Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 21

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. G11, unambiguous self-promotion. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flappy Mouse

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

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

I find no evidence of notability for this video game. In searching, be sure to distinguish it from mobile apps with the same name. Largoplazo (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my PROD rationale which was overwritten by this nomination (bad timing?) Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 22 April 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 and redirect to [of Marvel Comics characters: O]. We don't as a rule merge unsourced material but a redirect to somewhere where a one liner could be created seems supported by tye discussion.

Ozymandias (Marvel 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)

Unlike its namesake character from DC Comics, this character does not appear to be relevant - there are no sources cited except comic books in order to establish notability of the character outside of its fictional universe, and a Google search only leads to results about its namesake, or wikias. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the recent discussion on Blaquesmith. More suited for a wikia. Does not pass
  WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: O. Unlike Blaquesmith, this article (a) contains enough real-world information for a brief entry, (b) demonstrates repeat appearances across at least a year of publishing, and (c) is linked from 15+ articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above due to no real-world references.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No independent sources, to much plotcruft to merge. Sandstein 06:40, 29 April 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. Trending keep, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Identity Extremism

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

)

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

I will copy and paste here what I've written on the article's talk page with some editions. No credibility whatsoever, and certainly not significant or notable to warrant a standalone article. Just because the FBI concocted the term which is a hoax by itself does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. There is no such thing as "Black Identity Extremism." The US calling its Black citizens "Black Identity Extremists" who are actually "Black activists" fighting against injustice, their brutal killings by the the police, violence against them, racism and the like does not make them "Black Identity Extremists." If they are Black Identity Extremists where are the White Identity Extremists who are doing the killings, the brutalisation and racism with the institutions in place to enforce the subjugation and disenfranchisement of its Black citizens? If the Blacks fighting for their right to life, and to live dignified lives are deemed "Black Identity Extremists", what do you call organisations like the KKK who have been killing/lynching Black Americans in the most brutal fashion for decades and still continue their fascist ideology against Black Americans? This foolishness must stop. Is Wikipedia a tool for propaganda or a true encyclopedia?

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 23:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The phrase is not sufficiently notable for its own article, and the fact that the Trump-Sessions Justice Department summoned this spectre into existence doesn't mean it exists. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The case for deletion needs to be based on Wikipedia policies which the article contravenes, and I am not seeing that here. Reliable sources exist. The article is on a notable subject, based on the amount of media coverage that exists. Is it a hoax? Well, a copy of the FBI report is available online - I am not qualified to say whether it was generated by the FBI or not. To me, it sounds like a case of
  neutrality then we should edit the article to make it more neutral, not delete it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Curb Safe Charmer, are you arguing that the neologism "black identity extremists" is notable or that the philosophy of "black identity extremism" is notable? I don't think either is. Can you explain why it is? Can you explain which one this article is about? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NEO test: there are plenty articles about the term, rather than just using the term. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

advance propaganda. I don't know of any Black Identity Extremists or organisations, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction and I'm not talking about Black civil right activists or organisation who are fighting against racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and the brutal killings of Black Americans by US law enforcement, I mean the real “black identity extremists” or movements. It does not exist. It is hoax fabricated by the FBI hoping the term will gain popular usage. Now, if you ask me who the White Identity Extremists are I can give you several examples starting with the KKK. They have set up organisations and advanced the ideology that Whites are superior to Black Americans (or any Black person for that matter). They have killed/lynched, maimed, kidnapped and wrecked Black American families for decades, yet I do not see the FBI or US president labeling them as White Identity Extremists or domestic terrorists (Which they are). To the contrary, the US president regard them as fine people. In the future when there are real “black identity extremists”, then we can create such an article. Wikipedia is going nowhere.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

