Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 21

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hygger (company)

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

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

Spam, dodging it's previous G11 history as Hygger by purporting to be about the company this time, while the text is still about the software. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All sources I can find (and those in the article) are blogs and other user-contributed, non-reliable sources, Regards SoWhy 18:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional article. desmay (talk) 14:54, 25 March 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.

Dr Jacob Thomas (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

• The subject is notable per
  WP:ANYBIO, he is a recipient of a notable award i.e. President's Police Medal as well as other honours. I am trying to develop the article, please bear with me for a while till I complete the job.--jojo@nthony (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sounds good. I see you've redirected it to Jacob Thomas (police officer). — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done a bit on the article. Guess it is now good enough to stay.--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Will Reserve judgement until article is developed. At this time not
  talk) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I beg to disagree with
  WP:ANYBIO.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep
  talk) 14:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Fair challenge but article now improved. We now have close to
  WP:GNG is adequate. Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 29 March 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.

Matthew Prozialeck

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Matthew Prozialeck (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep If lack of sources is the problem more can be added. This artist has been regarded as an elite and successful harmonica player among many in the blues community with several charting records. I have written about blues music a lot and I thought he warranted inclusion. I have added several sources since your message. The band he worked with Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers has an article which mentions him. He has also worked with several Grammy winners and nominees that also have articles. The link to Seydel just has a short bio which Is why I linked to it. Reviews mention his contribution ^[1]. Articles that can back up my claims about and talk about his success ^[2] I'd be happy to look up more sources, there's plenty there, just didn't know how much was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesmanRobert38 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to point out that this page has more sources than Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers which was not deleted despite liking to their own website and youtube account, it's common for people to link to musicians sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesmanRobert38 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is good coverage in the following .......... Positively Naperville, Friday, November 10, 2017 - ‘Harmonica man’ from Naperville is playing blues big time in Boston ............ Bill Copeland Music News, November 3, 2017 Harmonica man Matt Prozialeck shines as member of Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers ........... and
  The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2015 - Blues band gig becomes permanent for Naperville resident by By Sarah Freishtat. There's also multiple mentions in Blues Blast Magazine. I'm satisfied that it makes it. Sadly the article is untidy and needs a fair bit of work.
  Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. He does have a credit with Erin Harpe & the Delta Swingers, as well as a smidgen of coverage with the local newspaper Positvely Naperville. This article in the Chicago Tribune is excellent coverage on just Prozialeck alone. Not enough, however. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to the above - The article in Positively Naperville is about him and more than a smidgen. It's good coverage. Plus he played in recordings as a band member or is closely associated with notable acts such as Erin Harpe & the Delta Swingers, Matthew Stubbs and GA-20. Notable! Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performing in all these acts as a session musician does not prove notability, according to

WP:MUSICBIO. That guideline requires being a primary member in at least two notable acts. Also, two featured articles is, in my mind, more proof that he doesn't pass GNG than that he does. A redirect to his primary band would be the best choice until more coverage appears. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep (strikeout second BluesmanRobert38 !vote) Prozialeck is talked about heavily in this article in Blues Blast Magazine a very respected source on the blues scene here http://www.bluesblastmagazine.com/issue-12-5-february-1-2018/ He is Notable enough to receive this recognition. There is more than enough sources to consider him "Notable". He also has appeared as the primary soloist on two nationally charting albums. He has performed with grammy nominees
  Boston Music Award in the Delta Swingers last year. I do not think there is any question he is notable especially since everyone else mentioned here has their own page on this site. User:BluesmanRobert38 —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• BluesmanRobert38. This is your third !vote at this AfD. You can only vote once (as you did at the top). Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think there's good coverage of him in Positively Naperville and also in Blues Blast Magazine. He was also on releases for Vizztone Records which is a label in blues music and has some very notable acts Jhorton4 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (strikeout third BluesmanRobert38 !vote) The page now has 17 sources, more than a lot of band pages that are not up for deletion. There has been vast improvements in the article since I created it and has good information on it that is backed up BluesmanRobert38 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• BluesmanRobert38. This is your third !vote at this AfD. You can only vote once (as you did at the top). Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't find any solid RS on this BLP from a proper source outside of minor online sites (of which he is rarely the principal subject). I definately can't find
  WP:SIGCOV which I think is important for a BLP – there is no material article on this subject (and where he is the subject) from a full WP:RS? I am struggling to see the basis on which this BLP can avoid deletion? It would help if the Keeps could present an RS that would be SIGCOV on him, but none have been presented so far. Otherwise we fall into the unsustainable situation where his WP BLP is the main source of his notability (it is meant to be the other way around). Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 29 March 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 · Stats

