Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 3

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Lyons

Elf Lyons (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)

Several reasons for this nom: most significantly - notability. The subject just isn't notable. Low social media following (1720 facebook page likes, 6268 twitter followers and 2714 instagram followers in total). Low level of 'significant, independent coverage in reliable sources' - a couple of articles/interviews/profiles (one guardian, one standard being the limit of what matches this criteria - two in total does not represent significance).
The article itself is sparsely detailed, because there is little info of note about the subject - something that confirms lack of notability.
The article is poorly formatted, not to basic wiki standards. This can be fixed though.
The article is poorly referenced - two in total - one of subject's own site, another being the review of an Adelaide fringe performance on a blog.
Some curious weirdness from the article's creator - as part of their efforts, they added this Original version before quickly trimming the strange content. This was immediately followed by quite transparently COI activity from an SPA IP with these edits - admittedly slightly outside of the immediate scope of AfD but significant in that if we strip out the unreferenced content added by the subject themselves, the article would be fully devoid of content, further re-inforcing the notability issue.

Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This comedian and writer has been profiled in
  Edinburgh Fringe and other festivals. She has also written for major newspapers. A simple Google search turns up much more serious coverage.. Someone needs to do the research and pull out some info from all these sources to expand the article, but there are lots of sources to choose from. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, Evening Standard and others so passes
  WP:GNG. The other problems can be edited out by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would add that "social media" (sorry, but I have to put that in quotes because these sites are far from social) following is irrelevant to notability in either direction. The more common problem that we have is with people saying that someone must be notable because of a high following, but it is equally fallacious to claim that someone is not notable because of a low following. I have no followers on any of these sites, simply because I have no reason to use them (I actually talk to my friends and family), but that is not the reason why I am not notable.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Thanks to SSilver's efforts, notability is clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger - whilst social media following is a rather crude metric, it does constitute part of the
  WP:ENT notability in assessing whether they have, or lack, a significant fan base. No-one can argue the case for someone being a global entertainment icon if they have 37 followers across 4 major platforms. Rayman60 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Lots of sources and so all three subjects easily pass
  WP:GNG. They have all been nominated previously and all kept. This nomination doesn't say anything new or substantial. Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. While indeed being related to the royal family (or, for that matter, being a "her royal highness" by dint of marriage) is not grounds for notability,
  a snowy winter is coming to this AfD... Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The mother of a future Queen Consort and the grandmother of a future King?! Of course she's notable! The other two are less inherently notable, but have been massively covered in the media and clearly meet
  WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and any recurrence (Pippa Middleton?) should be reason to lok at a TBAN. This is so far beyond plausible as to be firmly into disruptive. She's not WP:Notable because she's related to the royals, she's WP:Notable because such a vast number of sources, even beyond the tabloids, cover her because she's related to the royals. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable subject with plenty of solid sources. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Folding Pippa into this nom takes this into
  chatter) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all This is ridiculous - all three persons have been written about in books, interviewed for feature articles by UK The Times "et al" and continue to feature in novels and newspaper articles regularly 175.32.82.245 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Regardless of whether you believe that being related to other famous people should generate enough significant coverage to pass
  WP:GNG, in the case of James Middleton it clearly has. The other Middleton's (especially Pippa!) have had even more coverage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 4 July 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 Family Stadium for now at least. Could be restored to a full article in the future if sufficient reliable source coverage is found. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Family Stadium 2003

Family Stadium 2003 (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 video game does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Looks like a Japan-only release to me. May have better luck finding sources under the name Famista 2003 and the Japanese title for the series which seems to be ファミスタシリーズ - X201 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted. Sadly, even the Japanese Wikipedia article for Family Stadium (Famista) 2003 (the one you linked is about the series as whole, not this title) is unsourced as well.
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment -- Jovan, could you also tag the Japan related AfD list, as what is needed here is someone who can look for Japanese sources?

matt91486 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep -- I cannot speak Japanese, but as far as I can tell, the Famitsu page for the game is [13]. This also seems to be relevant directly [14]. There are lots of links from sites like this [15] or [16] or [17] that I lack the background to speak for their ability to count as reliable sources, but clearly are about the topic. Language expertise is needed. But at first glance with as best as I can do language wise, there seem to be sufficient cites available, as expected, even if they will require someone who can properly speak Japanese to say for sure and/or incorporate them.