"I don't like it". The value of this article does not have to require that the terms within are universally agreed upon, so long as it can be agreed that the mentioning of these terms in the way that they have been mentioned is sufficiently notable in and of itself, of which it appears to be. This article deserves to exist because the concept of this sort of extremes that gained enough traction that the FBI thought it was worthwhile to create the content they have decided to create. As with any ideological argument, there is a degree of ambiguity as to where boundaries are, and as such, this article does not qualify in any way as propaganda. It is important to discuss this calmly and rationally, and from my perspective it appears to be that this article does not need to be deleted. SuperChris (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge. This article is a stub and fails
  FBI. Shameran81 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which asks has there been "further analysis or discussion" some time after the event. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep subject has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Renaming to FBI report on Black Identity Extremism rather than the neologism itself is worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier today, I moved the article to Black Identity Extremists, because none of the sources, including the FBI report, used the phrase "extremism". Perhaps a better name would be Trump Justice Department assertion, despite the complete lack of evidence, of the existence of Black Identity Extremists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite multiple problems surrounding the article, I believe that the discussion above has made it very clear that the article does meet the guidelines for notability, and that there has been sustained coverage behind the use of the term. Acebulf (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there is certainly NPOV concerns and certainly issues with the actual concept, neither of those are cause for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to FBI report on Black Identity Extremists. It is true that there has been significant coverage on this topic. However, the subject isn't really Black Identity Extremism itsself but the FBI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 April 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 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CyberSafar

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

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

Article for advertising of non notable magazine. If not for the empty, unreferenced claim of being published, this is A7 straight. But better knock it down here, in case it is recreated as was the case for every advert content–Ammarpad (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May be a small-scale selling magazine, its listed in notable RS like ′itunes.apple.com′ and ′magzter.com′. As no much info is available about the magazine, only available content, what reliable sources say, are included in the article. Only intention of article's creation is because of encyclopedic interest.

talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A mere listing, without any hint of a breath of a suggestion of notability or of sources thereof. It doesn't even list the circulation. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Magazine is officially registered in
  talk) 04:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Being "officially registered" is meaningless except possibly as evidence of existence. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Without legal proof of establishment and circulation details, a magazine cannot be registered in
  talk) 04:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Do you really understand Wikipedia's concept of "
  Notability"?. Even though, you've been here for a decade, but your style of defence put question mark on that. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Dear
  talk) 07:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If business/store sources like itunes.apple.com is what you add in your articles as a reliable source, then there's more problem than this. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @
  Ganeshprasadkp: - hi, sources have to be reliable, 3rd party (not original research (OR) or self-published) and independent. The content has to also not merely be a passing mention - significant coverage is required. I'm about to run though the current sources to see what they're like. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete* Userfy - The general source quality has been poor, so I also had a look for other potential sources that might work, but nothing beyond a couple of comment mentions came up. I just don't believe it can satisfy sufficient sourcing under
  Notability (media). Creator is actively engaging - userfy seems logical route Nosebagbear (talk). 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment @Ammarpad:, @Calton: - I'd missed that this article had only been edited by the creator, who is actively participating with us. I've altered my delete to userfy, since if it is going to go that way, it might as well be draftified. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--There's no point in giving false hopes and wasting our editorial resources at AFC, by a draftification. This topic isn't notable by a mile and will not be notable, in the near future.The sourcing quality is not just poor but it's pretty equivalent to non-sourced stuff.[[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]] and you may spend your efforts elsewhere, at any one of our millions of existing articles.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:48, 28 April 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 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg

Joseph Steinberg (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 subject of the article does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & salt: does not meet
  WP:SPIP. In general, promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 28 April 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 06:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concentric (company)

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

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

article has no sources outside of company's own website DocumentError (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: it's listed on the NASDAQ OMX, so there should be some presumption of notability, but a quick search hasn't turned up any reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the company in detail. If such sources are found, of course my !vote would change to keep. --Slashme (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It is a legitimate company, but seems to fail GNG and
  WP:NCORP. There might be some sources out there but the adjectival nature of the company's name makes it difficult to search. As above, if someone can provide sufficient coverage I will change to keep. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:06, 23 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finnmark independence referendum, 2018

