Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 5

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 Longevity claims. Clear consensus that the article needs to go, but there is some disagreement where it should go. The redirect argument is the most detailed in defending their particular choice and it seems like a redirect would also satisfy the concern of others, so going with that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant)

Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD a few months ago, I added a PROD2. Rationale was "A little news coverage but undoubtedly a fraudulent claim". There are a couple one-off articles about his and his parents' purported ages, but have almost no coverage of the man himself. Furthermore, even of the already few sources in the article, some are unreliable and others run afoul of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There seems to be a bunch of
  original research here regarding whether people buried in his hometown cemetery with his surname might have been his father or his mother or his brother. (Surely he should have shown up in at least some U.S. Census records, which are publicly available up to the 1940 census, yet the issue of what ages he claimed in the early 20th century censuses doesn't arise in this article.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This article fails
  WP:OR. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Longevity claims – Los Angeles Times from 1990 and Baltimore Sun from 1991 provide some minimal RS coverage, but this person lacks enduring notability. The rest of the sources are indeed primary, and there is a large SYNTH issue. A redirect to Longevity claims will satisfy the curiosity of people who may look up his name, while educating them on implausible claims of extreme age. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Push to draft till it meets notability requirements.
  talk) 17:12, 6 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Jones (author)

Meredith Jones (author) (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)

SPA/COI made and is the significant contributor to this article; academic of little note other than a bit of press coverage for doing a Kardashian symposium. It only get coverage because of the controversial nature/media obsession. Fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. She has a plausible case for
  WP:PROF#C7 as, seemingly, the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians. You may argue, as Glen Wright's book does, that scholarship on this topic is "silly", but she has attracted significant popular-media attention for it (which is why I put it down as #C7 not #C1). The nominator's "It only get coverage because of" argument is irrelevant; if it got coverage, it's notable. Incidentally, re #C1, don't even try to make sense of her Google Scholar profile, as it appears to be hopelessly muddled with works by other people with similar names. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - scary thought, but based on what? 2 of the sources used for that in this article about the Kardashians are written by the subject herself. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Those two sources probably should be moved to publications rather than being sources. The other sources for her work on the Kardashians are suitably independent. And the idea that a subject's notability should be based on the weakest sources in its article, rather than the strongest, is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Who here said "should be based on the weakest sources" - no one would say that. I'm asking for the direct evidence for the statement "world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - that is a bold claim and deserves bold proof. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were a statement in the article itself, it would need reliable sources saying much the same thing. But for my opinion in an AfD, it can be based on my evaluation of what I see in the article. What I see is that major newspapers are publishing her opinion as an academic scholar of the Kardashians, and that she was the organizer of the first academic conference on the Kardashians, both indicative of being a leading scholar on the topic. And searching for "the Kardashians" on Google scholar didn't find much by others that would contradict that evaluation. Maybe there are other scholars of the same subject and she's #2 or #3 instead of #1; it doesn't make much differences for the purposes of this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ↑

  WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO ↑ -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Someone explains in detail how they came to a conclusion, and that's exactly the same as a bare assertion?! --

  talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep per
  WP:AUTHOR, as argued just above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • She's only credited as an author of one book, and a couple articles. She was an editor on the other books listed. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being quoted a couple of times in relation to what seems like a tabloid story-of-the-day and a one-day symposium publicity stunt in the wake of Jenner's gender transformation, does not equate to "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Read Jones' damage control in the Guardian article and she even points out that the whole thing "came under attack, especially on Twitter and other online forums". Note that no one is quoting Jones anytime in 2016-2019 about the Kardashians. No way does that support a claim to
  WP:MASK this one. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I consider the insinuations above that I must have some nefarious purpose in coming the opinion I reached to be a violation of both
    WP:OUTING. Netoholic, you should back off and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Stop reading so much into things. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be wrong, but I am honest. I have vanishingly little interest in Jones' subject material, but she does have a body of work (editing counts, too). I fail to see how being involved in a controversy necessarily makes Jones less notable; usually, that works quite the other way. (I also fail to see how the 2015 symposium was a "publicity stunt"; it looks like a typical brief meeting of people who study pop culture for a living. Nor would I call the Guardian opinion piece "damage control".) And what's with the scare quotes? XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now the only real evidence we have that it was a controversy was Jones' own Guardian article saying so. None of the reviews about her edited works talk about her abilities as an editor. Frankly, few people are talking about this person, and that is what notability (or lack thereof) means. The Kimposium! was a brief spike of attention, but didn't make a big enough impact at any level
      WP:PROF covers. -- Netoholic @ 23:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm genuinely confused about what point you are trying to make. First, you mention a (supposed) social-media controversy, in a way that clearly seems intended to diminish Jones' work. After I said that a controversy would tend to make the subject more notable, you are expressing doubt that it happened. I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the scare quotes that doesn't force me to abandon
        good faith. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Its about the threshold of evidence between what we can use in an article and what we can use in this discussion. I think her own Guardian proves that she does fit the
          WP:PROF#C7 criteria, but also that article is a bad source for use in the actual article here since its primary sourced. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer either of my questions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Anyone viewing this article as part of this discussion: please pay attention to the article history and Netoholic's edits to it, which (especially in light of the above comments) seem intended to strengthen Netoholic's case against keeping the article rather than to strengthen the article and the encyclopedia. I'm out of reverts for now so if N keeps pushing the same bad edits then someone else is going to have to revert them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an incredibly bold "call to arms". Yes, readers, please look at the edit history there. When David says he's "out of reverts" he means he's overspent them and broken 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite the edit war there isnt anything substantial about the subject from independent reliable sources. Gnangarra 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article has been substantially expanded since it was nominated for deletion. She has co-authored a book with two other authors (Professors from the University of Leeds) published by Manchester University Press and with a June 2019 publication date, which I have added. One of the journal articles contributing to this was included in discussions on Australian Radio (Radio National – see article talk for links)... this was not Kardashian-related and shows her views as being seen as notable by reliable, third-party, independent media organisations. I have added links to several single-author papers in reputable journals. I suspect more can be found, and so I oppose deletion of this BLP. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding more and more to her bibliography is just more
    WP:OR, more likely, especially in how her publications have been weaved into a narrative in that "Jones was one of the four co-investigators" paragraph. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • as per
      WP:RS nothing meets that to establish notability, a new work to be published later in there year doesnt confer it just appears to be created as promotional for that. Gnangarra 10:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • ESRC
      that states:

Principal Investigator: Ruth Holliday

Co-Investigators: David Bell, Meredith Jones, Elspeth Probyn and Jacqueline Sanchez Taylor

Then, come back here and here and apologise for suggesting I was engaging in

WP:BEFORE should have located, like the book being published in June 2019 (which negates your "she's only authored one book" line, which is actually two books, edited a couple of others, and contributed chapters to at least three others). EdChem (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Since may 2019 the book being published in June 2019 is irrelevant unless it's a

WP:PROMO, come back in August september after its published and the RS exist Gnangarra 10:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right, its less OR and more specifically

WP:SNYTH. You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Feel free to list them as raw information in the Bibliography section (we can debate if individual works are warranted there if we have no secondary reviews), but they should not be used the way you have. -- Netoholic @ 11:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

So, you think that a report which states who is the principal investigator and who are the co-investigators – a report submitted to the funding agency – is not a

reliable source for who was the principal investigator and who were the co-investigators? Or, are you suggesting that citing the book publisher's page on the book stating the position of the authors is not reliable? Or, are you just trying to avoid actually reading the references? Or ...? EdChem (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Sure you can. It's often advisable, from a writing-flow point of view, since a paragraph often reads better than a list. We're supposed to be writing articles, not CV's. Converting a list to prose isn't

Manual of Style. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't at all add to notability... which is the whole point of this AFD to decide. Its just

WP:MASKing. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep per
  WP:NACADEMIC#1, demonstrated by EdChem's excellent work on the article. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

demonstrated by what, still nothing to make the author notable, its just a list of TV appearances. There are no sources to support information about the subject. Gnangarra 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The seems mostly "of note" due to a single event, ie, the seminar/workshop on the Ks. The subject is quoted by a range of commentators and authors / journalists, but it seems mostly due to the single event, and is not significantly maintained. The subject does have some citation exposure but pretty much routine and a lot of it is shared. I am not sure there is enough on aggregation to pass GNG, not readily passing any NSUBJECT. I suggest SINGLEEVENT and TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Her book 'Skintight' has been cited >200 times according to Google Scholar. She has published 24 other books and book chapters. She is regularly cited in the UK and Australian media on the subject of cosmetic surgery - searching Google News for "Meredith Jones" "cosmetic surgery" turns up 15 results from 2011-2019. searching for "meredith jones" kardashian gives another 13, mostly in the UK and Europe. She seems to be a respected and productive academic who is regularly tapped for comment by the media. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:26, 10 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Neumann