)

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

This is a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of this character as a standalone adaptation, which a development history, character arc, and characteristics distinct from other versions. I would note that we had a similar discussion regarding, e.g., Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), which resulted in a consensus for keeping the standalone article on the character. bd2412 T 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article under discussion is about a fictional character, as portrayed by a specific actor, in three specific films, and not in any other films or in the comic books or anywhere else for that matter. That is much different than an article about a fictional character.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is for an independently notable specific iteration of the character. It has its own fully encapsulated storyline unique to the series. Therefore, it stands as its own article. bd2412 T 13:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline and characteristic uniquenesses doesn't mean it requires a standalone. Look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This has a mixture of issues and requires more than just a cleanup in terms of its existence. A good example I give is Frodo Baggins. It has a lot of differences between the book and the movie. However, the movie character did not get there own page. The same could be told about Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy, let alone Bruce Wayne. The fictional notability guideline. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether it "requires" a standalone, one has been written, and contains reliable sources specifically addressed to this topic. It meets the

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, example 4. bd2412 T 15:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Such a hypocrisy since you were the one who brought up Iron Man. Anyways, can you link me the consensus? Plus you must know that just because a topic has reliable sources, doesn't mean it is notable. This also brings to my another argument, the topic is ambiguous. It has a mixture of content which are FORKed from multiple pages. Is the article about the character Peter Parker (personality and character development), Spider Man (villains and costume design, character depiction and real world significance? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it civil. I brought up Tony Stark because it is clearly directly relevant. The discussion on the MCU character articles is at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#MCU character articles. If you are a glutton for punishment, you could try to have that article deleted, although it is highly popular, getting well over half a million visits since its creation. There is, of course, nothing wrong with creating a Wikipedia article on a discrete topic using, in part, material scattered across other existing Wikipedia articles. bd2412 T 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how relevant the topic is. Also,

WP:NOBODYREADSIT. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, carry on with your effort, then. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reiterating what I said here, "I support a standalone article for Peter Parker as portrayed in Raimi's films, though I think there could be a better article title since this can seem like it includes post-Raimi incarnations. When it comes to writing this kind of content in various scopes, there will always be some kind of redundancy. This kind of scope allows for a focus on character-centric content, putting aside production and reception details that are not directly pertinent to the character. Doing a search engine test, it appears that the book Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe has a chapter called "Playing Peter Parker" that is devoted to Peter Parker in films (though not just Maguire)." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but either rename or repurpose per Erik. There is simply too much encyclopedic content there to fit into any of the parent articles without making them too long or unduly focused on this iteration of the character. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator. - Judging by the comments above, I believe userfication would be the best possible option. Anyone willing to volunteer will be appreciated, for which any action is guaranteed. There is another essay about this type of act which I am unable to recall. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup? Most Wikipedia articles could stand some kind of improvement. There is nothing about this one that is so bad that it should not remain in article space pending further work on the article. bd2412 T 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If merging is not an option, then I see no reason to have an article about a fictional character as depicted in three films only, while ignoring the character's depiction in other films dating back to the 1970s; in the hundreds (thousands?) of comic book stories since 1962; in graphic novels; in books, etc.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ I also agree wholeheartedly with THE NEW ImmortalWizard's astute observations and cogent argument for deletion.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD

I am leaning on keep. I feel that many characters are indeed notable on their own. Like the Dark Knight trilogy’s Batman, Hugh’s Wolverine etc. This is no different outside of having his own article so far before they have one. A name change and copy edit of all the work is neededthough. This page has gotten popular with the editors who like to add a little too much cruft. (The only reason why my keep is not 100 percent). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources concerning this particular iteration in this subset of the franchise and is a valid split article that should remain as the oppose votes are based mainly on
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I disagree, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)::[reply]
• I also disagree.
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Really? If we're going to cast aspersions, let's at least ensure that they contain a kernel of truth. I am the editor who originally raised concerns about this article, which I had started to copy edit as part of the Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Backlog elimination drive. It quickly became apparent to me that the article consists of a hodgepodge of content from other articles and a few other sources; it lacks coherence; the writing and organization are poor; and the purpose for the article remains a mystery to me. I hope those of you who are voting to keep the article will actually work on fixing its many failings.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD

• Merge to general article on Parker. I hold to the one character, one article view. Do we have seperate articles on
  Tony Stark (Ironman film series)?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I guess I was wrong. There is
  Superman (Salkind films) which functions like this, an article that covers one appearance of the role with one actor, even though the role has been covered by at least 4 actors in live film and at least 3 actors in live TV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The Tony Stark article is at Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), because the character has appeared in many films in the series that were not specifically "Iron Man" films. bd2412 T 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some editors are claiming that I don't have any clear arguments and the proposal is based on personal preference. That is pure ignorance and hence I feel the need to extend my comments. Whenever, I nominate for AFD, I don't usually touch on the content, instead focus on the notability of the topic itself. However, this case is really complicated and difficult. The title is "Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series)," that means it is about the fictional character Peter Parker in the Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. Pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, the content is far more mixed and ambiguous. First of all, I would like to disclaim that I am a huge fan of these Spider-Man films, so that takes away any of the presumption that I dislike the article as a whole. Back to the content, what really is the article focused on? It obviously need a lot of clean up and may not be encyclopedia, but that is not at all my argument for deletion. Let's go section-by-section. The lead seems fine to me, and it is supposed to summarize the whole article, which means I can ignore that for now. Then we come to creation and concept; it start off well by describing the creative initiatives of Parker, only to shift attention towards the actor Toby Maguire, training about his casting, training, future contracts and what not. Then it focuses on Spider-Man, Parker's alter ego; the rest half of the section focuses on the development of the costume of Spider-Man, which is not really about Peter Parker. Then we move to Themes and analysis. It appropriately touches on the characteristics of Peter Parker and character plot, which is absolutely. Then it talks about Raimi's influence, which is fine to. However, then it goes back to Maguire and the films planning and production itself. These could easily be merged to the correct articles. Then, the rest of the article is utterly unnecessary and could easily be removed IMO. You have one entire paragraph devoted to the "Enemies" of Spider-Man, the alter ego of Peter Parker in the fictional world, it is of six paras. Then you have "Fans and Critics", not about the character Peter Parker, but about Maguire's performances and his achievements. This also talks about other Spider Man films and their comparisons, exclusively on the actors' role on Spider-Man, not even Parker. Then you have "Other adaptations", which has little to no connection with Peter Parker or even the trilogy itself (for little I mean not notable). At least, the best adaptions I find being mentioned are that of the films, not the character Parker. Furthermore, there is a so-called consensus reached at
  Tobey Macguire and probably others I missed. Cheers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How can something be a "content fork" if it combines content from multiple articles?
    Wikipedia:Content forking says, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage". Consider the typical Wikipedia reader who is not, like you, "a huge fan of these Spider-Man films". Maybe they know nothing at all of the comic book history, or of any other film versions of the character. If they are interested in learning about the character of Peter Parker as portrayed in the Sam Raimi film series, they should have a single article to read where all that information is in one place. This includes the detail of how the character's costume was designed, and how fans responded to the actor's performance, since the performance becomes inseparable from the perception of the character. bd2412 T 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • (edit conflict) I anticipated the response. As I've explained, this article fails to have a reasonable topic judging from its content. For the title itself, there isn't much of a detail to have a spin off article. Yes, it is okay, to content fork from different articles into one, as long as the topic is concrete, well-established and notable enough. Notability doesn't always depend on the interest of readers, and this article is certainly not convenient enough. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a possible compromise to suggest. In this case I think a reasonable alternative may be to move this to
        Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series), and expand it into an article on the trilogy of films as a whole, of which the character of Peter Parker is a primary component. bd2412 T 17:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That might work, and could potentially be a proper content forking from Spider-Man in film and the films themselves. I am not really sure if this kind of conclusions occur in AFD though. That needs a separate discussion. Now that I think of it, spin off of Raimi series seems reasonable since Spider-Man is increasing in films. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, but they can only recommend to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Nonetheless, at the moment that would be a better option. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this discussion closes without a consensus (it seems to be headed in that direction), then I will file a request to move this article to
            Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series) under this rationale. bd2412 T 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • Very well. Just make sure it doesn't become a
            weighed properly, one of the growing concerns regarding encyclopedic content. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Keep per above comments and 'not broken'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per BD2412. There is a lot of GNG on this specific subject (per article). These three films were huge. Comparison with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is also valid. Article is way too big to merge with the general Spider-Man article. Given the subject is specific to its portrayal in three specific films, can't see the WP:CFORK issue. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 29 March 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.

