriety as an important part of the network's expansion, as would any article about an important infrastructure project for an important city. This makes the most sense as per WP:SPINOFF. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they're all in Spanish, but these refer to some of the history of the Line, the canceled Chinese financing and the current re-routed project, with EnElSubte having some pretty in-depth info:
Part 1 Part 2 - overview and history of the line up to the Chinese investment.
[35] - details on the proposed financing from China Railway Engineering Corporation.
[36] [37] [38] [39] - more on that proposed deal.
[40] - Copy of Law 670, which established the construction of lines F, G and I.
[41] [42] - reasons why CREC agreement didn't go forward.
[43] - PETERS plan, which established a new proposed route for the Line. It also has a lot of other useful information about the projected number of passengers, etc.
More information on the early history can be found easily with a bit of time, such as why Line D was built instead. At the moment, the Underground is in a process of finding a new concessionaire to begin next year, with the Paris Metro, London Underground and Berlin U-Bahn operators among the bidders. Line F is likely to move forward as a Public–private partnership, so there will be information coming out in the future on if Line G will also go forward with the new operator or not. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered that a long time ago I was working on an article for CHADOPyF in my sandbox [44] and this makes reference to the fact that the company had planned this line as Line 3 in the 1930s. There's a nice image there which could potentially be used in this article as well if it's expanded. I could probably find more sources about that part of the Line's history, though I remember there being quite a lot in the PETERS source about the history following that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:48, 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. Enigmamsg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down's Heart Group[edit]

Down's Heart Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Thornburgh[edit]

Elaine Thornburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. A lecturer only at Stanford. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 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. Besides anything else, as an unattributed copy-paste it is a copyright violation SpinningSpark 19:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Araya point battle[edit]

Araya point battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a copy of Recapture of Bahia with slight changes. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 8 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle cars scam[edit]

Miracle cars scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Reason was: "This article mentions numerous (assumedly) living people by names and makes substantial accusations about their (allegedly) criminal behavior. It is poorly sourced and the sources that are provided do not substantiate most of the content. Substantial portions of the content seem to be running afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING." \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 09:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no delete votes just a comment to change the article structure and name. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Hamed[edit]

Lina Hamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources are talking about her brand, and that too in a passing mention sort of way. I do not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for her to pass WP:GNG. There are blogs and unreliable websites included as well, that do nothing to add to the encyclopedic value of the article, if it had any. 2Joules (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 8 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. ansh666 08:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Stampede[edit]

Rodeo Stampede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. I could not find it on any of the top ten games listed by reputable sources. 2Joules (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : WP:NVIDEOGAMES's requirements seem to accomodate what the article's subject has to offer. But it's an essay and not a guideline. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 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. No opinion on recreation as a redirect. ansh666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Flynn[edit]

Anthony Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and author. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company, which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouBar. Created as part of a promo walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 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 merge to New Jersey Film Festival. ansh666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gabriel Nigrin[edit]

Albert Gabriel Nigrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is a college professor that organized the New Jersey Film Festival. All the news coverage he has received has been about that festival. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's not really a businessman, he's a college professor.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 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. ansh666 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ozols[edit]

Alex Ozols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO . There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited. He is a successful lawyer who has appeared on television to give his opinion, but this alone does not make him notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author of the Alex Ozols Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ozols. I got your notification that you'd like to begin the process of deleting the article. I went to Wiki's list of American Lawyers and saw a ton of lawyers on there with similar pages, and in a lot of instances less public notability, so I'm a bit confused? I really want to contribute to Wiki and I enjoy it a lot (it's hard to contribute new information, but I'm trying every couple of days), but it's a little dissuading when a long article you worked on is scheduled for deletion. I did read your note saying that Alex Ozols is successful, but not notable, which is where I'm having the confusion. In my eyes, many people are successful and don't warrant Wiki pages, because they're not in the public realm, they're just rich or innovative people in private sectors. Conversely, Alex Ozols is in the public a lot in California and on national news media. Aside from being on TV, he's been involved some historical cases with regards to records being set and their high-profile nature. I thought my sources for Alex were objective and large, so I don't think that's the problem. Is it solely because he's not a household name? I'd love to work with you on this augment the page with your guidance so I can learn how to properly contribute full articles. This isn't a fly by night thing for me, I enjoy this, but I did a lot if citation-research and what not for the page, so I'd love to find a way to appease your (and Wiki's) preferences.
As an aside, there are a lot of articles like this one on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Lawyer) that have been up for years with warnings or requests to enhance. Why are they allowed to stay published for so long, but my more thought out and thorough contribution isn't? I really wish we could IM or something so I could understand this whole process. lol. Sorry for being so needy.
I accidentally added this to your personal talk page first. I think it was suppose to be here? Thanks!
IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes say that: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Again, not self published links but news outlets, magazines, and national news coverage.
In regards to the comment "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". There is a citation from the University of British Columbia, an extremely prestigious school, talking about him as a notable alumni. I also found an article from Thomas Jefferson School of Law describing his accomplishments as a notable alumni, which is a third party source acknowledging he went there, which I will add to the citations. I also found articles from Attorney Journal Magazine, featuring him and talking about his biographical background.
I respect your notations but wanted to make a quick comment about the television. This is an individual with tons of media coverage that is a very notable figure in San Diego and throughout the US. Although the guidelines say that IMDB does not fully establish notability, this is someone who does have an IMDB page and it does not even list the local news credits we see here in San Diego. The television networks that create our media each and every day look to Alex Ozols to provide comment, which is an endorsement. Media is not always in print these days, we also need to consider the media that is digital as well.
If you were doing this trying to make the page better than that is understandable but after about 60 minutes of research I can find at least 50 lawyers with pages that have a lot less notoriety than Alex Ozols.
I don't know much about wikipedia but I hope this is the right place to post my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The existence of other articles (bios of other lawyers) is not sufficient argument for not deleting an article. There are many, many existing articles in Wikipedia about people who do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. The decision to retain or delete this article on Ozols will rest on its own merits. The nature of many of the citations (YouTube clips, interviews, IMBd...) are weak. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article's a quite clearly promotional piece of text, unworthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 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) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aanenkilum Allenkilum[edit]

