Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 4

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. With the nominator withdrawing the nomination alongside the policy based keep arguments, the consensus weights strongest with Keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a Smiths song from an album, it never was a single. The only material on this page - and the references that apparently mean I can't do a redirect - is to prove that an unauthorised film about the band was named after a line in this song. That fact can go on the page about that film. It does not support the idea that this song needs its own article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet any of the criteria for a song to have an article: [1]

• Ranked on chart: No, never released
• Won an award: No, not that I know of
• Multiple artists recording: No evidence to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Temptation (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The song got a little notoriety because one of its lyrics inspired to title of a movie, but that is trivia that can be (and is) mentioned at the movie's article. Any other minor trivia associated with the song can be mentioned at the article for its parent album. Otherwise all we have is that this song existed, and existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The song received significant coverage in Simon Goddard's book Songs That Saved Your Life, and in John D. Luerssen's The Smiths FAQ, and therefore satisfies WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Over 100 mentions in Google Scholar [2]. Appears on six of The Smiths' albums: [3]. Covered by multiple other recording artists: [4]. And so on and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw my nomination as the additional references have shown a notability for the song in itself which was not present when I first looked at the page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kweekvijver (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)

TV program of questionable notability (found this on the long dormant articles), has no references, I can't find anything online outside of Wikipedia mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination,TH1980 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Plaxie (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat M. Baskin (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 WP:NPOL, WP:JUDGE, and the sources (obituaries, a self-cited work by the article's author, election returns, etc.) do not support WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- agree with nom, this is not a notable judge.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - author is now a banned user, and judge is not notable. Rockstonetalk to me! 03:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 5 April 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 2019 AAF season#Playoffs. Seems like this is almost evenly split between redirect and delete so going by redirect as one editor wanted to merge stuff over and b) there does not appear to be any particular reason to prefer deletion, other than the headcount as nobody has specified that they find only deletion acceptable; most people just want to get rid of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AAF Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm recommending this article for deletion. Due to the AAF ending their 2019 season, this game will not be played, and general info about the game (e.g. where & when it would have been played) is adequately covered at 2019 AAF season. Comments welcome, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No game, no article. What would there be to say? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable event that will likely not occur. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The venue/media section are easily merged into the AAF article; no here there without a game. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not notable because this game is not going to be held.
• Redirect to 2019 AAF season#Playoffs. While it is true that sometimes cancelled sporting events can be independently notable on their own (like the 1940 Summer Olympics), there's no indication that that's the case here in the case of this start-up minor league American football league. It is a plausible search term, however, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually think that merge is more appropriate--the obvious target being Alliance of American Football. I think it's important to include in that article that there was at least an intent to play a championship game in this otherwise failed league... but certainly no reason for a stand-alone article. Merge applicable content, delete the rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2019 AAF season per Ejgreen77; there's no reason for the game to have a standalone article as the game will not be played. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2019 AAF Season seems the most sensible result. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AAF season (lower-case "s") Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The game was hardly notable enough to have warranted an article while the league was operating. Nothing would be lost if it were deleted; the topic was covered adequately in the 2019 AAF season article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to 2019 AAF season. The league is on life support, and even if the game ever happens (which it likely will not), it would fail as a combo of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brooks (investor) (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 North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I cannot entirely agree with the statement that this is a page for advertising. I mean if I write an article about any CEO is it automatically me trying to advertise them? However, I assume the main concern is if Ben is notable. I can see your scepticism over his notability as he has not won a Nobel peace prize or anything. However, he has created a state-based stock index which is the first of its kind. He is the first to make an index based on a state which is revolutionary. Secondly, he has funded several industry top performing companies. He owns debatably the largest investment firm in the south-east. I mean he is causing waves in the industry, and I have several sources to back it up. I think you can see his notability so now I will go to the advertising issue. As you can tell when you read it that it is 100% objective at least in my opinion. However, with all this being said I respect you guys much for not just abusing power and just straight up deleting it like others. I think it's clear that this is an objective article, but if you disagree, please tell me why you think it's not, and I will change it no questions asked. Sorry if I came off as mad or rude, I would like to say I am genuinely thankful that I came across reasonable mods. signed by user:Lamarsmith15 by scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamarsmith15: That's cool, but never stated it was advertising. I really don't think he is notable and has almost no coverage. If you think he is notable, then fight to keep it. The Afd discussion will last for seven days. I signed your comment for you. Please add ~~~~ or 4 tildes after your comment and Wikipedia will replace it with your signature. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to fight but rather have a sound and civilized discussion. I am not disrespecting you when I say this but creating the first ever stock index based on North Carolina and many other indexes based on other states is kind of a big deal. The index now also has a patent so it will be the sole index in these states. Nothing like this has ever been done before not just in these states but on a nationwide scale. Now the masses of both analysts and customers in several states are now following this index. Even the largest business magazine/news company in the whole state of North Carolina wrote articles about this. This alone is likely enough to be noteable but I will continue. He is also the CEO of one of the largest or largest broker-dealers in the whole southeast. This company is now worth billions. He also has funded some of the largest companies in several industries such as Wedding Wire. I believe that you may have trouble finding articles but there are plenty that I found. Way more than just what I put in my article such as https://www.wraltechwire.com/2004/06/29/southern-capitol-ventures-to-support-elon-school-of-business/ just to name one of many. I decided not to write as much so I didn't include unessecary links. Just please explain why you think he is not notable. There are plenty of sources if you look up relateable search terms. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant by fight, strongly discuss. There is no coverage for the person. There must be coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Best wishes! scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage for this person... a lot too. My question is what are you looking up and how. On Wikipedia alone, there are like 7 Ben Brooks. Each one of them out shadow the other in the search index, making it harder for you to find them. You also need to realize that politicians and authors have way more coverage then business owners since there whole career is dedicated to the public and they're opinion. Basically, every statement and vote that comes out of a politicians mouth becomes a new article. When it comes to authors especially Ben Brooks every single book receives tons and I mean tons of articles from the countless book reviewers and other various forms of media. All of these articles further drown out this man's articles. I mean look up ben brooks and the author is the only one that is listed on Wikipedia that can be found until the second page when it mentions the guy I'm writing about right now. I mean yea he might not be the very first link you find but the other 6 Ben Brooks's aren't either. I mean you literally said and I quote "There is no coverage". There is a significant amount of coverage for him, so much that I had to source multiple sources for certain statements said in the article. There is so much more I could have put in but decided not too since it's not from a good source or doesn't talk about him enough like the one I sent you before. But if you are really having trouble finding articles where he is the main or sole subject like the ones referenced in my article then I highly recommend you search for the ones where he is mentioned and has an important role such as these two I found on the first page https://www.techrepublic.com/article/from-textiles-to-tech-north-carolinas-journey-to-becoming-a-startup-epicenter/ and https://www.redherring.com/startups/north-carolinas-research-triange-ready-startups-go-big/. I also would like if you valued the quality of the sources given. I got the impression from Wikipedia themselves and many different editors that quality should be valued over quantity in the sense that if one has a good amount of nonbiased and very credible sources they should be valued more than one with an insane amount of noncredible and/or biased articles. Lastly, i'm not saying you do this but I would really appreciate if instead of doing anything possible to support your side whether it's by making totally incorrect and skewed statements like "there's no coverage" or just flat out lying actually try to read and take into account what I am saying and then form an opinion. PS: Who determines in the end if this article should or should not be allowed and how long will this process take? I also honestly appreciate you reading this and trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the references you provided here are merely name drops in connection to his company. They are not the kind of wide coverage that is expected to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO. There is policy called WP:BEFORE that everybody uses before an article is sent to Afd. I would also have a look at WP:TALK so you indent or thread your comments. scope_creep^Talk