Kin Fables

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

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure, because the original discussion ended as a debate exclusively between me as nominator and the person who approved it at AFC, with virtually nobody else weighing in at all one way or the other.
The problem here remains that this doesn't have a strong claim to passing

• Keep no prejudice to a future nomination does not imply 24 hours after the end of a three week listing. I haven't changed my mind about the long sections of prose in the articles that are being unfairly dismissed as just Q&A so this comment still applies: clearly passes
  WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As I already explained the first time, and was correct about, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "national" for the purposes of getting a person over

WP:GNG

is not a question of the publication's distribution range, it is a question of the physical distance between the publication's office and the article topic's house. Even The New York Times regularly covers people in contexts of purely local interest that don't make those people nationally notable just because they got a piece of local-interest coverage in The New York Times — we look at the context of what the publication is covering the person for, and the publication's distribution range does not automatically make them more special than they would be if they lived in a smaller city, but otherwise got the exact same article written about them in the exact same context in that smaller city's less famous local newspaper instead.

Student newspapers, similarly, are not notability-making sources on the grounds that they "do not have the commercial pressure applied to them"; they are non-notability-making sources on the grounds that they do not serve a general interest audience. If student newspapers could singlehandedly make people notable, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a campus religious or political club. So a student newspaper can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but are not GNG builders in and of themselves.

Q&A interviews can also be used as supplementary referencing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but do not count toward the initial matter of making a person notable if they are the best sources on offer. You've also failed to address my point that almost all of the Q&A interviews here are from blogs, and the only one that is actually from a real established media outlet is from a local television station in, again, the subjects' home town.

My nomination statement addressed the reason why "this also included an album and written work" is not a notability claim: nothing stated in the article gets the project over

WP:NFILM

, again, is not just a question of "any award that leads the subject's local hometown paper to write a human interest piece about them because of it" — it is a question of awards that consistently generate coverage in a broad range of sources not limited to the subject's own hometown: the Oscars, the Canadian Screen Awards, the BAFTAs, and the top tier of internationally famous film festivals (TIFF, Berlin, Cannes, Sundance). It does not automatically cover off just every minor film festival that gives out any awards at all.

In other words, all you've done here is repeat the exact same keep rationale as the first time, while completely failing to respond to anything I said about why it wasn't a solid one. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking at the references The Montreal Gazette, Montreal Morning Television are regional media not local, Beautiful Bizarre Magazine is a quarterly arts publication in print as well as online with a world circulation of two million, The Concordian is a university newspaper, My Modern Met has a professional staff shown here, Earmilk does not seem to be a blog, MyMysticSons is not much good as it seems to be a pr company but overall there are enough reliable sources to pass
  WP:GNG. Also a number of the articles have lengthy prose sections as well as interviews including the writer's reviews of the film so they are in part secondary sources and GNG is clear that excerpts such as six paragraphs in one of these cases are acceptable and the entire article does not have to qualify, in fact the topic of the article can be about something else, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As I already pointed out above several times, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "regional" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG in lieu of having to pass an SNG, is not a question of the publication's distribution range. If a person lives in Montreal, then coverage coming from Montreal is local coverage regardless of whether the outlet has wider distribution or not. A person who owns a restaurant in the Plateau is not instantly getting over GNG just because a food critic reviewed him in the Gazette, for example — the context of what it's covering the restaurateur for is still of local, not nationalized interest, so the fact that the Gazette has a wider than just local readership does not render that food review into "more than local" coverage for the purposes of GNG. The question of whether coverage is "local" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG, does not attach to where the paper gets read — it attaches to the context of what the paper is covering the person for.