matt91486 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  matt91486 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  alternative to deletion and I can see some plausibility as a search term. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:18, 10 July 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. Sandstein 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Bezemer

Dirk Bezemer (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 BLP prod, no evidence of notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Owlf 17:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. He has a plausible case for
  WP:PROF#C1 via well cited publications in Google Scholar [22] but we need more than a link to his personal web page to support even a stub like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep a case of
  WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, clearly relevant according to
  WP:PROF#C1 with 4 publications with > 100 citations. But I agree, the article needs some work. --hroest 20:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the article, it's notable and some sources as A, B, C, D, F, you can find that paid to subject.Forest90 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 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. Tone 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galilee of the Nations

Galilee of the Nations (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)

• Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for companies and It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lack of
  WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be refutable on its face; despite the label not meeting
  WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, it still seems to reach the GNG without a significant roster, as it's been covered by Billboard multiple times (which are already in the article). (Perhaps, with better coverage of Israeli music, we will see that it meets both criteria.) Chubbles (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Don't believe it passes
  WP:GNGMaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not with three pieces in Billboard - the top American publication for record label info - and a further article from a major Christian magazine, as is currently in the article? Chubbles (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Billboard coverage is independent of the label, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has independent reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles in Billboard and
  WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• tepid keep. My searches find only mentions in the context of albums released, and an album reviewed. I have added some to the page. No in depth coverage, but I suppose that an argument can be made that a small record label is like a small publisher, notable because it is useful to know who produced a work of musical merit. And the fact that albums produced are reviewed in
  WP:RS publications supports notability of publisher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 7 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Orchards

Islamabad Orchards (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)

Permastub about a housing project created by an

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are
  prove it exists. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I can't find it on google. Not notable. Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fail passes
  WP:GEOLAND - MA Javadi (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the Article, it's not notable and fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

River Gardens, Islamabad

River Gardens, Islamabad (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  no evidence of significant coverage exists. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 8 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's
  a small one at that. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 8 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulberg, Islamabad

Gulberg, Islamabad (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It appears to be the location only of a non notable housing project. My web searches are not returning anything. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 9 July 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 speedy delete as hoax vandalism. I couldn't find a trace of such a festival, either. Normally I would simply add that to the discussion. Then I looked at other edits by the creator's account, including old versions of some pages. That convinced me that deletion on sight is quite safe in this instance. I did not spot anything else in article space that has not long since been dealt with. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GIMP Festival

GIMP Festival (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 find absolutely no evidence that this music festival has ever existed.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 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. Tone 07:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biker metal

Biker metal (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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose although some sources seem to have different definitions, there is a pretty wide variety of sources discussing it, namely its heavy use by writers like Martin Popoff and Sleazegrinder of Classic Rock, which definitely seems to make it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issan Sumisu (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• These references don't seem to refer to biker metal as a distinct genre but instead refer to heavy metal music that appeals to bikers. The fact that a simple google search only returns a last.fm tag for biker metal and a bandcamp tag for Biker Metal makes it seem like there isn't much notability for this "genre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TankieMrBanky (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources are you referring to when you say that? Because for example: loudwire.com/metallica-reload-anniversary/ says that "Reload, by contrast, was more experimental, blending biker metal, southern rock and unconventional arrangements"; www.hardradio.com/hr3.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardradio.com%2Freviews%2Freviews071598.php3 says "Tank's This Means War combined a scampered biker metal with epic war tales"; and www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-the-almighty says "Otherwise, it’s state of the art biker metal, right down to the ridiculous hollow-drum production." These all seem pretty definite in it being a genre. Issan Sumisu (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These references don't really say what "biker metal" is. Is it just heavy metal music that bikers like? Is it metal influenced by punk music? If so, what differentiates this from crust punk, speed metal, or NWOBHM? These references to the term don't really seem to differentiate it as a genre.TankieMrBanky (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

loudwire.com/motorhead-overkill-album-anniversary/ describes it as "bluesy" and "bombastic"; www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-steve-jones says its "glam metal gone Mad Max"; in Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead End Kids by Donna Gaines it's described as a fusion of metal, punk and rock and roll. Most of the sources culminate in basically just saying it's the whole sound that Motorhead spawned. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable. For example, see the article in Spin. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Added a paragraph on the musical characteristics of biker metal, with references. The term is definitely used in several reliable publications when referring to music, and there exists significant coverage of the nature of biker metal as a distinct genre (and not just 'metal that bikers like'). Gilded Snail (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — whether a musical genre is well-defined or not isn't an argument for or against deletion.
  WP:GNG. Perhaps the reliable sources who recognize this genre are wrong; we have articles about things that are wrong, like Phlogiston theory. Perhaps the content could be upmerged into some broader topic for organizational and structural reasons (rather than failing notability) but that falls to local consensus, not AfD. To me it doesn't look like a good merge candidate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Dennis Bratland above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:14, 8 July 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. Sandstein 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [23])

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

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion.Iceman0426 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet
  WP:GNG, only sources official, and blog/fan sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 7 July 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. Sandstein 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinvent

Bioinvent (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 PRODded this, saying "Article lacks proper secondary sourcing; nothing in here makes it somehow automatically notable." Creator removed the tag, saying "does have secondary sources"--yeah, but not proper ones, except for one short article in a local Swedish paper, and one (about the founder, mostly) in a publication from the University of Lund. Given that the company was founded in 1983, that's not a lot, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does have proper ones, Sydsvenskan, Dagens industri, and Lund University are proper sources. Ljuvlig (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydsvenskan is the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden. I wouldn't lump it together with "local papers" in general. /Julle (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagens Nyheter, which is Swedens biggest newspaper, has now been added to the list. Ljuvlig (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but better yet create Carl Borrebaeck and merge into that. I can't see the Dagens Nyheter article beyond the opening, which suggests it offers little more than corroboration of one of the listed collaborations with other companies. The Dagens industri search link yielded nothing I saw as useful beyond referencing the company's research focus (2 of the 3 articles there are focused on their financials). I agree Sydsvenskan is not to be sneezed at, but I'd like to see at least one similar article all about the company rather than what we have, which is that plus a couple of short articles and the Lund University mag on Borrebaeck. Borrebaeck, in contrast, appears to meet our notability standard handily: first professor of immunology in Scandinavia, member of a learned society, has received what appears to be a major award, and much coverage mentions more than one of the companies he's founded (one source says this was the first). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sourcing and per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 8 July 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. Sandstein 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Gunner: The Robot Wars

Shadow Gunner: The Robot Wars (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 sign of meeting

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Upon a search, absolutely no actual coverage of this game is findable. The only things out there are listings on old game databases and pricelists. (Changing search results to French, searching "shadow gunner jeu video", and looking for other apocryphal mentions of the game on Reddit also yield nothing.) Gilded Snail (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Found four sources - three magazine sources that I found on Mobygames and one source mentioning it in passing. However, the number of sources is rather too low, so delete. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open-Realty

Open-Realty (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 refs provided are all to the organisation’s own site and I am not able to find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in a
  WP:NORG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:45, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Steele

Geoffrey Steele (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)

Actor with questionable notability. Despite being in over 25 roles, most of them appear uncredited. So he isn't really even a character actor. Not a single role stands out. If not delete-a redirect to his wife. Wgolf (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to his wife Mildred Shay although even her notability is marginal (she was sort of famous for being famous). Pichpich (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to his wife's page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. appears to be a copy vio of his IMDB page. No clue what his role was in these films. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:46, 8 July 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Super Pickle

The Adventures of Super Pickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes
  WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't satisfy
  WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nominaton.TH1980 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  WP:GNG, unable to find any reviews, not surprising given low library holdings under 10, Walley, the author, appears to have only written for hallmark see here, so again unsurprising that his works have not been reviewed. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Cannot find any sources, so fails
  WP:NBOOK. William2001^(talk) 22:05, 9 July 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.

Holy Holy (band)

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

)

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

The article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per #6 of
  WP:BEFORE search, that said I do agree that the title could be less ambiguous. Maybe Holy Holy (tribute band) or Holy Holy (UK band or Holy Holy (supergroup). --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Obviously notable given the people involved and the coverage that a Google search brings back. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfied of it satisfying notability but continue to work on itMaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One argument I keep seeing here is that the band is notable because the participants are notable. Notability is not inherited (
  WP:INHERITED), so the group is defined as notable if it has done something notable. Has it received significant coverage from reliable sources that are specific to the group, and not coverage about the participants with a comment about the group? Has it released any notable albums? Has it charted on any national charts? The fact that Tony Visconti is a member of the group does not make the group notable. Mburrell (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please read
  WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Billboard The Scotsman and others as well as passing criteria#6 of
  WP:NMUSIC so there is no need for deletion imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. A Google search brings up multiple coverages that satisfy GNG. William2001^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does this article have to do with Japan? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 10 July 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Sayahi

Ramana Sayahi (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 a hoax speedy request because it's either not a hoax or a really good one. However, can't find sources in English to show notability. I don't read Persian so I don't have a way to evaluate the sources in the article -- hoping for more eyes on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As best I can tell this person is performing in a film, but being in a film is not a default show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per John's comments -- the coverage is also really spotty in mostly user-generated or paparatzi-driven coverage, and the claim to notability at the beginning of the article doesn't make a lot of sense -- at the very least its self promotional, at the very worst its a hoax, and if its neither of those, the coverage in the sources appears to be minor at best. I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was more consistent coverage in Persian Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a promotional article, although again, I cannot read the Persian article. William2001^(talk) 22:08, 9 July 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Usama Khan

Mohammed Usama Khan (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)

Subject does not yet meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary resources, does not yet meet
  WP:GNG.Charmk (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:TOOSOON. --Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 5 July 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.

Saturday's Warrior

Saturday's Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that

other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I have add multiple articles covering this wide ranging work. To be clear, this is not a film. It is a stage production, that as such managed to permeate the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. True, it is most often reacted to as either a very simplistic work, or a doctrinally wrong work. However it is present in doscourse, and its musical numbers are of great power. The film is not the thing, but the stage production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just keep finding more sources. Still, Saturday's Warrior is a work of the 1970s, reflecting the culture of the 1970s, so probably some of the best sources are not easy to locate on the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The very first source in the article states it's a film. The infobox lists a director, actors, a release date, and a distributor. That all describes a film as do the sources. Is your argument that this article is about something else? Orville^talk 05:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a stage musical long before it was a film. Many of the sources are about both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is notable with reviews in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article so that it passes
  WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per ample
  WP:SIGCOV. Including some I just added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 9 July 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 Kamala Harris. RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

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

)

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

Subject fails

• Redirect. I don't see enough there for him to be considered notable enough for an article: he doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and we don't have a Wikipedia:Notability (lawyers) guideline. Some of what was added could be in the page about his wife if isn't already there (went to school, obtained law degree, practices with firm), but the page in and of itself should return to being a redirect. – Athaenara ✉ 01:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as lacking independent notability. It's possible if Harris gets the nomination and certainly if she gets elected that he'll start to pass GNG but for now a redirect is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable at this time. If Harris becomes the nominee this may change, but not right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kamala Harris as described by Athaenara. Notability is not inherited. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that there's no history to revert-war over). People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to be married to, this doesn't even try to make a case that he's notable for his law career, and one article in one source is not a magic
  WP:GNG pass that automatically exempts a person from actually having to have a real notability claim. If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election next year, then obviously he'll qualify for an article at that time as the new First Spouse — but until that time, having a chance to maybe become the First Spouse next year is not a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Bearcat: It had been a redirect since September 2018 when I created it (log). There is zero harm in keeping the page history intact. If there is edit warring, we have ways of dealing with that. – Athaenara ✉ 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What needs to be shown is that there's positive value in keeping the edit history, not that there's merely a lack of harm. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Help:Page history, we generally do see that. – Athaenara ✉ 12:27, 5 July 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.

Uzma Rashid

Uzma Rashid (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)

BLP on a member of a city council in Gonda has one source. Per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gonda does have 122,000 people, but in my city of 130,000 plus people who have determined even the city council head, with the title of mayor, even when they served for 20 years in that position, was still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom.--
  (T) 012:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, pretty open and shut case. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic free pass over
  WP:NPOL just because they exist, especially not in midsized cities. To clear the bar, a city councillor must either (a) serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto, London or Berlin, or (b) be sourceable to so much more coverage than most other city councillors that she could be credibly claimed as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. But Gonda is not in that rarefied tier, and there's just one source here and it's a short blurb, so neither of those conditions for the notability of a city councillor has been satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NPOL. William2001^(talk) 22:11, 9 July 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.