Keren Neumann (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)

Actress with just one film role. The rest of her roles are apparently just for advertisements. I can't find any notability for her whatsoever. Either delete or a redirect to her only role. Wgolf (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. IMDB has nothing. François Robere (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gimubrc (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as does not pass
  WP:NACTOR at this stage of her career with only one known prominent role Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 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 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sperling

Sara Sperling (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)

Pretty much an article about a corporate officer/consultant doing a job. The sources are largely about the role or PR/announcement and less about the person herself. Some sources read like bespoke profiles. Apparently run-of-the-mill, hardly more insightful than a linkedin profile. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this résumé. Refund when she actually meets notability guidelines. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 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 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Merwin

Anne Merwin (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 New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added some more content and refs to the article. Based on the reference listed in the comments here (The Picturegoer, 22.11.1913: 194 & 197 – “How I Write My Picture Plays” by Bannister Merwin in which he says: “Almost all our work is done in collaboration.” Includes a photo of “Mr & Mrs Bannister Merwin the well-known authors, who have written in collaboration many Edison film plays.) I think there are probably more offline references. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as the article has been improved with extra reliable sources references. Also in a subject this old there is no hint of promotionalism, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability (mavens of silent film could probably expand it).
  WP:BLP is irrelevant for someone who died in 1962. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sadly, Delete. These two actors were professionals and journeymen, but they were certainly not Notable, or else there would be more written about them in their lifetimes. Sure, they are mentioned in passing, but not as central characters in any news or feature story. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced for its era, even if it was much less well sourced I would lean towards a snowball keep based on period and subject.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Merge with her more notable spouse Bannister Merwin with whom she co-authored the works for which she is remembered. Sources are too strong to make deletion eligible. I lean towards keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were really Notable as a writing team, then
    WP:Merge would be fine. Do we really have sources for their teamwork, or are we just reaching for the sky here? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - co-author of more than half a dozen screenplays. While we have access to nice databases for the period for American newspapers and film sources, unfortunately we don't for British sources of the same period.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that she did co-author some works with her husband, but others say "by Anne Merwin", so it would be better to have separate articles. More information and sources can be found - they wrote fiction, as well as screenplays. But as it is, the article is well-sourced and informative. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:07, 12 May 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 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Chastain

Clay Chastain (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)

Failed Mayoral candidate. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful mayoral candidates, or for being the inspiration for non-notable characters in non-notable novels by non-notable writers, but this features neither the depth of sourceability nor the substance to deem him a special case of significantly greater notability than most other unsuccessful mayoral candidates. By definition, local media always covers local municipal elections, so the existence of a couple of local media hits is not a free pass over GNG that exempts unsuccessful candidates from having to satisfy NPOL — if there were stronger evidence that he had enough preexisting notability for other reasons besides the mayoral campaign to be deemed notable on those grounds, then I'd be willing to reconsider this, but that's not what the substance or the sourcing here are showing. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Bearcat. No notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:52, 10 May 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 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Riq

Solo Riq (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)

Apparently non-notable rapper, no reliable source in the page, no indication that any could be found. On 4 May I moved this to draft space, where it was declined by two AfC reviewers; the

Note: I've restored Draft:Solo Riq and redirected it here, as histmerge didn't seem to be a possibility (the second AfC decline was after the copy-paste move to mainspace); the earlier history of the page can be seen there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very clearly a creation by an SPA who seems to try to establish notability through a Wikipedia article as opposed creating an article about someone who is notable. There are no sources that can be identified to support notability. Statements in the article are poorly sourced (primary/unreliable) - due to lack of independent sourcing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 – I explained in great detail why the subject is not notable in my talk page conversation to the creator. This is A7 worthy as this rapper is literally completely unknown. There is zero coverage in reliable sources or any non primary sources for that matter. StaticVapor message me! 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author is very desperate to save this article, he has been begging on my talk page. Regardless, I believe that the rapper is not notable. --BoothSift 03:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unknown person.PE65000 (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete preferably speedily as there's no evidence of significance or notability and then salt it because it'll almost certainly be recreated. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 9 May 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 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Skelton

Steve Skelton (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)

Sklelton fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete All I could find on him was references to his brother and minor transactional articles. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet
  WP:SPORTSPERSON (no "significant award or honor", no "widely recognized contribution", no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources") - Epinoia (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:NCOLLATH. He did appear in some preseason NFL games but that's insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 12 May 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. But also tagging "needs cleanup" given the concerns about the text quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Continence Society

International Continence Society (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)

promotional article, with no third party indication of significance. Extensive editing by undeclared but obvious paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is quite poor but the society is clearly notable, with plenty of coverage in independent sources, some of which are behind a paywall and many not in English. Have a look at UroToday, Renal and Urology News, Medical Design & Outsourcing, Nursing Times, and the BMJ. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have searched for sources that qualify as quality primary sources, and have been unable to find anything that indicates notability. Fails
  WP:GNG. There are also clear COI problems per nom - highly promotional in the least. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete lack of non-primary sources. desmay (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A scholarly organization that publishes a notable academic journal and that runs international conferences ought to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added references about a report prepared by the society. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe content needs to be trimmed and promotional language needs to go for sure. But otherwise, it should be kept. Exploreandwrite (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a solution: Write an article for their journal, and add the necessary information about the society. If the promotionalism is removed from here there won't be much left. But the journal is notable , as it is listed in JCR with an impact factor of 3.2. There isno need for two articles, and the name most likely to be lookedfor on WP iis the journal name, not the society name. Alternatively, we could retitle and repurpose to the name of their journal, but there is no reason to keep promotional content even in the history, nor to encourage the writing of promotional artices. Better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)`[reply]
• Keep The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether the article is good. There are plenty of reports on its activities from independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain and Rathfelder. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline, thanks only to the solo independent ref by Eastmain (about the "IUGA / ICS joint report on the terminology"...). It'd be OK if any of the pubs listed by Rathfelder yielded a specific mention of ICS itself, or the ICS Annual Meeting. Permacultura (talk) 15:22, 5 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Vegetarian Association

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

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

Non-notable organization. EDIT: organization completely non-notable except for a single event (certifying Taco Bell menu items). COI article creator. When I'd removed a single bare mention and information about a previous completely unrelated organization by the same name, there was nothing left. valereee (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going through all the news mentions of Taco Bell, and the articles seem to be bare mentions in articles about a new marketing strategy by Taco Bell. Is it possible sheer number of bare mentions could raise this to notability? --valereee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative: Merge to
  Vegetarianism in the United States (if no such article, ought to be done). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment As is this page would be a speedy deletion since the only reference is a link to their linkedin page which was written by them. I havent done the research but whoever created the page needs to do a lot more work before this page should even be considered as a keep. I would give them 3 days to ammend the page with proper references if they have them available. Perhaps someone can direct the creator to a page detailing how to properly source information. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I concur with
  ☎) 13:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:ORGSIG "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable" - Epinoia (talk) 23:37, 10 May 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 List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Ignignokt and Err. T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooninites

The Mooninites (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)

Characters are not notable outside of the ATHF series, and the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic. Both of those are notable, just not these minor characters. Only trivial references by and large. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Only one of the five sections covers the in-universe aspect of the topic, at an reasonable and appropriate length. The remainder of the fully-sourced article covers out-of-universe information about the characters, including production information and reception sections. Grapesoda22 (✉) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are the show itself or things like dvd commentary. The rest are fairly trivial references. They're not notable outside of the show and the one event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 of the sources are episodes of the series, used solely in the in-universe section. 6 sources out of 29 isn't exactly "Most of the sources". Also, only 2 sources are DVD commentaries, which is very much a valid source of production information. Numerous pages, including several GA-level episodes of The Simpsons, cite DVD commentaries. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet
  WP:GNG in terms of the real world. Lots of trivial mentions, listings, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per what Grapesoda22 said, and the ATHF character articles in general should just be rewritten. IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters. There is not a lot of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as the episodes themselves and the DVD commentaries are both primary sources. The majority of the remaining sources are either from unreliable sources (the fan wikis) or are just brief mentions of them in top ten lists or articles about the series as a whole that just mentions them without any sort of in-depth coverage. The only subject that is adequately covered by reliable secondary sources is the 2007 incident in Boston, and as that already has its own article, the information does not need to be duplicated here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: – for the record non of the sources are fan wikis. The wiki URL is an archived link from the official show-site of the series, it is was never editable. Also, reception links come from reputable sources such as
    Heavy.com. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - Then the official site would also count as primary sources, and thus do nothing to establish notability, so the point still stands. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the two show-site sources just confirm basic information. They are only used in one section and are even backed up alongside a
        Heavy.com link. Grapesoda22 (✉) 22:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep as per Grapesoda22. I'd personally argue that there's sufficient sourcing in the article already for it to meet GNG. Scope and content of the article save for a paragraph or two is completely different from that of the Boston incident too, so not a content fork either. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grapesoda22 and others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm honestly pretty baffled at the Keep votes, seeing as the pages for the actual main cast are mostly Delete and redirect. The sources cited in the page are woefully inadaquate to pass GNG. Review:

• Sources 1-7 are literally just the show itself.
• 8 is just some page on how to stream the show
• 9-11 are Adult swim
  WP:PRIMARY
  sources
• 12: interview with trivial mention of the characters
• 13: More DVD commentary
• 14: Trivial mention
• 15: Trivial mention
• 16: Amazon listing, seriously?!
• 17-18: 10 best villains page. A start, but it's still borderline trivial.
• 19-22: All dealing with the boston incident.
• 23: interview with trivial mentions
• 24: Trivial mention
• 25: Cover art of the dvd
• 26: citing one of the ATHF games
• 27-29: citing various Adult Swim and ATHF sources.

For those keeping score, that's a whopping 16 sources that are just primay sources from Adult Swim. And another source was a freaking amazon store listing! The rest of the sources have only trivial mentions of the cast. You guys must have very low threshold for coverage, as simply mentioning the cast in an article seems to be enough. But

WP:GNG

asks for sources that are in depth, that is, there should be articles about just these characters. We don't have that. We have instead a lot of primary, and some trivial mentions strung together for an article.

Conclusion: these characters do not pass GNG at all. The show and the boston bomb incident are notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters per Harizotoh's breakdown of the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Aoba47: Re:Breakdown of the sources:

• Sources 1-7 are episode citations that are only used in the in-universe section. (which Harizotoh never mentioned)
• Source 8 is a
  Heavy.com
  page critically reviewing the long-running series as a whole, that makes a point to mention these characters specifically, it is not "just some page on how to stream the show".
• Sources 9 and 10 were in-fact from Adult Swim, but have since been removed and the same information is still backed by source 8.
• What is now Source 9 is actually a DVD commentary, which is widely considered a viable source for production information on Wikipedia.
• Source 10 is an interview with the creator, which is only meant to cover one line of information.
• Source 11 is another DVD commentary, which again, is widely considered a viable source for production information.
• Source 12 is a link an The A.V. Club article that devotes an entire section discussing the pilot.
• Source 13 is an IGN article that offers even more backing for the section.
• Source 14 is in-fact Amazon, but it can be removed quite simply and the aforementioned IGN would still cover the information sufficiently.
• Sources 15 and 16 are links to Paste and IGN, that make a point of mentioning the characters reviewing the series as a whole.
• Sources 17–20 are all viable news sources discussing a major story that made national news, which was spearheaded by these characters. Why wouldn't the panic be covered here?
• Source 21 is an interview another, which is only meant to cover cover one line of information.
• Source 22 is a link from Geek.com, is only meant cover one line of information.
• Source 23 is a DVD cover, which can be seamlessly removed with no issue.
• Source 24 does source a video game. So what? It is information that is relevant to the topic. The ability to cite video games is the whole reason Template:cite video game exists in the first place.
• Sources 25–27 Are different media appearances have made outside of the franchise, that are each cited appropriately.

Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very, very confused about

WP:GNG. By going through the list, I was showing that not a single source referenced was an indepth article on the characters. GNG is very explicit. You need articles that are indepth about the subject. What you have is a bunch of articles that mention the Mooninites, but aren't the main subject matter. You really need like NYTimes pieces just on the characters. You don't have that. You have a series of trivial references to the characters found in articles about the show and the boston event. That the article had to rely so heavily on primary sources to even be a decent length demonstrates how unimportant and not notable the characters are. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I just listed numerous secondary sources used throughout the article, so it does not "rely" on primary sources. All of the reception sources feature entire sections devoted to the critic's respective takes on the characters, none of them are just quick passing mentions at all. Your argument that there needs to be sources that are completely devoted to the topic is even contradicted in

WP:GNG, as the very first bullet point clearly states "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]