And university newspapers do not help get a topic over GNG — if they haven't already gotten over GNG on much stronger sources before the university newspaper even comes up, then the university newspaper does not help. As I already stated, if university newspapers counted toward GNG, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a student club.

And the difference between a blog and a reliable source media outlet hinges on significantly more than just whether it has named staff or not. The problem with the Earmilk source is that it's a short and unsubstantive blurb, and has nothing to do with whether Earmilk is a blog or not. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 21 March 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Association of Art Galleries

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 on an association that represents art galleries in Ontario Canada. They represent lots of notable galleries, but we know that notability is not inherited. They do give out an award that is sometimes reported on, but an industry award given by the article subject seems only weakly notable. The sourcing in the article is poor and mostly primary. I'm unable to find significant independent reliabale sources that would allow me to easily establish notability. The article seems to be a promotional vehicle and listing of the non-profit and its members (you can't fault them for it) more than anything.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's hard to find external coverage of organisations of this kind, but that doesn't demonstrate that its not notable. The article actually consists mostly of a useful list of art galleries, and I'd like it kept to preserve that. There is regular coverage of their awards and its publications are quite notable.Bigwig7 (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, well written and sourced, an interesting page, and per Bigwig7. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable. A significant organization with many members, publications etc. A Google Books search shows plenty of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links for that claim? I see only trivial sources in google books that mention the name.

talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I can provide snippets:

• ... the Ontario Association of Art Galleries Directory includes contact information for 457 key individuals in 183 art galleries and organizations throughout Ontario...
• ... formation of the Ontario Association of Art Galleries resulted from a meeting held in August 1968. The roots of the organization, however, go back to 1947, when representatives ...
• ... received the 2009 Ontario Association of Art Galleries Award for exhibition of the year. Hassan's works ...
• ... This book came out of a collaboration between York University in Toronto, the Ontario Association of Art Galleries, and...

JSTOR gives 11 hits. The online profile is about what you would expect from a trade association like this: important to the members, not of much interest to the general public. But "dull" does not mean "not notable". Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for a discussion about a similar organization, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary Art Galleries Association Vexations (talk) 20:33, 9 March 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burda (surname)

Burda (surname) (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)

100% original research despite numerous footnotes. The refs are either for similarly sounding names or to primary sourtces, or to tangential facts

• Delete Looks like a clear cut case of 100% fresh
  WP:OR, the article uses databases of immigrants to draw conclusions about the origin of a surname, and doesn't back up anything else with citations. SWL36 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It has failed to meet the burda of proof that it is notable. (I am so going to pun hell.) If there were anything salvageable (which seems unlikely), it could go in Burda, which I've reclassified from a dab page to a surname one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 23 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publiq

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

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Publiq – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I was also unable to find any mainstream coverage to signal notability. I also think we need a better way of stopping these cryptocurrencies making their way onto Wikipedia to begin with. Also

WP:NOT42 applies to PROD. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: does not meet
  WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 23 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Maestas

Joseph Maestas (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)

Small town mayor who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mayor of Española, New Mexico, 2010 population of 10,495. Served as President of the New Mexico Municipal League, President of the National League of Cities Hispanic Elected Local Officials, and on the board of the National League of Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayors of small towns are not automatically deemed notable just because they exist, but this is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over
  WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage — and serving as a president or a board member of an organization is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to get over NPOL #2 on media coverage. To get him over the bar for those other reasons in lieu of his mayoralty itself, you still have to be able to source them to media coverage about his work in those roles, not just to his staff profiles on the organizations' own self-published websites about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I was unable to find any nationalized coverage of the subject that would make the subject more notable than most small town mayors. Thought there might be something about his presidency of the New Mexico Municipal League or the National League of Cities Hispanic Elected Local Officials, but found nothing except for confirmation the subject served in those positions. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 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.