• I have blocked Lamarsmith15, the creator of this article, for covert advertising (UPE). Delete as paid-for spam. MER-C 11:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Need more than press releases to establish notability. There are plenty of prominent investors who have gained significant coverage to and pass GNG, Brooks just isn't one of them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 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. Consensus is overwhelmingly keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick (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)

Recreation of a biography of a non-notable living person that was previously redirected per a deletion discussion. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recreated it as I added new information from a news article from Tatler. Lady Marina Windsor's article was recreated too, successfully. He is also the future heir of the dukedom of Kent, after his grandfather and father, unlike his sisters. I don't think there is any reason to delete it again. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable as a fashion designer in his own right. In regards to his royal relations, he is second-in-line, after his father, to the Dukedom of Kent, which counts for something. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at the time of the previous nomination in 2017, there were not as many sources published regarding Downpatrick. His fashion label was founded that same year, and two years later there is more substantial coverage out there, which I have added to the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – same reason as above. --Pjoona11 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In addition to good arguments made above his position as the most senior member of the British Royal Family to be excluded from the line of succession (owing to his conversion to Roman Catholicism), is also fairly notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Dunarc and the others. Sources coming along nicely so this should be kept. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there appears to be enough here to meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D'Asaro Jr. (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)

His Dad is notable, I am not finding evidence that he is. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete college level fencing coaches are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, but father is 9H48F (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Coleman (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)

Vanity piece - no citations Sgerbic (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. We need to do a lot more work on this front. We have way too many articles on non-notable actors, and way too few currently at AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a puff piece site.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Plaxie (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination 9H48F (talk) 21:48, 11 April 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) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Murphy (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 WP:NPOL. Failed congressional candidate GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this features neither evidence that she has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor enough sourcing to mount a credible case that her candidacy would be a special notability case over and above other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- unsuccessful candidate, not known for anything else = no article.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates for US congress are almost never notable. We still have a lot of work to do to clean out these articles on unelected candidates in the 2000s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Under Lois E Murphy, the subject was elected as a judge for Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas; District 38 in 2009. While this position is not one that would give the presumption of notability, it may help with evaluating whether the subject would meet WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a comment, the 2006 Congressional race the subject was in is the focus of one chapter in "Battle for Congress: Iraq, Scandal, and Campaign Finance in the 2006 Election" 2008 by David B. Magleby, Kelly D. Patterson eds. There appear to be other scholarly discussions about the race (as evidenced by a Google Scholar search). While all this reinforces the concept that 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania#6th_Congressional_district is notable, much of the subject's biographical details are contained in those academic sources. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: maybe redirect to 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania#6th_Congressional_district instead then? The court of common pleas is just the civil trial division of PA's county courts, so not particularly notable there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (although her 2004 election was close too). I am on the fence on this one, as there is no presumption of notability for any of the subject's congressional campaigns or local judgeship, but there is some above average coverage of her 2006 campaign and in total, there is a certain volume of coverage that approaches the expectations described in the introduction to WP:BIO. --Enos733 (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Frank McInnis (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 WP:JUDGE. Not notable local judge. A Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal judge is not a statewide judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:JUDGE as a non-statewide judge and sources do not indicate WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Aviation Training Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Under WP:CORPDEPTH The listing of aircraft training types would be considered product offerings, and they also list their other services provided, all of which is considered trivial coverage. Removing the offerings from the page, leaves very little left. So it fails the criteria, with not much information of note. MegaFlyCraft (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above and failing to come anywhere near meeting the GNG. Arguably a viable nomination for Speedy Deletion for being advertising/promotional in nature, or for not clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:18, 12 April 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. Not to be that guy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is an essay, not actually a policy. Anyhow, it seems like the most in-depth analysis of sources presented states that they are all not substantive or reliable enough and the sole counterarguments presented apparently did not convince anyone. So this is a delete case per the notability guidelines and also per BLP policy concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS Tramontinaberbera (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject has accrued coverage (both significant and tangential) in a number of reliable sources; this can easily be seen with a select google searches like [5]. Notably, the Norwegian newspaper/tabloid published several stories [6] [7] regarding the subject, and this coverage in turn generated coverage [8]. Regardless, AfD is not cleanup, and the sources available online (I am guessing a WP:BEFORE check was not undertaken before this nomination) make a strong case for the subject meeting both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy delete - Does not pass notability and seriously violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. A BLP can not be written in this tone. Created by the paid blocked editor Bernie44. Moreover all or most of the controversial information about the person are from a newspaper called Verdens Gang seems to have a personal clash with the guy. All of the sources violate WP:RS. - ToT89 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the guy in question is not a Norwegian. He is Ghanaian. This article does not maintain Wikipedia standard in any way. I am surprised to see that this article is live in Wikipedia for two years. - ToT89 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToT89: see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. if the article violates WP:BLP, it can be altered to address that, and other errors; this does not justify the deletion of a notable topic, nor is it the purpose of AfD. As far as your comment about "all of the sources [violating] WP:RS"... what? Are you sure about all of them? The article as it stands cites articles from The Statesman Online, Deseret News, Independent Online, and Verdens Gang. If you consider articles from these sources to be unreliable, the burden is on the questioning editor to have the source struck down as unreliable at WP:RSN. In addition, please note that AfDs judge the notability of the article subject, and so must consider all potential sources before making a decision on the subject meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News article does not even mention the guy in question.

Independent Online trivial mention of the subject, not in-depth coverage.

The Statesman Online No mention of the subject.

Ghana Web No mention of the subject.

Myjoyonline No mention of the subject.

All of the controversial information in the article come from the allegations raised by Verdens Gang. Other sources just quote Verdens Gangs allegations. These sources are not enough to pass him WP:N. And also it's contents violate WP:BLP seriously. - ToT89 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, in a fashion; the Desert, Statesman, and Myjoy sources are used in the article to cite information related to a company Zahoor was affiliated with, as should be the case with a BLP. But as for the others, why should the multiple Ghanaweb sources referencing the subject (both in and not-yet included) be discarded, or the large amount of coverage VG has generated? Nor was VG alone in its efforts; per this article [9] (currently not cited in the article) in The Namibian, said newspaper assisted VG in its research. This seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO; indeed, several news articles have covered VG's coverage of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Can't seem to find consensus on simple facts such as the nationality of this guy. Some say Norweigan, some say Pakistani, some say Ghanian. This doesn't qualify as an Encylopedia entry at all. Origins of information come from one source, which seems more like an opinon piece. Hardly meets sourcing guidelines required to be on the Wikpiedia mainspace. --50.253.53.121 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I keep quoting this policy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If there are doubts about the subject's nationality, that should be addressed, but such an issue has nothing to do with notability. Also, noting that this is this IP editors first ever edit, which seems a little off.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. All allegations can not be supported by reliable sources and when those allegations are gone, the topic fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Plaxie (talk) 13:00, 7 April 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 withdrawn. Chart information was found here and here. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the Sauce (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)

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IM the Supervisor (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)

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B.P. Empire (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)

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Mushroom (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)

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 4 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gathering (Infected Mushroom album) (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)

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 4 April 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. Deleting as nn and a clear blp issue too Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can only find passing mentions of him, nothing that passes WP:NBIO. There may be more sources in Hindu but I don't speak the language and can't find any Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an e-mail at OTRS Ticket:2019040410002251 where the poster claims that As per the supreme court verdict he is free from all the charges against him - assuming that is true (the poster offered to send more data if needed - but I'll point him here as well), then there does not seem to be much of an article at all. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reads like an attack page written from a pro-Naxalite POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rajan case. Mid-ranking officer involved in a single notable incident when he was even more junior. Not enough for individual notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 April 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. This is one of those cases where the keep argument makes the delete argument about poor sources explicit Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Numkena (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)

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not simply the ability to list roles that he played -- having roles is the job description, so every actor who exists would always get a guaranteed Wikipedia inclusion freebie if all you had to do was list the roles. Rather, the notability test requires some evidence that he received some reliable source coverage in media about his having of roles -- but the only sources present here at all are his IMDb profile and a NetDetective search being used to dox his private personal life post-retirement, neither of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And no, an actor isn't automatically notable just because you make an unsourced claim about one of his roles representing a historic first, either — lots of people in history have been claimed as historic firsts when they actually weren't, just because the source making the claim didn't research hard enough to be aware of the predecessor(s), so there still has to be proper reliable source verification that their "historic first" status is actually true. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are way too many unfounded first claims to make such in an article without widespread sourcing worth while. Basically extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and if being the first Native American child to appear in a film was a notable thing we could source it to multiple reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Anthony Numkena was not the first native American child to appear on the screen (see Michael Hilger, Native Americans in the Movies: Portrayals from Silent Films to the Present, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).^[1] But in the 1950s he became the first native American credited with the professional role of "child actor" in a long series of films in cinema and television (see Anthony Numkena, in boyactors.org.uk).^[2] Before him leading roles of native American children featured "white" actors, as in the case of Little Beaver, the "saddle pal" of Red Ryder, who appeared in numerous films in the 1940s, played by "white" child actors Tommy Cook, Robert Blake and Don Reynolds.Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Boyactors.org.uk" is not a reliable source. IMDb isn't a notability-supporting source, and other people's IMDb profiles are even less relevant to Numkena's notability or lack thereof than his own is; the way you added the Hilger book to the article indicates that it doesn't contain any content about Numkena, but just tangentially verifies stray facts about other people; and Racism, Sexism and the Media just mentions his name a single time while containing no other content about him whatsoever. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an actor notable. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point (this is what we got). It remains the fact that this actor was credited in the fifties in at least 5 movies and more than 30 episodes of TV shows. He was not an extra but had leading roles. At least, we can say that his activities are well attested in reliable sources (his name is reported in several publications, even though his biography to my knowledge is never discussed in details). There are actors that have done much less and have an entry in wikipedia. He is certainly not the first native American child to appear on the screen, but the claim that he was the first Native American to have a (credited) career as a child actor seems to be likely. I have not seen any other case mentioned in academic sources. I am not the one who created the entry, but if possible, I would rather like to see the article improved than deleted.Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 00:38, 6 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Hossain (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)

Has been created in order to circumvent an AfC process; Draft:Sonia Hossain has been rejected multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Would you elaborate on your deletion rationale? With rare exceptions, AfC is an optional process. The article is different from the draft that was declined for failing to demonstrate notability. Are you saying that the topic is not notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how the topic is notable, and I do not see how the article is different from the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  DisagreeThe draft has been canceled, given the reason for the comment option of the draft. This draft had no references. Notability cannot be established without references, so the draft is rejected.But this does not prove that this article is also removable. Because, there is a reference to the article to be verified.-Dot71 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment: If you think the article is not significant then you have a few hundred articles related to the Bangladeshi model in the wiki that must be removed. See the category- Bangladeshi male television actors, Bangladeshi female models, Bangladeshi television actresses-Dot71 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:Ymblanter - As your AFD is presented, it is subject to Speedy Keep. It is quite true that the draft was declined three times and has now been declined a fourth and a fifth time. That is not a reason for nominating the article for deletion. Do you mean that the actress does not satisfy acting notability? The draft was declined because it was not properly referenced and did not establish notability. The article has better references. One can still argue notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Moving a declined draft into article space is (with exceptions involving conflict of interest) permitted, in particular as a way to request the opinion of the community as to whether the draft should be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Neither this article nor a Google search shows independent third-party in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Google search shows that she exists and uses social media and is not the same person as Sonya Hussain. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Subject does not appear meet WP:NACTOR, and I cannot find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The coverage I can find are passing mentions and routine television programming announcements. Leviv ich 15:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since two editors have presented notability arguments, which are policy-based, for deletion, a Speedy Keep is no longer in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 8 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Next? (magazine) (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 and defunct magazine, created by a COI account Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 4 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visit.org (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 wesbsite BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination 9H48F (talk) 21:51, 11 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This was deleted via AFD in 2007 as an autobiography. Another author (with a limited topic interest range recreated it in 2012. Claim to fame is chiefly his tenure as CIO of Open Society Institute. Most of the sources are primary or otherwise don't meet WP:RS. Of the sources that do meet WP:RS (San Diego Union Tribune, Times Higher Education, Wired), the first two are inaccessible, and the Wired article has a single mention of Peizer. Still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. This is not the only instance of the subject attempting to use Wikipedia for self-promotion; see this long thread concerning his objections to his commercial green tea site being added to the spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to WP:GNG, sources don't have to be online to count. That said, the Union-Tribune source is a reprint of a Chicago Tribune story [10] and only has a quote from Peizer. The Wired source is an interview with Peizer. The total coverage of Peizer in the Times Higher Education piece (which is a book review still sitting around in Google cache [11]) is "He gets tough with only one interviewee, Jonathan Peizer, who set up the Soros Foundation's internet programme in Eastern Europe. Peizer is one of the few people in the book who is doing something useful instead of criticising what everyone else is doing." So, primary sources and insignificant coverage, none of which counts toward notability. Bakazaka (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete news archive searches show that he gets quoted about stuff "says Jonathan Peizer, a computer expert for ..." but I can't find any SIGCOV that is ABOUT him. It appears to be PROMO, for a MILL tech/social media professional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 8 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Having worked as a production manager on a notable film does not make the individual notable. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss Mostafavi in a significant way, in English or Persian. ... discospinster _talk 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delet: There are not enough reliable source to confirm his notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispring (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To stay: Greetings and greetings are becoming famous ویلیام علی اللهياری (talk) 13:56, 5 April 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. The delete arguments have made a more convincing case as to why the pertinent guidelines are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Torres (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 WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Overly promotional article created by a WP:SPA, very likely autobiographical or written by someone close to Mr. Torres, seeing as it's full of unsourced original research. Half of the sources do not mention him at all, and there are many claims of notability by association. Once you remove the promotional detail and name-dropping, there's nothing left of any substance.

Music-wise, Mr. Torres' two supposed claims to fame are the 1995 single "Put Down the Body" by Thierry and the 2000 single "Power" by Zelma Davis. On the former he is merely listed as co-writer and producer (indeed, the review of the single criticises the production, but this is conveniently ignored by the article creator); on the latter he just produced one of the remixes. Neither single charted anywhere, not even on Billboard's specialist charts – the claim of "Power" reaching number one on the Dance Sales chart is misleading, as it actually was the Maxi-Singles Breakout chart... in other words, the singles Billboard considered most likely to chart, given reports of sales, but which hadn't actually charted yet.

The animation award given while he worked at Urban Box Office Network is non-notable and was given purely for the animation content: Mr. Torres' music is not mentioned at all. The song for Picture This is a co-writing credit on a single song on the soundtrack of a straight-to-DVD movie. The song for The Next Three Days is also a co-writing credit on one song that features during the film, and is not included on the soundtrack album. In short, there is nothing to demonstrate Mr. Torres' notability in any of his fields. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above claim to not delete. Rafael Torres Writing/Production of the single Power did chart on the Billboard Dance charts at #43 ^[3] As well, Rafael Torres has contributed music for theme for many notable award winning network tv shows such as big brother ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC) — 75.114.76.178[reply]

As stated in my argument above, the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not one of the main notable Billboard charts, and in any case simply being listed as writer and producer is not evidence of notability, we need in-depth sources that describe his involvement with the song. Please provide reliable sources that describe Mr. Torres' involvement in TV theme music in detail – iMDb is user-edited content and not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reference noted Billboard Dance Charts - as you see the Single Power was listed on the Official Billboard Dance charts at #43 ^[1] and remained on the charts for several weeks thereafter as found in later Billboard Magazine releases. Aside from the Sales charts as you noted. I think involvement as a writer/producer credit is evidence of notability.. Not all releases in the industry have in-depth sources of involvement. Also the Billboard write up of the single does go in depth about how the Latin Mixes produced by Rafael Torres was involved. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat... the official Billboard dance chart is the Club Play chart in the left-hand column... the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not considered a major Billboard specialist chart. The write-up of the single does not go into any depth at all about the Amp Latin mixes – the entire mention of them is "...the Amp Latin mix, whose Spanish guitar and salsa piano and rhythms will benefit from the recent Latin craze". That's it, and no mention of Mr. Torres in the review at all. "Not all releases in the industry have in-depth sources of involvement" – correct, which is why this single doesn't pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those charts were not a specialist chart for Billboard then why do they exist? If you see reference #2 you can clearly see Rafael Torres involvement in the Single.. It clearly states, Remixes Produced by Junior Vasquez and Rafael Torres. As well, the Amp Latin mix - Rafael Torres. Anyone reading would know its relating to Rafael Torres produced the Latin Mixes, which it does pass the WP:NSONG. Also the WP:SONG Requirements. #1 "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews." This single POWER meets that. #2 Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. This SINGLE POWER was on the Billboard Sales Charts. Which again passes the WP:NSONG. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not a significant national music chart - it's a sub-component chart of the Dance Club Play Chart, and therefore does not meet the criterion of being a significant chart. I'm not denying Mr. Torres produced a mix of the song - what I'm saying is that there are only 19 words written about it, none of which mention Mr. Torres, so there is no in-depth source discussing his involvement. Richard3120 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG and sourced. If we think it is promotional it should be improved, not deleted Lubbad85 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: could you please show how this article passes any part of WP:GNG? And what sources do you propose to use to improve the article if there aren't any that pass WP:RS? Richard3120 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO Subject has released multiple albums on major or independent labels with years of being in business as stated in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. "1.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". Such as Abaco Music - A division of Imagem Music Group and Vanacore Music

^[1], ^{[2] [3] [4]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — 75.114.76.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Artists release albums, not producers/mixers. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO After reviewing above references, all credits on the albums show Mr. Torres as a writer, composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFILMBIGFAN (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC) — TVFILMBIGFAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All that those four references immediately above show is that the albums exist, nothing else – there is no indication at all that they are in any way notable and pass WP:NALBUM, and they still don't show that Mr. Torres passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. And the fact that TVFILMBIGFAN and the IP 75.114.76.178 edit each other's posts makes me think that they are the same person, and therefore at least one of their "keep" votes above should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It’s obvious when you look at this article for what it is that the assertion of notability is only connected to who he has allegedly worked with. Charts data certainly don’t create notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 7 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon J. Smith (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 notability test. Article created by SPA, likely to be an alias of subject of article. Many superfluous non-notable citations. Appears to be blatant self-promotion.

I found this article from a suspicious entry in List of jazz fusion musicians and became suspicious as the music published by this artist is amateur (in comparison to other artists listed on this page such as Miles Davis). After checking edits by user who added the entry, and a quick google search it became obvious that this account was an alias of Damon J. Smith himself, and this page is being used for self-promotion. Ludston (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Name does not return any results. The sources present in the article are not enough to support WP:GNG as most are brief mentions. AmericanSoil (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment

I created this page many years ago after meeting Mr. Smith and being impressed by his many varied accomplishments. He is a celebrity in the Northern California area, very well known in the motocross industry, and I felt his status warranted the page. I've compiled over 50+ verifiable media sources to ensure this page was always in line with Wikipedia's BLP criteria. I feel as though this page is being attacked by users who may have alterior motives and are hiding behind aliases in order to remove a valid page. It's curious that a previous user actually got the the page deleted a few weeks ago, and then as soon as another user restored it, that user disappeared and now this "Ludston" user, who has no prior contribs, is attempting to delete it again. His basis is the same accusation the prior user made, saying that my username is an alias for Smith himself, which it most certainly is not. As I said, I met the man, but I am not him. I am happy to set up a Skype or provide other means to verify my identity. I do not hide behind aliases in order to tear down anyone else on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. I am happy to edit the page if there are constructive critiques of what I included, but there is no basis for deletion of the entire page. Taryndejesus (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi again - I just did a little cleanup of the music section of the page, removing any citations that may be considered superfluous or non-notable, leaving references Billboard magazine and No Depression magazine, which should certainly be considered notable enough to include. Please let me know if this suffices to remove the AfD flag. Thank you!Taryndejesus (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having looked at the article for about 2-3 weeks. The article is highly promotional spam, full of puff and I'm verging towards delete. The music section alone is terrible and is coming out, particularly since he has less than 4000 plays on Spotify and 1005 on Soundcloud. It is plain native advertising and plainly cack. The rest of the article would need a significant rewrite. I think he is perhaps borderline notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Where does it say in Wikipedia's guidelines that a musician has to have 4K+ followers on Spotify to be worthy of referencing their music on Wikipedia? Not every musical artist promotes him or herself on Spotify. If you look at his Instagram he has over 30,000 followers there with a high level of engagement. Is it not noteworthy to at least reference that his music charted in a top 10 spot on Billboard, when he started his career as an athlete? And why does your opinion of his music count toward whether or not his entire page should be deleted? I'm sorry if this sounds combative, because I am not trying to be contentious, just protecting this page that I have worked hard to create and maintain over the years. I am from the Northern California Bay Area, where he is quite a celebrity. So maybe you haven't heard of him, but I haven't heard of a lot of people on Wikipedia, and I could probably care less about some of the people you might truly herald. I could probably go right now and find a dozen or more Wiki biographies of people who have accomplished less, have less verifiable citations, and frankly contribute nothing to the richness of people highlighted on this online encyclopedia. To me this appears to be a case of a handful of Wikipedia editors who simply just don't like the guy, or want to say he's not "noteworthy" enough because perhaps there's some element of jealousy toward someone who has accomplished a great deal more than the average joe. Like I said above, I am not just writing about some guy I think is great because of his small town accomplishments that very few people know about. I compiled well over 50 third party media sources from California to Canada, including national magazines such as Essence and Billboard. I am all for upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, and to that end I am more than willing to edit based on constructive criticism. But none of this feels very constructive. Taryndejesus (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment

Did a little more cleanup of the page to remove anything that could be deemed "puff" or "advertising" - look forward to your response. Taryndejesus (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see how Damon J. Smith fulfils any of the criteria of notability for Wikipedia, and I will try and colour this. Please understand that this is not a personal attack.