Finnmark independence referendum, 2018 (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 referendum will not address the question of state sovereignty, which has not been raised by a political body either. The referendum is about whether or not to uphold county status vs. a merger. Several of the claims are unsupported, such as that about Sami secessionism. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. The referendum appears to be about the merger with Troms. Number 57 08:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, even the second source is about the actual referendum, which is the merger with Troms. Also NPOV etc etc issues Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't claim a lot of personal knowledge of Norwegian politics, but a Google News search confirms that the nominator is correct: this is not an "independence" referendum, but merely a referendum on whether to maintain Finnmark's existing county status or merge it with another neighbouring county. Either way, nobody's leaving Norway or changing their sovereignty status, because sovereignty is a concept that attaches to nationhood, not countyhood — but much of this article falsely claims that Finnmark will become independent of Norway if the referendum passes, which is absolutely not what's happening. No prejudice against creation of a new,
  blow it up and start over principle would pertain. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 23 April 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 Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association

Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

I found some coverage in the books via G'books but trivial therefore this one fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association is mentioned in many books and news articles. I did not find anything which is promotional, people who researched Wakhi people, almost always mentioned this and what this organization is doing to preserve local culture. Among other reference, I found [4]. This book has more details. This article should be divided into background, as in most cases, reason for creating this was to promote Wakhi culture as it is overshadow by modern culture. Coverage in all the books is related to their culture, langugae and threats to their way of life and how this association is helping. So in context of Wakhi people and area where they live, this association is significantly mentioned, in reliable sources and multiple times. What is your opinion on this. --Spasage (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MY opinion, it fails per

WP:ORGDEPTH. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect it may be redirected to Wakhi people#Organizations.  samee  converse  20:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content over there is unsourced and risk getting deleted. Redirection does not make sense unless someone fix it. On a related note, I don't understand why would someone mention the organisation (which is not notable at least by WP standards) in quite detail in an article about Wakhi people. Generally, we are not supposed to do that. A wikilink makes sense but whole passage does not. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll say to simply merge it with Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say why? --Saqib (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

WP:ATD.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

See my above comment dated 11 April. --Saqib (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe

WP:ATD is a stronger argument here.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:13, 24 April 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 Inch Park. Sandstein 06:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Inch

Adam Inch (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)

Single-sourced biography of a city councillor, in a city not large enough to hand its city councillors an automatic

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete The only source given is unavailable and I'm a bit dubious that it contains all of this info. In particular I could not verify that the neighborhood is named after him, and that's all that begins to constitute a significant claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inch Park. I did a little searching, added a couple of sources about Inch, and I suggest that we move this article title and create a new article about Inch Park. The park, built on part of Adam and Jaqueline Inch's old farm, has quite a lot of coverage down the decades, and the Inches are remembered as founders of the neighborhood around the park. the park is large, with ball fields and an ice hockey arena. And there is coverage of the Park in regional and local press over the decades . E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will have time to create such a page later this week created... E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Inch Park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 25 April 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.

Michael Blakey (music producer)

Michael Blakey (music producer) (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)

Reason Wikitigresito (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I believe Michael Blakey is not relevant to wikipedia. There was a very long article written on his life, mostly un- or badly sourced and very likely intended to push his prestige and public image a little bit. After deleting everything that is obviously not relevant, the only possibly noteworthy things he has done were music production activities for a couple of famous musicians (especially Engelbert Humperdinck). However, it seems to be that he mostly co-produced the less well-known, 2nd tier pieces of these artists.