David Berry (American musician)

David Berry (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this guy meets

• Weak keep. Promo language needs to be removed, but it looks like this guy is locally notable as can be seen from the sources cited. Not
  WP:GARAGEBAND and has been around for some time. In the gray zone for notability, so definitely not a strong keep either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Locally notable? Says who? The toledo paper pieces are solicited by the people they write about, scroll down to the bottom where they state this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Thank you all for taking the time to look at my article and for your constructive input. While I don't know how to respond to the terms 'puff piece' and 'heaping pile', I can say that since this is my first article, I only ask for constructive help in improving my writing and sourcing skills though this article and any others I might write in the future. I've removed any text that may be construed as 'promo'. I've removed the reference and article text from the Toledo Blade article that I now see did not meet Wiki's criteria. Thank you for that. I tried to include articles from as wide array of sources and geographic areas as possible for this artist. In this case, London, England, Toledo, Ohio, and Sarasota, Florida. In my opinion, 4500 miles would not qualify as 'hyper local'. In fact, the review in 'PROG' magazine, a well respected and long established publication out of the UK, wasn't either a 'puff piece' or a 'heaping pile' - in fact, the article clearly states, in their opinion, that this guy's voice is 'weak' but with harmonies 'it works'. Thanks again for all your input. - Kkb1960 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece in here that could be considered decent coverage is this review. The rest are: a hyper local paper/blog and an interview so not independent coverage, a piece which makes not a single mention of the subject, not remotely a useful or valid source to establish notability, a student paper with a passing mention/listing, not even remotely about the subject, it's about his son, it's hyper local, an interview, press release. None of these do anything to support the article in any form, notability or otherwise. I'd also ask Kkb1960 what your affiliation to Berry given there's a fair amount of information in this article unsupported by sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your constructive criticism. I am not affiliated other than a fan of his music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkb1960 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 March 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.

Sandy & Vyjay

Sandy & Vyjay (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

• delete'. No evidence of notability whatsoever.
  talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, article seems to be created by the subject. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A Google search turns up a lot of results for Sandy and Vyjay. Notability, however, is a different issue. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP is not a publicity platform for travel bloggers. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as spam by posted by COI accounts. Also not notable. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Absolutely promotional. Even if there was enough information to prove GNG, the article would have to be completly re-written. Even the first sentence "Sandy & Vyjay are a husband and wife couple who have turned their passion into a profession" is unambiguously promotional. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 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 Thong (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thong (footballer)

Thong (footballer) (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)

Disambiguation page created due to mistaken page moves which have since been reverted. Almost all Thai people have nicknames, and are referred to by them in informal contexts, in much the same way given names are used in English. But it is implausible, in most cases, that anyone would try to look up a person by nickname alone. We don't have a

• keep - nom's arguments are unconvincing. If a person is commonly known by a certain nickname and the article says so, the latter is a valid candidate for disambig.
  talk) 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure how better to explain this than to reiterate the parallel with given names in English. The two mentioned Thongchais are no more known by "Thong" as David Beckham is known by "David". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footballers named David are at List of people named David#Athletes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  WP:INCOMPDAB. The resulting redirect would be a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Thongchai now that it has been created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, don't merge. The list of people named Johnny is at Johnny, not Johnny (disambiguation); the list of people named Chuck is at Chuck, not Chuck (disambiguation). The list of people who use the nickname Thong should not be included in Thong (disambiguation), but should be included in an article called Thong (nickname) or something (to disambiguate from Thong (surname) and Thong), but that article should only be created if the stand-alone list notability criteria is met. Leviv ich 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  WP:INCOMPDAB. People known by a nickname are commonly included with lists ofgiven nameholders. older ≠ wiser 09:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  WP:INCOMPDAB. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment (as nom): I'm in agreement with Levivich in that while the name may or may not warrant a name-list
  WP:NAMELIST section of the WP:Disambiguation guideline, which states: "Articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it." This is not the case for either subject here. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Both footballers are known as "Thong", so it is reasonable for someone to use "Thong" to try to find them, which is what the disambiguation page is for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline uses "reasonably well known", and gives the following example:

      We reasonably expect to see

      Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed.

      No one would expect to find either footballer referred to by an unqualified "Thong". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply