Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 25

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 Alex Salmond. There is a general consensus against keeping this page with the view being that it is TOOSOON. However, it does seem at least possible that at some point this content fork may merit a stand alone article. Additionally the title is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HM Advocate v Salmond

HM Advocate v Salmond (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 per talk page discussion, no reason for a separate article to Alex Salmond and nothing to merge as content is already there. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No good reason to have standalone article duplicating two sentences of content already merged to
  talk) 07:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Same as TP consensus here that I closed. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON and having a specific page on this may invite BLP issues. buidhe 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep We are probably going to have to create this sooner or later, so we may as well do so now. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state though it is a duplicate of a section in the Alex Salmond article. Should it not be deleted until if/when the section gets too big. There was no consensus to split the articles. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:PatGallacher is the pages original creator. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per others above. At some point, a separate page may well make sense. That time is probably months away, at best. I don't think it helps any having a stub until then. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that it is appropriate based on how the issue is going. Since it will become more controversial as it progresses, I think a new article should host it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo6209 (talk • contribs)

But under sub judice laws, there isn't going to be any reporting on this for ages until a trial starts, surely. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bondegezou's comments if/when the section becomes too long then a decision should be made to split the articles back, I would also support a requirement of a Full discussion to decide in future if the article should be re-

WP:SPLIT RhinosF1 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I agree with the Keep-side on this. This article should stay. This is clearly needed already.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? RhinosF1 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is duplicated on the main article. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a matter of pragmatism and because, technically, this case does not exist. We all agree this article will be born, assuming the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service decide to prosecute, but it's hard to see how it can have much useful encyclopedic content at the moment, and not until at least the preliminary hearing if not the trial (should they take place). So in the mean time it's just going to be a magnet for trolls and suck up editor energy, not to mention its potential as a platform for illegal activity. Can't see how it's worth all that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I can definitely see the "too soon" rationale, but this is a fairly high profile case against a fairly high profile individual. It will almost certainly become notable if it's not already. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at the moment, it looks to duplicate existing content and probably has a bad title. Wouldn't a split once it becomes notable for the full scandal be better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:TOOSOON I also agree with the comments of Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunanda Wong

Sunanda Wong (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)

Zero hits at Google News. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Why delete it? User:Lucifero4

@

general notability guideline, which you should be aware of if you edit at Wikipedia and create articles at Wikipedia. You've created 125 articles and have no awareness of a basic community requirement for when an article should be created? Is this a joke? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Because I have indicated that argument meets also other criteria.User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: You haven't indicated anything or made any argument. You !voted and asked a question. If your "keep" !vote is meaningful to you, you will support it with guidelines or policy-based reasons, like I and the others have done, otherwise the person closing the discussion will disregard it. Also, if you choose to participate in discussions, please type four tildes after your name like ~~~~. This will properly append your signature and a timestamp to your posts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot seeing how they meet notability. They've won a game show and hosted a couple of other small shows. Sources aren't there - an interview (doesn't help notability), a passing mention (doesn't help notability), article about winning the show (helps, but also supports a redirect to the show) and another article with a passing mention.
  Ravensfire (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  WP:GNG so I see no reason for the article to be kept, even as a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails GNG.
  WP:TOOSOON. Qualitist (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2019 (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. I don't normally close discussions as a delete on the basis of a single supporting !vote w/o at least one relist. However, in this case it is clear that the OP has done their due diligence and the editor who removed the Prod notice has chosen not to make an argument for keeping the page. That's enough for me. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Fulbrook

John Fulbrook (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. Original PROD reason was: I'm not finding much indication of notability. There's this brief piece in an industry magazine about him being headhunted to a new firm. This near-identical piece leads me to think it was based on a press release. Other than that, there's some name-drops and book credits, but nothing substantively about him as a person.

Decline reason from DGG's edit summary was: prob. notable. First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD--or draftify.

The decline completely ignores the fact that my PROD nomination made clear that I did check for sources - and failed to find any substantial and independent ones. There's no reason to draftify this decade-old article; if there's been no evidence of notability within the last ten years, another six months isn't likely to help.