Edit: The article has previously been deleted based on broad consensus (WP:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Blakey) for failing notability and has been reinstated under a slightly different name.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep have restored the full version of the article for the purposes of the AFD to enable proper evaluation which shows in the deleted content now restored that he produced a Grammy nominated album so he passes criteria 8 of
  WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Thank you for your input. I also saw this album, it is not a music album, but a compilation of comedy storytelling. Therefore, notability criteria for musicians should not apply. Also, the criterion does not explicitly imply producers as relevant people. I would question whether it applys to co-producers then. Wikitigresito (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article should not be deleted because: 1. It doesn't fall under any of the Wikipedia reasons for deletion in
  WP:NMUSIC. Namely, AllMusic lists him as a musician (drummer)^[1] on such famous records as Will to Power by Tidal Force and I'll Be There by Gloria Gaynor. He is also given credit as a composer on numerous famous records by the same music directory^[2] 3. Although the article might need further improvement, I believe it is written in a non-promotional manner, majority of the statements are well referenced. 4. The length of the article as well as the facts contained therein only confirm that Michael Blakey has had a long-term career as a musician, producer and composer that dates back to 1970s and that he is still relevant today.Maralon1956 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can understand that you disagree with the deletion of this article, as you have been a major contributor over years. 1. and 2. However, he does not meet criteria 8, because as he only co-produced the relevant album, he does not belong to the group of "bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists" (Wikipedia:Notability (music)). He also does not meet criteria 1, because there is no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Being mentioned on allmusic.com does not contitute coverage. From your arguments, I don't see how he could meet criteria 10. Furthermore, the "famous" song "Will to Power" and its band "Tidal Force" are not notable. "I'll Be There" (please notice that the version you mentioned is not even listed on the wikipage) is also not notable. 3. Additionally, the article is written in a promotional manner, for example, by trying to associate the subject in the introduction with the famous artist Tupac Shakur. Google searches for "Michael Blakey 2pac" and similiar terms produce no relevant results. The previously deleted article was found to be probably self-written, it seems likely that the same applys to this piece. Wikitigresito (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter who has been the major contributor to this article, what matters is whether this nomination for deletion is valid. From what you've posted above I can only see that the nomination was purely made based on personal dislike. I cited AllMusic because it is a reliable global source for music credits, but there are plenty of other databases that list Michael's credits as a musician and music producer. You can check out Discogs, for example, if you're in doubt that his credits are valid^[3]. Also, he does fall under the music category as he is a musician/instrumentalist and music producer. Maralon1956 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was asked to come here because I took the predecessor article to
  WP:BOMBARD with a welter of pseudo-references which are not useful references. There may be useful references that meet our criteria, but they need to be validated. Detailed analysis will show that many of those in (e.g.) individual albums should become footnotes and are not references. I think it unlikely that the gentleman has acquired notability in the period since deletion, but have only come here only to comment, not to opt for retention nor deletion. The answer to the discussion is, as always, in the references. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The fact that he "only co-produced" does not diminish his contribution to the work. Most if not all songs and albums nowadays are created by groups of people, not single composers, producers, arrangers, etc. All successful records only became successful thanks to the people who worked on them, no matter if it’s one person or a creative collective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 260xx 0:387:8:9:0:0:0:91 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about being producer or co-producer. His only claim to notability is his affiliation as a producer with a comedy album that has been nominated for a grammy. However, the relevant criterion 8 of
    WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to producers (no matter whether co- or not), but only to musicians involved. Wikitigresito (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• VERY STRONG DELETE: I saw so many references that I thought the accusations of "personal dislike" to be possible. What I find is a
  Primary sources like ElectraStarMgmt.com (I counted 6), dead links, or inappropriate links not involving the subject or those considered connected to the subject, don't count towards the notability of a person, and further: Multiple references from the same source count as one if attempting to use for notability. It was stated above this article is "written in a non-promotional manner" and I assume this editor missed the New York Times (considered reliable) source titled THE POP LIFE; On the Rise And on Line. While a good article with lots of names mentioned it has a lot to do with $50 dollar a seat tickets, or even better, "two days of lectures" for 800 people at $1,300-1,400 bucks, and the subject is not listed at all (that I could find) and that is a problem with a majority of the references. The Allmusic references (I counted 47) are mostly "all about others" with other references "all about Ron White" (NOTE: I am a Ron White fan). Over 60 of the now showing 80 references do nothing for notability of the subject. I can dig farther on the remaing 20 that would have to be a big change in direction to help notability. Besides, there is so much junk the AFD would likely be over before I could finish. (See conclusion) Otr500 (talk
  )
• Conclusion: Fails
  refbombing to advance notability. The bombarding of improper sources and questions of COI editing give rise to serious concerns. I am impressed with the ability of new editors (44 and 57 edits) to jump into policies and guidelines like pros, but I also wonder why an established editor would boldly "restore" a previous version, that might be considered improper, just to present it to this AFD? I might have reverted but I don't think this version helps in the discussion and I had already made a lot of source edits that I might kill off before realizing this. Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*VERY STRONG KEEP: Instead of simply deleting stuff from Wiki it's better to improve articles like this. I removed dead links (some of them were erroneously marked dead as the links contained audio interviews) and added a few Hollywood Reporter links to the article where the subject is mentioned as a celebrity manager for Jimmy Connors and Ron White. The same source also clarifies that Michael Blakey was an executive producer for Ron White's comedy album "Ron White's Salute To The Troops" (2011). Moreover I was able to find all the Electra Star links that were previously removed for being dead. Freethinker987 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

— Freethinker987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment inspection of the history of the article at this permalink timed after the contribution above by Freethinker987 shows that this editor has made no edits to the article at all, as does inspection of their user contributions. Assuming good faith, perhaps they forget to submit their edits. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Probably user forgot to save earlier. I clearly see edits by Freethinker987 in edit history now.69.75.187.164 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have had the chance to assess this now. I'm surprised it wasn't speedily deleted as recreation of tosh deleted at AFD, but we're past that now. This is
  WP:BIO
  and all other notability guidelines. Like the first incarnation it is a vanity piece. I'm sure he's a very fine chap, but he misses our criteria.

I love the use of big bold capital letters. They do not influence the closing admin one way or another. Since it is not a ballot this will be decided upon the arguments and on the article itself. Since this keeps arising from the ashes, may I suggest salting to seek to prevent yet another discussion over inherently similar re-creations? 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Internet is a constantly changing space, no wonder a lot of references many times become outdated or expire. It is not a reason to delete the whole article. Let’s revisit some of the bad links. I’ve found a lot of evidence that the subject was a music producer on many charting records. He produced Margo Rey’s “Let The Rain” that was co-written with John Oates, Patsy Cline Duets album featuring legendary talent. Also as a producer he worked with Michelle Wright on the Greatest Hits Collection that became a gold record. I added those to the article, hopefully this will help keep it.69.75.187.164 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—69.75.187.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Otr500 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Michael is a music producer known for his work with plenty of artists, I don’t understand why this is even being questioned. He is also known for breaking new artists, e.g. Brooke Allison, Ashley J, Christine Saade, Ashley Greene just to name a few. Christine Saade's record "Get Together" and Ashley J's "Dare Ya" charted on Billboard, not to mention very well-known acts like Ron White. Michael was an executive producer on his last comedy specials "Ron White's Salute To The Troops" years 2012, 2014, "A Little Unprofessional" that was nominated for Grammy's in 2013. It is all mentioned and referenced in the nominated article, as well as you can find plenty of sources online supporting this. Please do proper research before putting something up for deletion. 76.79.178.211 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Could any of the editors who have turned up here provide any example of independent reliable sources providing any significant coverage of Michael Blakey, rather than just a mention in the minor credits? If I was Blakey I would be very embarrassed by the actions of the people supporting the keeping of this article. It just makes him look like a narcissistic self-promoter. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I support keeping this article. Michael Blakey was a producer of Ron White's "A Little Unprofessional" CD and DVD. The album charted on Billboard with peak position *1,
  RIAA^[5] and was nominated for a Grammy ^[6]
  . There are no sources more reliable than this. It's very hard work and it's so sad when it's criticized or doubted like this for no reason by the people who hide behind their nicknames. Definitely keep.

• Michael, I avoided mentioning above that this is almost certainly you in a vain attempt to avoid your blushes, but don't you realise how ridiculous you are making yourself look here? Just give up your attempt to include yourself on Wikipedia to avoid making yourself a laughing stock, if it's not already too late. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• To further elaborate my point of view: the article falls under
  WP:OR does not apply and most of the sources are verifiable. I see no grounds for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.200.150 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

—173.196.200.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Otr500 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I must note that every IP address associated with a "keep" above geolocates to Los Angeles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, that's where Blakey's management company is located. wikitigresito (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I had noticed that. It's very sad when someone who has had, and seemingly still has, a perfectly respectable career but nothing to indicate Wikipedia notability demeans himself by insisting on an article. If I behaved like that I would feel an enormous sense of shame, even humiliation, but it appears that Blakey has such a thick skin as to nearly be a rhinoceros. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while most music producers are not notable, this person appears to pass
  WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Could you please point out the independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of Blakey, as required for a pass of
  WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - I can't find a single reliable third party source that would pass muster for
  notability is not inherited. Having said that, a LA Times Article about the sale of his house notes that Modern Drummer Magazine once sang his praises, but this seems to be regurgitated from trivia on his IMDB page. If that source really exists, I think that might change my mind, but I suspect the IMDB contributor is confusing him with Art Blakey. --Sykes83 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As far as I can see, after wading through the 86 references in the article and searching outside that, there is no source that has significant coverage of Blakey to contribute towards the
  WP:NMUSIC. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This was the first article I nominated for deletion, which is why initially I wasn't very familiar with how to properly check notability. After going through all references and all checking notability guidelines that were quoted by users who "voted keep", I cannot summarize my conclusion about the article better than Timtrent did: This is WP:ADMASQ backed by WP:BOMBARD. It is not salvageable because the subject fails WP:BIO and all other notability guidelines. - wikitigresito (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone has apparently deleted the comments that @Otr500: had used to mark invalid references, can anybody help me restore these? It's really hard to keep an overview like this, especially with the other references recently added. Also, interestingly, 86.17.222.157 is an IP and an established editor. wikitigresito (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my yalk page: "Thanks for the ping because I note that maintenance edits I made were "edited out". Two editors, one a SPA and one with two areas in five years (hitting this one hard now), seems to be steering the article. "If it stays it will need protections and over-site.".

• NOTE: I can't at the present but will seek intervention and closing. We also have SPA's and "sleeper editors" (whatever those are referred to as) that has made nine edits since 2014 with five related to this subject. Removing good faith maintenance tags, especially covertly, can be considered disruptive and warrant sanctions. Not that sleeper editors would mind because they likely have more dormant accounts that can be used. This AFD has been inundated with these kinds of new editors and at best can hope for confusion and a "no consensus" decision but closing admins can see through this. If anyone would like to revert to a previous timeline and undo any either inadvertant or meant to happen edits that is against policy I will support it. Anyone else that would like to ask for adnib help please go for it. Otr500 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question It seems that various contributors to the article and this discussion are blocked editors, at least some for confirmed or suspected sock puppetry. We have what might be judged by some to be a claque trying to preserve this at all costs, too. I think it is the right time to move from discussion to closure. I see two outcomes. Either it is determined that the gentleman is notable and the article, much pruned of any non cited/citable puffery, is retained, or it is deleted as failing the criteria for inclusion here. I understand why experienced editors have relisted it rather than closed the discussion. Even so I think it is time to bite the bullet of closure. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: It has one more day on the new listing. This is actually a good thing to make sure there was enough exposure. It is contentious and will require an in-depth look before closing and admins are volunteers like the rest of us. I normally would just not worry about it but there is too much stacked evidence that there is under-handed dealings going on and this needs looking at. Riding the coattails of Ron White is not a justifiable rationale for keep. The rebombing of sources and attempts to hide good faith maintenance edits are bad enough. I just randomly picked current reference #57 that is listed as "Engelbert Humperdinck - The Dance Album" that redirects to a totally, totally, totally junk (in other words plain old refbombing junk) reference (check it out and others like it) that has abosolutely zero to do with the subject or even Ron White. The article is full of these All music refs that are just for show to make the article appear to be well sourced. All references to the same source does not add to notability as they all count as one for this purpose. That is an issue I have; faking references to portray notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: strongly promotional article on a producer of questionable notability. Notability is not inherited from notable performers / recordings. Best deleted, due to COI / SPA concerns. It would be a time sink to try to maintain neutrality of this article. Since notability is marginal at best, deletion is the best course of action here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 28 April 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.

Enumclaw Regional Hospital

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

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete.
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY/PROMO Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Medical Center (Tacoma, Washington)

St. Joseph Medical Center (Tacoma, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major hospital in a major city, with plenty of coverage in
  WP:BEFORE nominating. SounderBruce 03:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this is a long-established hospital, with scads of RS sourcing potential, and what it is right now is a stub. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This was speedy-deletable as an advertisement. If somebody wants to try to write an actual WP article that would be great. This is disgusting industrial waste that been dumped into our beautiful project. "long standing" and "RS potential" are not valid deletion arguments but instead are hand-wavy, empty rhetoric. Local BOOSTERism is also not a reason to keep. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a hospital not a male performance enhancement drug. Think it's too promotional? Rewrite it. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]