Aanenkilum Allenkilum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF Jamez42 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says that filming was going to begin on that date, but given the article's date (1st May), that the film was already delayed for months until the filming date was confirmed and that only two months have passed, I don't know if other sources are needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:10, 30 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) 06:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 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. Despite the impressive (in a bad way) amount of typing expended on this page, the WP:NOTINHERITED argument and the lack of reliable sources seems stronger. ansh666 08:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meessen De Clercq[edit]

Meessen De Clercq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions / WP:SPIP sources. Created by a SPA with three edits and edited by a sock farm, such as Special:Contributions/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. Notability is not inherited from the notable artists the gallery has represented. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I warned them there should be a limit to the use of the copy/paste function. -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable. However notability is not inherited, even if you repeat the sentence a lot.104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An art gallery virtually only receives notability from the art exhibitions shown there and from the art gallery's participation in other art-related events. This is not inheritance. Rather this is an art gallery's raison d'être. There are few other reasons that an art gallery could be reported upon in sources. Perhaps a gallery occupies a renovated disused meatpacking plant or power station and sources report on that. But there is little else that sources are likely to report on. Perhaps a reliable source will comment on the spaciousness of an art gallery or the quality of its lighting. But coverage of such factors are not the mainstay of coverage in sources of art galleries. We should want to know whether or not a schedule of art exhibitions are held at an art gallery. That should be our primary metric for determining notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, the artists who show there do not even have to be notable. There is no argument whatsoever that galleries WP:INHERIT notability from artists. You say "As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable." It is not the notability of the artists that matters here—it is support in sources for an exhibition schedule. Reliable sources establish for us the existence of a regular exhibition schedule by publishing criticism and other commentary on art exhibitions held at art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: the individual artists they exhibit are notable, but the gallery is not.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would not matter whether the individual artists that the gallery shows are notable or not. Some of the artists are not notable. The gallery is notable if sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art. Our question is: do sources cover art exhibitions at the art gallery? An art gallery hosts the artworks of artists. If the gallery is ignored then it is non-notable. But if reliable sources critique the art exhibitions, the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're inventing policy for notability when you say they're notable if "sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art." There's a bus near my house that lots of notable people ride. it has a regular schedule of carrying notable people, in fact.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This last item, for example, is two sentences. There is simply no in-depth coverage of the gallery itself.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows" suggests the existence of an exhibition schedule. In and of itself this does not establish notability for the gallery. But critical notice of those exhibitions in reliable sources establishes notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are getting at, and It is admirable, but the notability fo the artists reviewed in the exhibition reviews does not establish the notability of the gallery. the reviews are, to put it plainly, abotu work that the artist insets into the gallery space, and not about the gallery space. The reviews do not go on at length abotu the history of the gallery, its walls, its operations and the aesthetic quality of its floors. They talk about the artist's intentions, the artist's work and the subjective reaction of viewers to that work. You know that. And again, notability is not inherited.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that the notability of the artists in the reviews establishes the notability of the gallery. We are concerned with the notability of the gallery, not the notability of the artists. And we are concerned with the amount of interest reviewers show for art galleries. They take notice of art galleries by writing about art exhibitions. They are not going to write about the floors, the walls, or even the history of the gallery. Why would they? The owners of the gallery choose which artists to show. In so doing they are promoting a type of art. They become known for their particular "taste" in art. Some galleries are more eclectic than others. But art comes in an extraordinarily wide range of forms, and successful galleries inevitably are tastemakers. There is a degree of frisson surrounding the most successful art galleries. The public is not interested in the physical plant of an art gallery. It is silly to expect that reliable sources are going to cover the stability of the staircases or even the lighting, which is an important factor in a good exhibition space. It is inarguably the relevance or the irrelevance of the artists that a gallery chooses to represent that either garners reviews or not. All three parts work together: reviewers, galleries, artists. They either feed into one another or they deaden one another. Contrary to your argument, we are concerned with the reviews of art shows at art galleries. The reviews of shows at art galleries establish the notability of the art gallery provided the reviews are in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're just inventing a new policy for notability. However we already have a policy for notability. All we need are ind-depth sources for the gallery, and the AFD will close as keep. Unfortunately these sources only exist for the artists who show there, and not the gallery. AND, before you port another long reply, can we just agree to disagree, and let others contribute? Someone should actually hat all this back and forth as it contributes nothing to the AfD.104.163.157.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on saying that we need sources for the gallery when we already have sources for the gallery. A review of an art show at a gallery is a source for the gallery. The art show is not being held on the street. The art show is not being held in a vacant lot. The art show is not being held in the artist's studio. You refuse to understand that the art show is being held in the art gallery and that the gallerist chose the artist whose work is being shown. The gallery does many other things too but it is the gallerist's taste in art that defines the art gallery. Art is not a commodity. If the gallery were exhibiting sugar there might not be much choice involved—any artist that produces sugar would be as good a choice as any other artist that produces sugar. But art is greatly varied. If 100 artists would like to have an exhibition of their work in a given gallery, the gallery might only choose one of them. But it is that choice that will make the difference between a financially successful gallery and one that loses money. You don't seem to recognize that an exhibition is not just an artist's exhibition but a gallery's exhibition too. There is just as much if not more at stake for the art gallery as there is for the artist. You are not giving credit to the gallery. A substantial review of an exhibition is a credit to the gallery. For our purposes a substantial review or critique of an art exhibition in an art gallery contributes to the notability of the gallery in addition to the notability of the artist. What would you like to hear reviewed—that the gallery has nice restrooms? An art gallery could be held in some cases on derelict property. The taste in art of the gallerist is important. An art gallery could probably be held on a garbage dump. A reviewer of that art show would evaluate the art and such a review would help to establish notability for the "Garbage Dump Art Gallery". Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Messen de Clerq has put on a show of Catalonian conceptual artist Ignasi Aballi, whose works were the subject of Madrid’s Reina Sofía retrospective in 2015-16. On view in the exhibition, titled ‘Translations’, are a number of works on paper, some of which are reminiscent of Josef Albers’s colour studies: grids of different tones marked with phrases such as ‘Peacock Blue’ and ‘Raw Sienna’. Aballi’s ‘Translations of a Japanese dictionary of colour combinations (Part II)’ (2018) is an intriguing series in which colour and language are transposed – and transposed again. One highlight is the 90-minute video Repaint Miró (2016), in which we see a restorer cover a bronze sculpture by Joan Miró in white, then re-paint it in its original colours."[48] This is a review of an art exhibition presented by Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Belgian artist Fabrice Samyn, who is briefly mentioned in our article Ariane de Rothschild Art Prize. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Jonathan Monk. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All this review says about the AFD subject is "Jonathan Monk “Without” at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels". Stop posting garbage sources please, and read WP:N.104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the show is "Without" and it does not contain the work of Jonathan Monk. I stand corrected. It instead shows the work of other artists whose work somehow relates to the work of Jonathan Monk. That is the theme. I am not going to try to defend the concocted themes that art galleries come up with for shows. This is a business and they are promoters and salesmen. But this review is in "Mousse magazine", which may be a reliable source, and such a review would tend to support the notability of the gallery. I am not arguing that the notability of the artists shown in the reviewed exhibition is indicative of notability for the art gallery, but the artists in this exhibition include the following notable names: Robert Barry (artist), Alighiero Boetti, Chris Burden, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman, and Allen Ruppersberg. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the number of Wikipedia articles mentioning "Mousse magazine" it is probably a reliable source. We have 66 articles mentioning "Mousse magazine". Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Japanese photographer Rinko Kawauchi. "The exhibition presents a collection of forty photographs portraying everyday life in the vicinity of Kumamoto, a town in southern Japan. The artwork is based on real incidents and experiences of the locals, with each photograph capturing the right moment at the right place to showcase the related stories. Kawauchi's generous work borrows phrases from the local people and embodies the Japanese aesthetic and conceptual notion of ‘the moving intimacy of things.’ In her second solo show at the gallery, the artist pushes the stereotypical boundaries of ‘good photograph’ and attempts to reveal the impermanence of the world and lifecycles along with showcasing natural phenomena as metaphors of human emotions." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. The arguments you are giving are very poor. Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria. I tend to agree with you that galleries should be notable by the artists they show, but this is NOT the Wiki policy here. So please just stop. 104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly "agree" with me on a position that I did not take. I did not say that "galleries should be notable by the artists they show". I did not say anything remotely like that. You also say "Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria." Why introduce new terminology? What is a "hot capital"? And I never said that the status of the city in which a gallery was located was a notability criteria for art galleries. I was merely observing the fact that Brussels at this time is a vital center of the worldwide contemporary art market. I found that interesting and I hoped others would as well. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Please stop.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your IP friend here again, my IP reset. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time to put a sock in it and have the good grace to allow others to contribute. 198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP friend. You have the wrong idea about WP:INHERIT concerning this article and unfortunately you aren't willing to discuss that. You seem to think that a review of an art show is solely a review of artwork and of an artist. But an art exhibition is the culmination of many steps that an art gallery is instrumental in bringing about. These steps are too numerous to list but the very existence of an art gallery is a prerequisite to an art show. Reliable sources write reviews of artwork and artists but this should be understood as evidence of a gallery's notability. You do not have to dogmatically stick to a policy that is inapplicable in a given instance. Though a source is addressing an art show at an art gallery, such a source is tending to confer notability on an art gallery. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but you are overtaking the whole AfD process! And using unacceptable arguments to boot, such as WP:OSE ("We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken," etc). The IP contributor makes a valid point: Notability is not inherited. If Edith Piaf stayed in the Grand Hôtel de Clermon, this by itself does not make the hotel notable. Independent notability requires reliable sources testifying to the subject's own, independent notability.
You disagree, obviously. It's understood. No need to bludgeon the discussion and fill up space with more and more links about shows, artists, and so on. It's time to allow others to contribute here. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with the Notability is not inherited policy—where it is applicable. But it is not applicable here. A source which reviews an art show at an art gallery tends to provide support for the notability of the art gallery hosting that show. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. But this is our point of contention. I would appreciate having a civil discussion in which you address that point instead of dismissing it out of hand. WP:INHERIT is generally applicable. It is not applicable here and we are not required to degrade the encyclopedia in order to hew to the letter of policy. And you should not be telling me not to "fill up space with more and more links about shows" because those links to shows tell us that this is an active art gallery that is involved in the contemporary art world in a city with a very vital art scene. I welcome constructive dialogue, The Gnome. Bear in mind that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about notability anymore. It's about you intentionally bludgeoning and ruining the Afd process, after multiple requests to step back.198.58.156.206 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I've given up all hope of you engaging in conversation. All you are doing is complaining. You have one and only one argument. It is simplistic and it is incorrect. That argument is that notability is not inherited, enshrined in our policy of WP:INHERIT. Just because an art gallery is not mentioned (actually it always is mentioned, but only minimally) in a review of an exhibition, that is not an indication that the source is not referencing the gallery. It need not be referenced directly, in order to be referenced. If you want to engage in this deletion discussion you can address that point. We have policies and guidelines for everything. A great one here that you should be citing is WP:SATISFY. Why stop at WP:BLUDGEON? I'm not opposed to our policies and guidelines but they can be misused. Reviews of exhibitions logically reference art galleries even if they don't literally reference art galleries. That is my argument. That is the point that I am making. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone reading this understood your point the first time you replied with the repeating sentences. At this point it would be very CIVIL of you to put a sock in it and let others reply. You have, sadly, bludgeoned your view mercilessly here. Grow up and let others have a say. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your main point as soon as you made it, Bus stop. And accepted it as legitimate, though erroneous IMVHO. The avalanche of sources only support the legitimacy of your point, i.e. it exists and it's out there. Nothing is added by piling up more links and text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "erroneous" then you should be able to articulate why it is erroneous. That is what is conspicuously missing from your input into the above discussion, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please make your points citing WP:PAG where possible and move on. This discussion is already deep into WP:TLDR territory. @ Bus stop Your WP:Bludgeoning in this discussion has been extremely discourteous, bordering on disruptive. Please stop.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem—as you probably know there isn't specific language in WP:PAG pertaining to the notability of art galleries (or at least none that I'm aware of) therefore the adaptation of existing PAG may be called for. I think that prompts the unusual amount of discussion seen above and the high volume of input from me. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artwork is like saying Warren Buffett is just a stock-picker. This is especially true of cutting edge, contemporary artwork, which is another point I neglected to mention, applicable to Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[50]is the gallery itself, and cannot be used to establish notability
[51] is an interview with the owners
[52] is an interview with the owners
[53] is a dead link
[54] is a list of participating galleries in the Frieze art fair. It's worth noting that German Wikipedia considers galleries participating in such art fairs for a number of years notable. But other than Meessen De Clercq particpated in The 2012 edition of the Frieze Art Fair, it doesn't tell us anything.
[55] is a mention, and again it doesn't really tell us anything other than Ignasi Aballí has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
[56] is a commercial gallery that mentions thtaone of their artists has aso exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. The only statement that we can get from that would be, again, Susan Collins has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
[57] is a listing, not editorial content. This kind of material is submitted by the gallery.
[58] is a little better; it has byline, Heini Lehtinen, a contributor. It can't be a review though, since it's dated Jan 20, 2016 and the exhibition it describes took place from 23–31 January 2016. An actual review, albeit very brief is in [59].
[60] "Starting November 8th, the gallery Meessen De Clercq is pleased to present...". That's a press release.
Still looking into the other sources that are listed, but not linked that were added by the IP address 91.183.239.198 that only ever contributed to articles about or related to the subject and (surprise?) geolocates to Brussels. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMVHO, the succinct and trenchant forensics by Vexations above carry the day. Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but WP is not a gallery of indiscriminate exhibits. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:TPYES I find "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I have The Gnome commenting "Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but..." and "Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but..." In my opinion The Gnome should confine their comments to content and not speculate about the motivations of other editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I will. No need to invoke policy; it's a matter of common courtesy. I apologize. I tried to express sympathy but failed. The rest of my remarks (i.e. comparative assessment of sources) remain as they are. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is the involvement of the gallery itself in the creation of the article and the creation of the articles on the artists that it represents. The editors Anthropocene2015 and Absens2008 are sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors and their creations might have been eligible for deletion under G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, had they been caught in a timely manner. Both should have been blocked. An AfD is no place to punish a subject for their efforts to promote themselves, but it is appropriate to make one thing very clear: Unless you provide the sources so that the content can be verified and summarize their content from a neutral POV and have the article scrupulously reviewed for verifiability and neutrality (at AfC), there can be no article. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Collect referred to here is a Belgian magazine. Their website is http://www.collectaaa.be. The issue is Hiver 2015 Nº 459. I found it through a google cache of the BRAFA website, but couldn't post that here because that google URL is blacklisted. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoh9nr84fcAhVCbKwKHR-cAWsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brafa.art%2Fmedia%2FAntiquesFairBeMedia%2FPressClips%2F2016-2-23-14-24-44_BE%2520-%25202015.12-2016.01%2520-%2520COLLECT%2520AAA%2520(fr).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QBuVvxWXEDHG7iexUDFCF. I'm not sure how to make that URL work. 12:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice—appears to work without the Google cache URL elements (the Google cache isn't a permanent link), but questionable whether BRAFA holds the rights to host this excerpt, no? & could you clarify re: La Libre Belgique and Le Soir? czar 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For La Libre Belgique for example, the article cites Lorent, Claude (2011-10-06). "Tout, de la cave au grenier". La Libre Belgique. So I looked at all the articles by Claude Lorent that La Libre Belgique has in it's archives http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?artefactFilter=article%2Cfolder%2Cgallery%2Cvideo&section=&subsection=&dateFilter=allDates&to=2018-07-05&from=2001-01-01&sort=&query=Claude+Lorent but nothing resembles the title, "Tout, de la cave au grenier", nor do they have any article published by him for the given date, 2011-10-06. I also queried the archive for the search term "Meessen De Clercq", but that yielded nothing http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=%22Meessen+de+Clerq%22. I tried the same type of search for matching either an author/date or article title (Legrand, Dominique. "Galeriste, sans chloroforme".) and simply looking for articles about the subject at Le Soir, which gives http://www.lesoir.be/archives/recherche?word=%22Meessen%20de%20Clercq%22&sort=date%20desc&datefilter=lastyear&form_build_id=form-kLAE3Up-EEgL1FZOQsqAdX67H4jFaU4bfcsIcNUVDoI&form_id=dpidamwidgets_damsimplesearch_content_type_search_form I referred to that as "nothing usable". Vexations (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Yes, that's unfortunate. Sometimes newspapers don't put their full archives online, but without volume/issue metadata, there's no reasonable way to follow up on this... if the listed citations were ever even in print? Ulrich's does not list the two papers as being indexed in online databases, so no help there either: WYSIWYG. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. czar 09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations, sent the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen. It looks solid, but I defer to a native speaker. czar 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I think it goes some way towards establishing notability. It is one of the few sources that is actually about the gallery. It was written in 2014, six years after the gallery was founded, so it discusses a relatively "young" gallery. It is mostly an interview, and contains no independent analysis by the author. I'm not quite sure what it could be used for. It makes very few factual statements. It cites some very broad remarks by the owners about who they like to work with, like "The personality of the artist is important. It has to click. It has to be someone who believes in his future." I have no idea how you would turn such quotes into something encyclopedic. The problem, I think, is that at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style, tried to function as a platform (publisher, agent) more than a pure sales organization, and didn't really have much of a history. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations—you say "at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style". I don't know how you know this. What "movement or style" is it linked to now? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could have phrased hat better. I meant to say that there is nothing in the text of the article by Auwelaert that gives its readers any indication about what kind of work the gallery shows. Their programming is not based on any specific criteria. So you couldn't say, for example, that the gallery specializes in works by artists who have something concrete in common, like Greta Meert, who specializes in minimal and conceptual art, other than "conceptual artists who work with various media". In fact, the only artist from their roster who gets a mention is Fabrice Samyn (Leon Vranken and Ellen Harvey get a photo credit).
? No one is actually arguing NCORP, nevertheless literally. The agreement is that there aren't enough reliable, secondary source coverage to do justice to the topic. That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines. czar 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Czar—you say "That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines." WP guidelines do not say that reviews of art exhibitions at art galleries do not lend support to notability of art galleries. Arts journalism does not generally review works of art in for instance artists' studios, or even works displayed on the street. It is the public display of art in the institutions called art galleries that prompts the arts journalism to which you refer. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Publications also write about successful business partnerships and the lives of gallerists, and at the very least they review the gallery's shows. This is the type of content you'd need for a decent, authoritative article about a gallery. It follows that we simply cannot write an article that does justice to the topic if the only sources with editorial distance cover the topic in passing. The idea of exempting art gallery articles from sourcing requirements is off-topic (as Theredproject said above) but to the point that other editors are unhappy with the outcome of this AfD, I suggest resolving the core issue elaborated by Vexations above: insufficient sourcing to write an authoritative encyclopedia article, which is not a fault of the guidelines. czar 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A couple of good profiles in respectable publications would solve the notability issue. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to address the presence of journalistic reviews of art exhibitions. It is not the presence of notable artists or notable artwork that confers notability on art galleries. It is the presence of journalistic reviews of exhibitions that can confer notability on three entities—artists, artwork, and art galleries. The art exhibition is being held on the premises of the art gallery. The gallery choose both the artist and the art. The gallery scheduled and arranged all aspects of the exhibition. Journalists do not write reviews of artwork in artists' studios. Journalists review exhibitions at art galleries. Some galleries of course have a reputation for stimulating or thought-provoking shows. By the way, don't put within quotation marks that "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" because you are not quoting anyone as no one said that. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I'm sympathetic to your point that some galleries are notable in the conventional sense, but what would an article look like that was solely based on exhibition reviews? What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review? https://www.flashartonline.com/2012/03/fabrice-samyn-review-6-03-2012/ 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Vexations—we need not write the article from that review or from any other review but reviews confer notability on art galleries—as well as on artists and artwork. At WP:NNC we find "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." At WP:ARTN we find "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You are conflating two different things when you say "What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review?" That review along with others tends to confer notability on the art gallery, as well as on the artist and the artworks under review in that journalistic piece. We already have an article. The material may or may not derive from reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. It is my hope that the material already in the article—whether it comes from reviews of exhibitions or other sources—is based on acceptable-quality sources. But I would argue that a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery. In practice what this can mean for articles on art galleries is a selective list of artist's names and the titles of artworks, with an aim towards providing some commentary, if available. A plus would be the inclusion of images of artworks reliably-sourced to have been exhibited at that gallery. Images convey to the reader a general idea of the kind of art the gallery specializes in. In summation, there are two separate questions: what should the content be? and is the gallery notable? We can "Keep" this article because it already has some content, and notability is established by the many reviews of art exhibitions held there. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I'm trying my best to see things from your POV, but if, as you say a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery, then how are you going to write an acceptable article? Are you proposing that we can have articles about subjects whose notability is derived separately, from sources like the review in flash art, and then get the content of the article from other sources that are not themselves independent, reliable, secondary sources? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations—don't we have an article already and aren't we considering deleting it? I don't know what you mean by "how are you going to write an acceptable article?" Is the article unacceptable now? "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." In your previous post you mentioned this review. That review tends to confer notability on three entities—the artist, the artworks mentioned, and the gallery. I'm really not sure what problem you are perceiving. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have no decent sources for this article at all, as I pointed out above. Vexations (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem here is how Bus stop is bludgeoning the discussion and thereby preventing other voices.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:42, 17 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. Enigmamsg 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic Church Buttranwali, Gujranwala[edit]