Side note: I see the industry awards, but unless they are themselves "well-known and significant" (per

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete You are correct, there is not much out there beyond book credits ("Designed by John Fulbrook III") and industry biographies. I did not even see an interview. The awards might give some notability, but I doubt it given the way the design industry awards are so integrated with business interests.
  talk) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FWIW, I decline any prod where I think a community discussion is reasonably likely to find sources--that's about 1 a day, on the average, in additionto those I decline for other reasons. About half get deleted, half kept. Probably=probably, not that I necessarily support keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Which is fine, but I do find it a little irritating to see an edit summary that tells me to look for sources when my nomination specifically states I did look and failed to find any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2019 (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 2018 Idaho elections. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Collum

Kristin Collum (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)

Contested PROD. Subject is a candidate for office who did not win. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a prime example what’s wrong with Wikipedia. Too much agenda here. Until she actually wins an office, not as a running mate, being a “female politician” is not notability. Many female politicians ran, won, and lost in 2018, not all of them were notable enough for articles for now. Trillfendi (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• A possible redirect target for a losing candidate for Idaho's Lieutenant Governor in 2018 is 2018 Idaho elections. --Enos733 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NPOL. No coverage of note that I can see prior to the election. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — and the fact that the race happened to be between two women, thus ensuring that the office would be held by a woman for the first time regardless of which woman actually won it in the end, is not in and of itself a thing that makes the losing candidate special. But there's no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons present here at all, nor evidence of enough media coverage to make her candidacy more special than most other non-winning candidates' candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect name to 2018 Idaho elections, otherwise not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect name to
  WP:NPOL requires actually winning an election. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 1 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkstep

Thinkstep (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 contributed by a probable undisclosed COI editor has only two references, one of which is to the company's website. A BEFORE fails to find SIGCOV in RS. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Quite a few mentions in Google Books, some reasonably substantial (e.g. [6]). Worth noting that the company was known as PE International prior to March 2015, and also worth noting that searches for 'PE International' will find a lot of results about an (unrelated) airport. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Brief mentions, routine coverage, mentions of their surveys, and press releases is all I could locate. I did see the book references as well but they are not in-depth enough to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Chambers (English cricketer)

Thomas Chambers (English cricketer) (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 which fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 25 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Reed

Madison Reed (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)

Startup disruptor company and probably a borderline case in terms of meeting the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this is on the border, after carefully thinking about it, I am of the opinion that current coverage,including that of NYT and Forbes (an actual Forbes writer not a contributor) constitutes the sort of coverage that satisfies the standard present in NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep Plenty of reliable sources there. Trillfendi (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2019 (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 Brand relationship#Brand intimacy. A number of the editors participating in the AfD discussion have expressed concern about unsourced and /or promotional content. Care should be taken by those undertaking the merge to only keep material that is verifiable and NPOV. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brand intimacy

Brand intimacy (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, from its first incarnation through the three edits made in the last hour by Georgefowlerbrady, has been engineered to be an advertisement for a model by a marketing agency, MBLM (which uses the tagline "The Brand Intimacy Agency"), and its representative, Mario Natarelli. Nearly all the sources and external links lead to them: the whole article is

• Merge into
  brand love, brand loyalty, brand awareness, &c. There's a fair amount of variation in the terminology, depending on the authors, and others have defined band intimacy differently to mean detailed knowledge, rather than the type of emotion, When a customer has extremely detailed knowledge of, and a close association with, a brand it's called brand intimacy. So, I reckon it's best to push this marketing stuff together to help establish a consensus about the terminology. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy per commenter above. I also think we need to delete all REFSPAM here regardless. Skirts89 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as baldly promotional marketing dreck. --Lockley (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Discard all unsourced and blatantly
  WP:OR text and Merge what can be rescued into the section of the article about brand relationships. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete this college power point presentation. No need to merge it. Trillfendi (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Craig (ice hockey)

Bob Craig (ice hockey) (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 NHOCKEY and GNG. Clearly non notable minor league player. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:NHOCKEY. Quis separabit? 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - He narrowly misses NHOCKEY, but he seems to have gotten some coverage. Although his career ended more than 40 years ago, I was able to quickly find a couple of substantial articles about him: here and here. Given the length of time since he last played and the fact that these were easy to find, I have to believe there is more coverage that is less easy to find, but even this marginally meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog: That's really stretching it. "Marginally"? Why do we have to clutter up Wikipedia with non-notables, encouraging further such article creations? Quis separabit? 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, even curent minor leaguers who fail NHOCKEY also don't have multiple articles substantially about them. In this case we have a subject whose career ended 40 years ago, so most of his potential coverage won't be readily accessible. But in this case there are 2 articles that I was able to find - which is significant coverage in multiple (at the lowest level of "multiple") reliable sources. Normally, for a current minor leaguer I would want something more than this, but I'll settle for marginally meeting GNG for someone before the internet age. I am not sure how this article is "cluttering up" Wikipedia. Anyone who is not interested in him can easily avoid the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails
  WP:NHOCKEY and some local typical sports reporting from his minor league career isn't enough to meet the GNG or every minor leaguer would be notable.Sandals1 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete He does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players. All his notability would come from hockey so this is reason to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2019

• NHOCKEY is irrelevant for a subject that passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails
  WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NHOCKEY is irrelevant for a subject that passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (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 and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plain folks

Plain folks (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)

Lying dormant since 2007, this term - while ostensibly portraying a real phenomenon used in politics which I won't deny - only has one source and is worded like a sturdy coined phrase instead of a spurious neologism. If this "fallacy" has a name, it woukd have many and "Plain folks" isn't it. Anyway, it has one source and seems to fail WP:GNG right now. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I’m gonna say keep only because there are in fact reliable sources on this common phenomenon such as New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and TIME (as recently as 2016). Article can be expanded and done correctly.Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If such sources exist, provide link(s) here or add them directly to the article.

^{• whaddya want? •} 06:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I was too lazy to do so initially but here are examples: New York Times, CBS, TIME, for a about most of the decade, specifically in the 2012 election, Obama has been known to do it but I don’t think it was necessarily a plain folks technique in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, those are all just passing mentions of the phrase, or asserting that a certain person has that attribute. None of them pass muster as in-depth discussion of the concept as required by GNG. SpinningSpark 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to commoner, which is a larger article about the concept meant by this title. The stuff about politicians posing as common folk is covered elsewhere under more accurate titles such as demagogue#Folksy_posturing. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Trillfendi (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.

^{• whaddya want? •} 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep. Nice topic for Logic. Good for wiki philosophers. But the topic needs to be developed the more.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Propaganda_techniques#Common man (anchor needed), which links commoner in the header. It's rather duplicative of that section, and the fallacy is covered at Argument from authority#Appeal to non-authorities. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:57, 1 February 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eline Powell

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

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

No indication of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plays the main role on US-TV-series Siren (TV series). Being the main actress of a TV series that meanwhile spans two seasons, makes you noticeable.--Robberey1705 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can find some reliable sources that actually discuss her in some detail, beyond telling us that her parents live in Flanders and she likes to visit them. Huon (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep articles with more in-depth coverage linked from her articles in nl-wiki and fr-wiki. But even without GNG, her lead role in Siren added to named roles in GoT, Quartet, etc. surely add up to NACTOR, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles"? I don't see those; there's one French piece which lists the famous actors she played next to, but other than that? Notability is not inherited. Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too many people on this website think just having your name in parentheses next to a role is notability as an actor (it’s not). Without independent reliable sources, it makes no sense. One of the source here is Instagram ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lead on an American TV series with wide distribution.
  chatter) 03:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Verifiably passes
  talk) 04:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's wrong. From the guideline you link to: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (Emphasis mine.) Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@User:Huon da du ja deutsch al Muttersprache angibst, sag ich es dir mal auf deutsch: es macht den Anschein, dass du unbedingt willst, dass dieser Artikel gelöscht wird (und er stand schon mal zur Diskussion und wurde da auch nicht gelöscht wird). Das lässt sich schon deiner fadenscheinigen Argumentation entnehmen. Wie willst du einer schauspielerin, die in mehreren Werken die Hauptrolle spielte und in mehreren Sprachen Wiki-Artikel hat, die Relevanz absprechen? Keep the article.--Robberey1705 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HEY, improving the article's sources and information will convince Huon that it belongs here now, even though he was reasonable to think it was very substandard as of a week ago. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep She meets
  WP:NACTOR #1, and there are enough reliable sources confirming that (many unreliable sources which would be better removed, but the Dutch source, Variety and the Boston Herald are OK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs
  )

Comment on interviews I did some research in GAs about actors, specifically

WP:ABOUTSELF, where many categories of people's statements about themselves are acceptable RS if "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I also looked at what WP:N for guidance about whether interviews (published by RS independent of the subject) can be considered "significant coverage" required for GNG. Our policy WP:N does not exclude them. Instead, WP:N makes it clear that the reason notability relies on secondary sources (in this case, the publisher of the interview is the secondary source) is to demonstrate "verifiable evaluation of notability" and "objective evidence of notability." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep there was no consensus to delete the last time the article was nominated. Since then, Powell has played a lead role in a cable TV series and there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet
  wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @User:Huon Um deine anscheinende Paranoia noch ein bisschen anzufüttern: sie hat jetzt auch einen deutschsprachigen Artikel....--Robberey1705 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red bloc

Red bloc (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 can't find any coverage of this protest tactic in reliable sources. As the article notes, the phrase "red bloc" has a number of meanings, including the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per rationale; I'm not finding coverage either. Even if notable, this is not the PRIMARYTOPIC, as you can tell by googling "Red bloc". The word often refers to ad hoc electoral coalitions, and would be difficult to disambiguate. buidhe 05:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The term has a specific use per the example cited in Denmark in one of the sources, but the article isn’t about that, it’s about ‘a bunch of people who show up at demos with red stuff’, a completely meaningless designation.Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hamilton

Blue Hamilton (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 who never won any awards and none of his musical efforts charted. All of his coverage in reliable sources is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Falls under
  ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. First,
  WP:NOTINHERITED is being misconstrued here. It is not a policy or guideline. It is not a rationale for deletion. It is a type of argument to avoid in arguing to keep an article, according to an essay. So we can set that aside right now. Second, and much more to the point, while Hamilton is frequently mentioned by sources in relation to Matt Dallas, he is also frequently mentioned in his own right, typically in regard to his music or “net worth.” He has an album available on iTunes and Amazon. People actually exist in the real world who like and follow his music, and write about it. Whether Hamilton’s fame took off due to his association with Dallas—in fact, howsoever he or anyone else became famous or known—is entirely beside the point. These other facts I’ve mentioned are the point. It’s a clear keep. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hardly. "People actually exist in the real world who follow his music" is not a rationale for establishing notability. There are scores of artists who have loyal followings but will otherwise remain in obscurity. As indicated by nominator, he has no charting records (all of one EP in six years, plus any schlep can put an album on Amazon nowadays), nor any work with a reputable label, and his only notability comes on the backs of others like Dallas or Fernando Garibay. If Hamilton is "frequently mentioned in his own right," prove it with links to said sources; this goes for anyone who insists on dangling the carrot of sources magically existing when a subject is listed for AfD.

^{• whaddya want? •} 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I will assume you are capable of performing a general internet search for “Blue Hamilton.” The sources I spoke of were found thusly. And stop hinting at or assuming

WP:NOTINHERITED; it is irrelevant here. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've done that before and come up with zilch, otherwise it'd have been added to the article long ago. I've discerned anyway why you're vehemently contesting the nomination despite the subject's clear lack of notability, and it's no better a reason for keeping the article.

^{• whaddya want? •} 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Pardon me but I tried Googling him and only got results for Hamilton the musical. It would be helpful if you linked some stand-alone coverage of him from reliable sources.—NØ 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Individual fails
  WP:MUSICBIO
  based on the following.

1. The sources listed in the article - the first 2 are links to where to buy Blue Hamilton's music, the third is a link to Blue Hamilton's and Matt Dallas' youtube channel, and everything else is short announcements about Matt Dallas and his fiance Blue Hamilton (they got engaged), Matt Dallas and his husband Blue Hamilton (they got married), Matt Dallas and his husband and their son (they adopted). Nothing about Blue Hamilton's life or music. No reliable sources.
2. I searched Google, Google newspapers, Google books, Google Scholar, also NYT and I did a search "Rolling Stone AND "Blue Hamilton", Billboard AND "Blue Hamilton". Nothing. I find no information about his life or his music. As far as I can find, he and his music have not won any awards. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. Needs more work to be encyclopedic. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. The media coverage seems mostly limited to passing mentions and is WP:ROUTINE. buidhe 05:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn’t matter that “notability is not inherited” isn’t a policy... it’s an act of common sense! Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable musician per nom. --Lockley (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [7]

)

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

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

It is unlikely that a significant musical group without awards and links.--RTY9099 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a well-known rock band in Russia and has been going since 69. The proper name for the band is Sankt Peterburg. The book St. Petersburg: A Cultural History by Solomon Volkov refers to the band as a "Trail Blazer". Vladimir Rekshan has a status as well. See page 532 Karl Twist (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I say it because you can expand with info from the Russian version of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets
  WP:NBAND. But move to Sankt Peterburg (band). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2019 (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.