St. Mary's Catholic Church Buttranwali, Gujranwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:51, 23 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) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 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. Enigmamsg 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Parish, Azam Basti[edit]

St Paul's Parish, Azam Basti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Störm: is there any sort of a notability guideline which applies specifically to religious buildings? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 25 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) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline. There used to be something at WP:CHURCH, but it has never been accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 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 Exo-CBX. Can be retargeted to Magic (Exo-CBX album) if someone thinks that's more appropriate (I'm not sure what the conventions on this kind of thing are). Reliably sourced content can be merged from page history. ansh666 08:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Circus[edit]

Magical Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without valid reason. Editor seems to think that ticket sales will help this meet WP:NTOUR, but they are mistaken: what is required is significant discussion of the tour as a tour. There is no such discussion--and there really is no sourcing, since all the references are to the official website. Not surprising since this is a small tour. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:37, 23 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) 05:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 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 defaulting to keep. Despite numbers, I'm not comfortable enough with the strength of arguments on either side to close as straight keep. It is worth noting that comments in the last relist block mention that there could be more sources out there that are harder to find - not English or not online - which could push it firmly onto the keep side, but without them, it's hard to know for sure. ansh666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Tomaszewski[edit]

Irene Tomaszewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am leaning on the inclusionist side here. This is very borderline, hence my 'weak' vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came very close to calling this a no consensus, but let's see if a relist helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 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. ansh666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Michigan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography written from promotional sources, previously deleted last year for promotionalism. Different from last incarnation, so as not to qualify for G4 speedy, but the contents remain mostly PR puff pieces when those refs aren't dead, unreliable, or mere mentions. See discussions re: COI on my talk page and subsequently at the noticeboard. czar 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references are either promotional puff pieces, dead links, unreliable, or mere mentions, as I have already said. The contents matter, not just that the topic was refbombed. It's impossible to build an article that does justice to the topic with the extant sources. czar 04:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user also appears to have an undisclosed connection with the subject, having uploaded a photo of the subject credited as a self-portrait with the explanation that image permission can be provided upon request. czar 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "undisclosed connection"? As you dragged 'em out, and in Jimmysonoma's very own words, they are "good friends and distant relatives." And the subject of the contested article offered money to the editors who previously tried creating "his" page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different accounts: [[User:Jimmysonoma|Jimmysonoma]]'s [[User_talk:Gernmaniul#June_2018|very own words]] Jimmysonoma and Gernmaniul. The latter disclosed on the linked talk page and the former hasn't. czar 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. There is a "yet" missing somewhere but never mind. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 9 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) 04:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that Gernmaniul has (per User_talk:Gernmaniul#June_2018) disclosed they have a personal connection to the article subject. Also, google search results are not an indication of notability, and articles written by Michigan (or shows featuring Michigan) are not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. WP:RAPID is for breaking news stories, google search results or hits are not an indicator of notability, and the article's sourcing is either 1) trivial mentions or 2) based upon information taken directly from the subject's videos or featuring the subject himself, and thus not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 15 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. Hut 8.5 20:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Beck[edit]

Jess Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like page an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Chrbjelland as part of a walled garden around Hello Alfred. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 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) 04:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 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 (again). No prejudice to holding a merge discussion. ansh666 08:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of housing cooperatives in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relist following a no-consensus closure the first time out. This is still a list of just six (update: winnowed to three through AFD deletion of entries whose notability was not properly sourced, with two further AFD discussions still open) housing cooperatives across an entire country with tens of thousands of them — but the list is literally just duplicating the content of Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada for no useful reason. While WP:CLN specifies that lists and categories can coexist for the same group of topics in certain circumstances, it also specifies that it is not always necessary or appropriate for a list and a category to always coexist for the same group of topics: there are sometimes reasons why both should exist, and sometimes reasons why one should exist while the other should not.
Very few housing cooperatives across Canada actually have either a strong enough notability claim under our inclusion standards for residential buildings, or enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — even most of the five articles that are here are actually questionable, with Rochdale being literally the only one that's actually standing on solid notability and sourcing ground — but Wikipedia's purpose is not to create comprehensive directories of every non-notable thing that exists, so turning this into a "completist" list of cooperatives that mostly don't have Wikipedia articles to link to would be a WP:NOT violation.
So with just six entries and no viable path toward expanding it, the list isn't actually serving (and can't be made to serve) any useful purpose distinct from what the category is already doing. Even the ability to convert the list into a sortable table, which was the reasoning behind the sole keep rationale in the first discussion, doesn't make a difference — with just six entries, three of which are in the same city as it is, enabling people to resort the list by city wouldn't change the list order enough to be a compelling feature. All resorting them by city would actually do is move Aaron Webster to the bottom and Princess Towers to the top while leaving the other four unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN, which explains that there are some contexts where a list and a category should coexist and some contexts where one should exist while the other should not, is a real justification for deletion. A category of just six buildings, of which five are potentially deletable because their articles don't actually demonstrate them as notable at all, does not need a matching list just because a list can technically add the city each building is located in. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What part of CLN are you referring to? Also, until entries are deleted, your other point is moot. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The parts which explain the distinctions between situations where a list and a category are both warranted, situations where a list is warranted but a category is not, and situations where a category is warranted but a list is not. All three of those are possible in different circumstances — the rule is very definitely not that every category always needs to be automatically paired with a list of the exact same contents. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So because it's not mandatory, it should be deleted? That's not a very strong argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've presented substantive reasons why this is one of those cases where precisely replicating the category as a list isn't adding anything of value. If we're going to play the "boil your opponent's argument down to the most absurdly oversimplified version possible" game, then yours reduces to "we should keep it just because we can" — but the point is not about whether we can or can't, it's about whether there's a substantive reason why we should. A list of just six entries that precisely matches a category of just six entries, where five of the six entries are potentially deletable as failing our notability criteria and there's no viable prospect of either the list or the category gaining any new entries because there are very few exemplars of the topic that would ever actually pass our notability standards in the first place, is simply not useful. It's not about whether it's mandatory or not — it's about whether the list is providing value or not, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you're already wrong about "that hasn't happened yet" — the number of entries on this list has already gone from six to four just within the lifetime of this discussion, because two have already gotten deleted. And of the four that are still here, three have active AFD discussions underway. The best case scenario left is that this becomes a list of just three things, adding nothing to its corresponding category of the same three things that is also already technically CFDable as a WP:SMALLCAT — and the likeliest scenario is that this becomes a list of just one or very maybe two things.
And at any rate, the lack of a specific rule saying that we can't do something is not in and of itself a compelling reason why we should do it. The creator of this list, incidentally, is a person who got blocked from editing Wikipedia for perennially misunderstanding how this place worked: they routinely thought that every category always had to be paired with a matching list of the same contents, they routinely thought that every category that we have for people always had to be gender-segregated regardless of whether gender was relevant to the grouping or not, they routinely created single-sourced articles of the "X is a thing/person that exists, the end" variety with no thought given to notability standards, and on and so forth — so the fact that they thought this worth creating is not a priori evidence that I'm being unreasonable. The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept — the utility of this list is far from blindingly obvious, so the onus is on you to prove that it's useful because X, Y and Z, rather than just asserting that somebody might think it's useful. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept..." Without a compelling reason for deletion, it is actually. If you're conceding that this content is permissible, then the burden is on you as the deletion advocate to provide a valid reason for deletion and establish/demonstrate consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unexpandable list of just four things, of which three are up for AFD as not being properly sourced as notable at all. Four things already isn't enough to need a list at the best of times, even before you take into account that within a matter of days this will be a list of just three, two or one things instead of even the four that isn't enough. That's enough of a reason in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the list has now gone 4→3 from one more deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument deployed by postdlf is not tenable. ("This second nomination...boils down to 'this isn't useful' rather than 'this violates guidelines or policies'.") Well, every Wikipedia article without exception must have first and foremost encyclopaedic content, per policy. And as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, [it] should not contain indiscriminate listse. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. That's quoting straight from policy again.
A list is not an end in and unto itself. Every list in Wikipedia is commonly supposed to be used to organize information. Quoting policy once more. So, what are we organizing exactly with a list of four (4) items? Would a list of one (1) be the limit? This list does not even serve for Wikipedia development purposes, as policy allows. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a reason for us to write more articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any significant number of notable housing cooperatives in Canada to write articles about. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there was "more" to the content, interested editors would have added "more." Yet as it appears there is no "more." In fact, since the AfD was tabled, the list got shorter and shorter. You say it might have "potential" for the future but, ahem, you know, WP:CRYSTALBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't six, there are three — and two of those three, further, are up for AFD as improperly sourced, so we're just days away from this being a list of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 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. North America1000 14:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gools[edit]

The Gools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased, apparently fundamentally uncovered animation film, no reviews (well, ahead of release...) or other in-depth coverage to be found; fails WP:NFILM at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 8 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 as a valid WP:SPINOUT. ansh666 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a single reliable source to reference a small portion of the article, the rest is just unsourced fancruft that makes this website look like a wikia. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there seems to be a general bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series in favor of adult TV shows, which is unfortunate. IMO any votes for delete should not count since they are likely to be biased. Yes, I know about WP:AGF. but it is pretty obvious there is a bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series. ANDROS1337TALK 18:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You believe that Delete votes should not count because "they are likely to be biased"?! You do realize that is as biased as it gets, don't you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kenvyn Jones[edit]

Peter Kenvyn Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a vanity biography created by a single-purpose account with a likely undeclared conflict of interest. The subject has had a career in provincial theatre and the media but I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to provide notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strange. The infobox stated that Peter Kenvyn Jones had a CBE and MC. I sent an email to him to check whether this was correct, and within minutes of listing this AfD and making the email query, these honorifics were removed, not by the article's creator but by another new editor who had previously moved the article out of the creator's draftspace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can also contribute to the debate, I was the one that move the page. I looked through the whole article before moving it with the taught that it will also be looked at by other editors.
To the issue of editing the article earlier today, I guess the duties of editors is to fix articles.Armyman (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've been in Wikipedia "since October 2010," Cwmhiraeth. It should not be "strange." -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followup. The subject used "Peter Kenvyn" (without "Jones") as his professional name until the early 2000s. Under that name, I found one review in The Independent of his 2001 performance in the play The Incarcerator and a mention of his translation in a 1991 review in The Stage of a Pierre de Marivaux play: "Laurels should be heaped on Peter Kenvyn, a comedy writer of considerable TV and radio experience, for coming up with a sparkling translation which has all sorts of contemporary resonance". In my view that's still not enough to pass any of the criteria cited above. Worse, there are several assertions in this article which appear to be untrue, e.g. him having some sort of role in Luther. Or, very misleading. For example, the small part of Prince Albert was in a program produced by the BBC, but it was for the children's TV program Blue Peter, not a mainstream production. The various credits taken for Jacques Brel translations are also dubious. The critic in The Stage wrote "While script associate Peter Kenvyn also takes credit in a programme note for the translations, at least six of the songs, to my reckoning, are delivered in the English versions that were first heard in Mort Shuman and Eric Blau’s celebrated 1966 off-Broadway compilation, Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above unsigned commentary by Voceditenore.
The history of the contested page records 8 June 2018 as the date on which the article was created. The sockmaster was banned on 8 August 2016. The contested article "Peter Kenvyn Jones " should be Speedily Deleted per WP:G5, as stated above by Voceditenore . This AfD has just been rendered redundant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, The Gnome, in cases like this it is often better to let the AfD run its course and show a consensus on the subject's non-notability. This can be helpful in the event of future recreation, and this may well happen. The paid editing operation behind this article and dozens of others is relentless. They have re-created deleted articles multiple times using different throw-away sock accounts each time, including the ploy used here where one sock creates the draft and another sock moves it into article space. Alternatively, the subject might choose a different paid editing "service". Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 13 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. Michig (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women at a Secret Meeting: From Wives to Coeds[edit]

Women at a Secret Meeting: From Wives to Coeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. Significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. References in the article are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. The "9th best film" award is not well-known or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Fujii[edit]

Shelly Fujii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 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 is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DotLab[edit]

DotLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from a bunch of PR stuff, typical short-coverage about a newly founded startup.Does not pass subject notability guidelines. ∯WBGconverse 03:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Bowerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reasons are:
  • created by the same obvious UPE, and is also horrible example of PR writing (the quotes! gah). I did my best to clean it up and got this far but than ran out of good refs. The refs are a bunch of blogs and SPS of various sorts. While she has won some awards (MIT 30 under 35 in 2016) there is almost no high quality coverage of her.
nothing about the person nor the company in fierce biotech
nothing about her in Xconomy nor about the company
nothing in main forbes site (where Matthew Herper writes)
NYT only the marriage announcement already cited
nothing in SF Chronicle
This is really Theranos-ish, which I hope this does not turn out to be. the lack of coverage in the biotech industry and high quality sources is disturbing, however.
But this is WP:TOOSOON for now.
Pinging the nominator and those who have already !voted - User:Winged Blades of Godric, User:Doc James, User:PohranicniStraze. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a marriage announcement is a fairly week source. Support deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per doc:)Support deletion.∯WBGconverse 09:42, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Summers[edit]

Leonora Summers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. 2 short films and 2 bit parts don't quite meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. And can't find anything to show she passes WP:GNG (but not surprising considering her years of activity). Onel5969 TT me 02:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 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. Michig (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Beardsall[edit]

William Beardsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Unfortunately, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 02:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 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 08:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque (2005 film)[edit]

Arabesque (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not the Bradys XXX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Ain't Charmed XXX.

First AfD closed as "keep" but arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 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. The article is a strictly negative BLP, so even if this individual were marginally notable this isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus is that this individual is non-notable per NOTNEWS/1EVENT. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hubly[edit]

Justin Hubly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Where to start. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1EVENT, and WP:BIO apply. reddogsix (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once the AfD is complete the tag will be removed. AfDs generally last 7 days. reddogsix (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this was really bad advice. What we now have at User:Jboud/sandbox is a copy-pasted duplicate of the original. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for why this is a (very) bad idea. I've gone ahead and deleted that copy unde WP:G6. If you want to start a new article, from scratch, that's acceptable. But don't just copy-paste the existing one to use as a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 16 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. Whether it is kept as a standalone article or merged to the Wayne Static article can be discussedon the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Wray[edit]

Tera Wray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 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. Death by suicide does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Update: I would support a redirect to Wayne_Static#Personal_life, where the subject is already sufficiently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 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. czar 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Rose[edit]

Summer Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article created by coi - it should be noted coi indicated they are not related; however, they claim ownership of copyright of related image. Prod removed by coi. reddogsix (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:06, 8 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.
More