In this article you reference Damon's "achievements" in multiple categories, (football, motocross, business, music) I see you have already removed reference to his music career, so I will go through each of the others.

Motocross: We look here, to justify notability: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Motorsports Damon has only appeared in one professional Motocross competition called the "AMA Supercross Championship", but I see no evidence that he has competed in any race with significant prize money at stake.

Football: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football/Arena_football/Canadian_football According to his wiki page, he never played in a professional football game.

Business, of which there is no specific notability page for, so we use the default notability test. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources None of the citations provided are secondary sources.

You have my apologies if this is process is causing you some kind of distress or frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludston (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Response

Ludston Thank you for your thorough response. I have been somewhat frustrated because this didn't seem very straightforward, and since this article has been in existence for many years (longer than you and other editors appear to have been contributing), and because there were accusations that I am somehow an alias of the guy, it felt like a personal attack. But I believe I have a better understanding of your concerns, and I can see how I could have done a better job of highlighting what Wikipedia considers noteworthy, rather than what I think is noteworthy. I will edit the page accordingly and provide a summary of my edits below when I have finished editing the page. Taryndejesus (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have done some cleanup to the page with the Wiki notability guidelines in mind. In response to Ludston, I would like to point out:

Motocross: Passes Motorsports notability guideline #3 (Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest), as Smith competed in Loretta Lynn's Amateur Championship, which, according to Wikipedia, is "known as the world's largest amateur motocross race." I also just found articles showing he returned to AMA Supercross this year, taking 7th overall in the vet class of the AMA Supercross Futures event. His performance was highlighted in Motocross Action Magazine as a "strong finish," but I have not yet added that because I'm unsure if the Supercross Futures events pass the notability guideline. I would appreciate feedback on whether or not that should be added.

Football: I don't know if Ludston didn't read this section thoroughly, or if perhaps the way I previously wrote it was confusing, but Smith certainly did play in pro games with the Calgary Stampeders, meeting notability requirement #1 for American football/Arena football/Canadian football. I cleaned up the copy to make sure it reads properly. He was injured while playing in the 9th game of the season, and I've sourced articles from the Calgary Herald that can attest to this fact. Additionally, I would point out that his ranking in the top 50 on the all-time NCAA football list further undergirds notability requirement #2.

Business and media: I cleaned up this section quite a bit, and expanded on the Essence Magazine source, which I believe certainly is a secondary source (quote from the Essence article: "DOING RIGHT: Last year this engineer traveled to Brazil, where he was so touched by the plight of 6- and 7-year-old children in the slums of Belo Horizonte that he created the documentary Don’t Let the Fire Die.") While the music section has been removed, I added back the reference to the Billboard Magazine chart because I firmly believe this is a notable source and also should be referenced because of the context it brings to the rest of the article. I would understand the argument to leave it out if music was his only pursuit. While his music may currently only be borderline notable to Wikipedia editors, in the greater context of him starting his career as an athlete, then becoming an engineer and author, charting on Billboard is certainly notable. Additional secondary sources are provided from No Depression (magazine), and All About Jazz, both of which reviewed his work.

I again would like to say that I am completely open to refining this article further based on constructive criticism. I am in fact thankful that this scrutiny has forced me to improve my wikipedia editing skills. I hope that this will yield a much better biography of Smith, because I sincerely believe that biographies of people like him bring value to this online encyclopedia. Thank you. Taryndejesus (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Taryndejesus: Only one vote is allowed in the discussion. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Routine sports reporting on football and motocross dominates the references. My search found a source (unsure of its reliability) that says he played part of 1 regular season game for Calgary in the CFL when he replaced an injured player before getting injured himself in the same game. Technically that's enough to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, but it's very weak. I'm not impressed with the great majority of references--even the list in Essence is just a short blurb in a list of names. No vote at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being somewhat new to the AfD process, and seeing that the discussion does not seem to be leading to any sort of concensus, I would like to add a few more thoughts about this page and its apparent controversy with the hope it will contribute to a positive conclusion. First off, I'd like to paste the first paragraph in Wikipedia's guidelines on BLP and Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

The editors who seem to be leaning toward deletion are focusing solely on whether or not Damon J. Smith is famous or popular, which according to the guideline above, is supposed to only be a secondary factor in determining whether he is notable or not. Indeed, the person who proposed this article for deletion did so because he thought his music was amateur in comparison to Miles Davis. That's a pretty high benchmark! If every jazz artist listed in Wikipedia had to be as good as Miles Davis to be included, it would be a pretty small jazz section. I highly suspect that the editor probably looked up Smith's music and, being that one of his albums could be considered socially controversial, was perhaps offended by his music and set about to get his page deleted (and again I note this in light of a prior user who had attempted a "speedy deletion" of the page, which succeeded until another editor undid his action, and then the user disappeared completely before this new user appeared with his sole contribution to Wikipedia being proposing this page for deletion.) I would also point out that his proposal for deletion of this page was followed up with a confirmed sockpuppet vote to delete. I firmly believe that this point alone is worthy of discrediting the entire discussion. Yet I find it interesting that there remain other Wikipedia editors who share that same critical spirit in proclaiming Smith as not noteworthy enough simply because they don't think he's famous. They discredit the fact that he charted on Billboard because it was in a genre of music that they don't think is relevant, or they discredit his being highlighted on Essence Magazine because he was one out of 50 men highlighted in that annual issue (so if we use that logic, then maybe we should discount every person who has ever been highlighted as one of People Magazine's 50 Most Beautiful People in the World articles). Forgive me if I sound as though I'm "playing the race card" (for the record, I myself am not black), but this really looks to me like a panel of non-black Wikipedia editors discussing whether this incredibly unique and accomplished black man is worthy of their approval to be included in this online encyclopedia. I'm not calling anyone racist so please don't take this as a personal attack, but I do think everyone is operating out of a personal bias that they may not even know they have. I would encourage everyone to consider just how challenging it is for people of color to achieve "notability" when the gatekeepers who determine who is notable and who is not notable are most often white.

Which brings me to point #2, which is actually the first and apparently more important criteria according to Wikipedia's guideline on BLP, that the biographical article should be "worthy of notice" [1] - that is "remarkable" or "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." I will again reiterate that I wrote this article many years ago because I live in Northern California where he is well known as a remarkable person with a unique combination of interesting and noteworthy achievements. The Sacramento Bee wrote a feature article in their music section about his transition from being a football player to a social activist musician. This was followed up by another full page article by the Vallejo Times Herald (not a republish, but a separate interview and original article). Perhaps each of his singular achievements, from football to motocross, to business and music, when scrutinized in a vacuum do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I argue that all of these achievements, which are all backed up by a variety of reliable sources, combine to make him "significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention."

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I hope this helps bring the AfD to a close. I rest my case. Unless someone wants to challenge me further on this topic. Thank you. Taryndejesus (talk) 20:44, 10 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barton Elam Jr. (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 WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Mayor of a town of 5,000 GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the listing in Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. a selective biographical dictionary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, to follow up on "Keep" above, the example of type of publication required for WP:ANYBIO no. 3 to be met is a national (Dictionary of National Biography) not state level one (Dictionary of Louisiana Biography), so more than this one publication is needed, it does, however, give a big tick towards the subject's notability, being also covered in A History of Louisiana by Chambers readily brings Elam into the realms of notability so this is a Keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see how a blurb listing a CV without complete sentences contributes to notability; seems to be an awful lot of of minor local officials there. The citation in the Chambers book refers to Elam Sr., not to Elam Jr. Coolabahapple, please review. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks, i am an idiot, have struck out my "keep". Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 30 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was previously nominated, resulting in delete, but it was later re-created by the subject himself, who is the primary author. It is largely autobiographical (WP:AB), with minimal contributions from third parties and sparse sourcing, and reads like a resume. It does not seem to meet notability guidelines and has been tagged as such since August 2017. Marcan (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy delete per G4, and salt to taste. I don't have access to the original version, but based on the article's first Afd discussion, nothing seems to have been added to address its issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. Wasn't notable previously when this article was deleted and isn't notable now. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 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. As noted by editors here and according to the actual policy on speedy deletions, speedy deletions are not in fact mandatory, they are can-delete not must-delete (arguably with the exception of G10 and G12). There are also some questions about notability but it seems like the GNG-based arguments to keep have not been refuted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhua Hamasaki (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)

Qualified for deletion under G5, as being created by the blocked user user:Ratherbe2000. Was, in my opinion, incorrectly removed by another editor ignoring WP policy regarding sock article creation. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unnecessary deletion nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm finding more sources needing to be added to the article. See here, here, for example. I've also posted more sources at Talk:Yuhua Hamasaki. Easy keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination is rather pointed and misses the point of G5. Nihlus 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. G5 states, in part, "This applies to pages by banned or blocked users in violation of their block or ban, and that have no substantial edits by others." There have been quite a number of edits by others since its creation improving this article. --Kbabej (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it actually hits the point of G5 straight on - creation of articles by blocked editors. And the key word in Kbabej's example, is "substantial" - of which there were none as of the point of this nomination, merely formatting and re-positioning additions. And I would put forward that not a single one of the keep !votes addresses the point of the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Onel5969, it's a question of whether or not deleting this page helps or hurts the encyclopedia. It clearly hurts it more to delete information simply because some of it was started by a blocked user. Nihlus 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nihlus - That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think it hurts the encyclopedia much more to encourage editing by sockpuppets. That type of editing should be deleted simply to discourage such vandalism. And that's what these types of edits are: vandalism, which is not a guideline, but a policy. As is WP:SOCK. Policies are stronger than guidelines. And that's regardless of whether the vandalism occurs in such borderline notable (or some might argue non-notable) articles like this, or on a featured article like Boston. It would be interesting to understand how editors defend vandalism. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Onel5969, it's not black and white. There's a difference between good faith editing while socking and straight vandalism. Each situation should be looked at on its own merits instead of trying to apply a general rule to it that actually hurts the encyclopedia. Nihlus 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nihlus - I agree. And when I come across a sock I'll go back through their edits and see what is and isn't disruptive. In the case of this sock, there were quite a few edits which were innocuous, or even helpful, and so I left them. However, there were others where they added content either without citations, or with non-reliable citations. In those cases I reverted the edits. In two instances, they created articles out of redirects, articles about folks of dubious notability, which has caused numerous editors to now waste their time discussing this. That, in and of itself is harming the encyclopedia, when these efforts could be put forth to better, productive, pursuits. In the essay, WP:SOCKHELP, it clearly agrees with you that each case needs to be evaluated individually, which I have done. However, it also goes on to state in WP:SOCKHELP#Deleting articles or article edits that the article should be G5'd. Which I did. It then goes on to say, "Again, the goal isn't to punish the sock puppet, it is to take away the reward for violating policy." Letting the article remain is clearly rewarding the vandalism.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails on the criteria in WP:NACTOR, which stresses significant roles in multiple major works. The strongest claim is the appearance on the reality TV show, but that's not strong enough. The subject was only one of 14 contestants in one season of one reality TV show, and even then appears to have been eliminated early. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don’t want to keep it, it should at least be a redirect for RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), as is done for other contestants who don’t have their own article yet. Umimmak (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I sometimes wonder why editors vote to delete a page and its history entirely when 1) the redirect serves a purpose and 2) the subject may become notable at a later date, so saving the history is potentially helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appearing in one reality show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one here is saying that's why the article should be kept. Care to comment at all on secondary coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly passes general notability guidelines. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles... is not a valid deletion criteria, and this doesn't even meet the premise of G5. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I generally think we have too many articles on minor contestants of a single tv show, but the article shows broad coverage. Ignoring all the youtube/twitter/etc. links, there are fine enough sources noting coverage. It's not stellar but it's there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is easily verifiable and definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR, WP:NMUSIC, WP:SINGER--PATH SLOPU 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This contestant has a decade long career and a reach that extends beyond the television programme. Including appearances on "Big Ang" CW's "The Carrie Diaries" CBS" and "Blue Bloods". As well as a popular webseries, and features in major magazines (Vogue, New York Times, Time Out). As well as being central figure to this year's Life Ball. https://lifeplus.org/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepearbutter12 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersocket Web Award (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)

An unremarkable, fan-based award; significant RS coverage not found. Does not work as a list either, as most recipients are nn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There appear to be sources. Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you see non-trivial RS coverage, please identify it. The "A Look at Cybersocket" XBIZ article counts as one. Everything else appears to consist of trivial coverage if they mention the awards at all. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event has been a recent key reference for restricted websites accepting cryptocurrency, as well as the normal LGBT+ culture related 'celebrity chat', used by journalists for the Daily Dot, NewNowNext and had a feature in The Advocate by Christopher Harrity last year. Significant enough for Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: no sources have been presented showing that the subject meets WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Asserting that the topic is "significant enough for Wikipedia" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, never mind the more rigorous WP:NORG guideline. That is even when assuming the XBIZ coverage I mentioned above is reliable. A check of Daily Dot finds only a trivial mention. The Christopher Harrity Advocate coverage consists of photo montages, not significant coverage. NewNowNext shows no credentials as a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources in article. TheEditster (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A summary of the sources: 1. Cybersocket award ceremony itself. 2. a listing in a gay marketing guide 3. Cybersocket itself 4. XBIZ (some non-trivial coverage with heavy input from the ceremony's principals) 5. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned) 6. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned). That is why I consider secondary RS coverage insufficient. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why miss out the Advocate article? The Advocate is a primary LGBT+ cultural magazine, with no affiliation with Cybersocket, nor is it a porn industry related publication nor a "gay marketing guide", whatever those are.

Examining NewNowNext, I find them cited as a source in several UK national newspapers including the Independent, The Guardian, the Mail and the Daily Star. The rapid dismissal of all LGBT+ related sources for a LGBT+ related award, even when they are used as credible sources by the national press, is bending the idea of what a "walled garden" is, in a way that threatens to eliminate almost any LGBT+ related press off Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been discovered. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 12 April 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. Very close, but the sources added in the end would seem to tip the balance from NC to keep. ansh666 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julieanna Preston (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)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. No awards, no independent coverage, and her citation record (no GS profile) seems to be in low double digits at best from what I can see, suggesting no impact. Article is mostly based on self-references/primary sources (subject's works). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For me this is an interesting test case. Is a Full Professorship a sign of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" or a "highly prestigious academic honor" either would make it pass WP:PROF. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • I will note that neither the article nor any source calls her a 'full professor', just a 'professor'. I am not that familiar with Australia standards, but in most of the world, professor can refer to various lower ranks of professor career too including 'Associate Professor', a title which is used in Australia too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In New Zealand ( the country in question) a 'professor' is a 'full professor'. We only say 'full professor' to help explain the system to people with a different terminology. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
• Keep weighting for gender-WP:CSB is relevant here and holds a full professorship, which entails extensive academic record.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep change to no !vote. Full Professorship means something different in Australia, and NZ. It is equivalent to Distinguished Prof rank in US. See Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand) which explains that "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities Theredproject (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote, per the research below that shows Massey has Distinguished Profs.--Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the full professorship is irrelevant as you really do not know the (highly subjective) standard of the university and the tenure and advancement committee that passed her. Lots of full professors have average careers; lots of them are very notable. That said, the refs establish she has made enough of a mark in published sources to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ThatMontrealIP: Could you elaborate on the 'mark in published sources'? When I was reviewing them nothing struck me as out of ordinary, but I am happy to reconsider if you point out to me what made you think otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep change to no 'vote'. I agree there is great variety between Full Professors (University’s and subjects etc.). I know it is not a perfect analogy, however, as editors we do not second guess the selection process for national sports teams, if they are in, they are in, regardless of their batting average. I come from a subject where citations are a good proxy for impact, this may not be so in design. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • @Dushan Jugum: Right, but so what makes you vote keep, if you agree that FP is not sufficient, and that her citations are also non-decisive (if I understand your comment correctly?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saying that a board of experts think she is exceptional and then if we come in and say she is not, we might be right, but it is a kind of armchair quarterbacking we do not do elsewhere. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
      • See, at the university I work at, through not in Australia, reaching the top tier of professorship takes just time and average effort, by which I mean getting at least 'x' promotion points each year. If you cannot get even an 'x', you may be fired, but the 'x' is not that difficult. Some people will do much more than x, some will stay close the the minimum effort required, but both will become 'full professors' at the end. I looked into Massey University promotion criteria, but in the end the rules [12] don't say everything. Yes, there's a review by a 'board of experts' involved, but is it just a rubber stamp (like I believe it is at my uni) or not? The truth is we can't know, and as such, I don't believe we should put much faith in the 'long and distinguished service'. What matters is verifiable, outside standards: getting major awards and recognition from bodies that are not just promoting their members (which is why any award from university one is employed in is mostly irrelevant, as often they are again handed to everyone...), getting in-depth coverage in independent media, etc.
      • Now, on another hand, I do think we are way too inclusive for sportspeople and minor celebrities, and not enough for academics. So truth be told, I am all in favor of saying that anyone who reaches the top level of professorship in each and ever country is notable. But that should be a discussion held at WP:NPROF's talk page, and we should adjust the guideline accordingly, so articles such as that can be kept 'per the rules as written' and not 'per exceptional cases'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of Professorship, though not true everywhere. I cannot verify the Massey system of promotion. A quick trawl of the Archives on the notability talk pages implies that this question is undecided. Undecided in the kind of way which implies it will never be a guideline. I have removed the Keep vote. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
          • Academic peer-review for promotion is never a rubber stamp in Australia and New Zealand - especially because of the enormous pressure from university administrators to cut costs and keep salaries low. Concur with point raised above - design is not physics, academic citations in publications are not necessarily a measure of worth, full professorship in this context is.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Goldsztajn: Beware of circular logic. If citations are not a measure of worth, what is? How does the 'board of experts' decide who to promote in the field of design if the subject has few citations and no awards? In my field (sociology) citations are required for promotion. Awards help too. In some other fields grants and such help as well, but it is not like her bio right now mentions any grants. So, what makes her special, outside of having not been fired for not meeting the minimum criteria required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we assume google scholar is a good representation of citations and we know that she is a Professor, then it is self-evident that in this field citations are not required for promotion to the highest level. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
                • @Piotrus: I guess it would seem like circular reasoning if you're unfamiliar professional practice academics....--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am still waiting for someone to tell me what makes her notable except not getting fired and getting promoted to the final tier of academic rank. Such promotions are routine in academia, in Poland, US and Korea - three countries I am familiar with - and I see no reason to conclude NZ&A are significantly different. We don't make exceptions for tenured faculty in other countries, I don't see why we should do it here. She doesn't pass WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE so why is she notable again? Can't we wait a bit until her peers conclude she is notable and give her an entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography like many other NZ academics have? That's a proper 'expert board' we can trust to make reliable, standardized decisions, not a random university promotion board. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You admit you lack knowledge in the area and the region. You disparage the members of an academic institution for no discernable reason ("a random university promotion board"). There's enough information to indicate that full professorships are of a higher standard in UK/AU/NZ settings qua US/Canadian, there's no reason to assume that there is something deficient in the decision-making procedures of Massey University (rather your position makes it incumbent upon you to *verifiably* prove the opposite)... and I would reiterate that weighting here for gender is important to counter systemic bias and under-representation.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please keep this about content, not editors. I admit I am not an expert in Oceanic academia, but as I am a familiar (through being a professor myself) in how academia works on few other continents, it seems my credentials for this discussion are much higher than yours, since you did not disclose any. Not that either matter on Wikipedia, but if you are going to play the kettle and pot game, well. As for systemic bias, do not confuse commendable initiatives to create articles about notable women with ill-thought initiatives to create articles about women in general. Biographies have to adhere to the same standards, regardless of gender, race, or any other criteria. Wikipedia has to, sadly, reflect inequalities and such of the wider world, because our content has to be referenced properly. If you want to change the unfair world, Wikipeida is not the right social movement. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to combat inequalities (except inequality in access to knowledge). See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Creative professionals notability: The person has created a significant collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. For example [13][14] Maybe in the arts they are judged by the art they make. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

You are mistaking the two definitions of significant: significant volume vs. significant quality and repute. All I see in those links is a book and a page with her videos on it. The video work is just republished self-publications, and not "significant" in quality and repute. If it was, we would have a lot of writing about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, my interpretation would set an unreasonably low bar. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).

CV here ... this conversation can go on (and has), but looks to me there is no consensus for deletion. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Keeps and two people who would like to keep but the rules are in the way? Will be either Keep or Keep through indecision. If my wordiness leads to a relisting I am sorry in advance(Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Probably, through WP:NOTAVOTE. The closing volunteers can decide to ignore consensus if it would go against the rules, since WP:IAR is not a respected rule. But, through I still do not believe it has been demonstrated the subject is notable, I do concur the most likely outcome of this is going to be at least a 'no consensus' if not just 'keep', because most AfD closing won't risk getting criticized for going against the consensus, not worth their trouble :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Holds a position at a very minor institution. Citation record on GS inadequate. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 puts Massey Uni at 501-600 of more than 1,250. It's a middle ranking university, above the median. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All my keep arguments have been either logically deconstructed or tried and failed at the Academic Notability talk page. I find the argument that she has done notable research unverifiable (though possibly true). We should make more pages about notable people from groups other than our own, we should pay more attention when these pages go up for deletion. This has been done here. P.S. Massey is a very minor University not a very minor University as some editors would have you believe, although I can not verify that. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
• Question 1: @Piotrus, Goldsztajn, ThatMontrealIP, Dushan Jugum, and Xxanthippe: Are we in agreement thatWP:PROF lays out 9 conditions and that profs are notable if they meet "any one of the following conditions" [emphasis in original] and condition (5) specifies that the subject meets standards if "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" and given that in NZ or AUS 'named chairs are uncommon' and Full Prof is "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities"? --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Massey has distinguished professors, she is not one of them [15] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• As below, not a minor university in NZ or Pacific contexts. For context of full professorships (ie a UK professor), in the UK just less than 10% of academics are professors.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I remain unconvinced that it has been proven that she holds a position/title that is equivalent to meeting #5 of NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question 2: Assuming that we are in agreement about the guidelines above (which is maybe a false assumption, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear). It appears that we are in disagreement about whether Massey University is a 'major institution of higher education and research.' Wikipedia says that "Massey University has approximately 30,883 students, 13,796 of whom are extramural or distance-learning students, making it New Zealand's second largest university when not counting international students." It is unclear to me how this is not a major institution of higher education and research. For better or for worse, it is not our job to second-guess the tenure and promotion practices at each specific institution. But it seems hard to defend the claim that a nation's ~2nd largest university is 'very minor.' --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. But after a lifetime of making fun of Massey, it is hard to stop overnight. As AUT and maybe one day NZ polytechnics get professors, my belief in their international exceptionalism may be shaken (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
• In all honestly, I have not thought much about whether a university is major or not. To me, I divide them into scam-fake degree providers and 'all others', and I certainly agree Massey is not a scam degree mill. So on that, at least, I have no problems. It may not be a worldwide-famous institution, but working at such a university is certainly respectable - if not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After last Friday, not making fun of anything antipodean, I ❤ everything Aotearoa.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, here's the 2017 conditions for promotion to professorship at Massey University, see in particular pages 11-13 ... pretty clearly lines up with WP:PROF... Is there any verifiable reason why the decision of the academic promotion panel at Massey should be discounted?--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my comments above, it is hard to WP:AGF real-world guidelines like that. Too often they are just pro-forma standards that are not respected by institutions themselves. Seriously, there is a conflict of interest here: we should never trust an organization, in which direct interest it is to promote itself and its employees, to provide the sole proof that their employees (or itself) is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• so the rebuttal I got (above) when I tried "trust the selection panel" was to go and see the Notability Academic talk page, I did. This idea has been tried their repeatedly and has failed. The absence of the rule "every full professor is notable" is not a bug but a feature.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Delete. For an academic in a creative field whose work is based more on artistic creation rather than scholarly writing, the key test for notability should not be citations but independently-published reviews. So where are they? I tried both news and scholar searches but didn't find any. The weakness of the case is shown by the fact that we have spent so much of the discussion in trying to carefully parse what it means to be a professor at Massey. If that's all we have, I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to vote, however this article appears Incomplete - when was this subject born? Lubbad85 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have that information Lubbad85, you may need to take a leap of faith. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

She received her BA (Architecture) in 1983, that should give our readers some idea. We don't have a policy that says we must know a subject's date of birth. We do have WP:BLPPRIVACY that cautions against revealing information that people may consider private. Vexations (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PROF. "Weighing for gender" is unacceptable. Women are certainly underrepresented on en-Wiki, which is a good reason to create more articles about notable women, not to set the threshold for notability lower when the subject is female. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment Through not a factor in the notability of the subject, we should note the COI of the article's creator, whose userpage declares "Jo Bailey is a designer at Massey University.", making the article creator likely a co-worker or student of the subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find the points made by David Eppstein and Joefromrandb very convincing. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep under Criteria 4. Worldcat has Intimus interior design theory reader with 17 editions being held by 216 research libraries https://www.worldcat.org/title/intimus-interior-design-theory-reader/oclc/901447193 That's widely held for a book like this, almost certainly for use in teaching. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Stuartyeates. That is better than I thought, however, we have no direct evidence of it being used in teaching and even less that it made "a significant impact" (Criteria 4 WP:PROF). The high number of reprints/editions seems to be a database error (13 editions in one year? and some "editions" do not have her name on them and have different title spellings etc). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Note about editions: that just means that there are slight differences in the library's metadata for the books, it's not usually a separate edition as far a a publisher or retailer is concerned, this is normal, since (for example) public libraries often won't have the in-depth metadata that research libraries do. My location is New Zealand and I can see that every tertiary institution in the country that teaches design has the book, plus the local authors' local public library. Criteria 7 WP:PROF, note 2, is also relevant here, maybe. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Stuartyeates. So not 17 editions then. Also "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." WP:PROF. We have no evidence for this for even one book, we need several. 7 Note 2: "widely popular general audience books" we would need more than it is in every uni in the country. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Being held in libraries is not a major achievement, some libraries subscribe to book series, etc. Is this book being used in actual teaching? Can we find syllabi discussing it or better, academic articles that cite it as a useful source, effectively saying that 'best practices in field x are to use this book'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a 'theory reader' which is a pedagogical genre, basically a text book built by quoting other authors. It's text book. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She may indeed be a professor (and no, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, becoming a professor in Australia and NZ does not take "just time and average effort" - there are a limited number of professorships, and a far greater number of academics at the levels of lecturer and senior lecturer; it is certainly not a routine promotion or a rubber stamp, and very few lecturers are promoted to the position of professor), but that is not the only WP:SNG she could meet. She is also an author and a performance artist. I have started finding and adding reviews of her works (eg through Ebsco Academic Search), and will try to add more, including quotes from reviews. I think there are enough for her to meet WP:CREATIVE, so this will probably be a Keep. I see that Dushan Jugum found one review, though it hasn't been added to the article yet. David Eppstein says that he didn't find any - I am not sure if he doesn't have access to those databases or discounted them. It's disappointing that the creator of the article has mainly included primary sources, rather than using the academic resources I assume they have access to through Massey Uni to locate secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16] are certainly quality references, through AFAIK reviews of one work are more helpful for estabilishing notability of the work and not of the author (per WP:NOTINHERITED). Through of course indirectly they help to estabilish author's impact in the field, but much less so han citations. A book that got several reviews and is not cited is much less impactful then a book that got no reviews but is often cited. But that's for PROF, and as for CREATIVE here reviews are much more relevant. Alas, are the reviews you are finding reviews of her art / design pieces or of her publications? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some more reviews of her publications, and removed references that were simply to the publications themselves. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just want to tell everyone that there is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (last two sections). I see this as the only practical way of solving the wider Full Professor question. I am not saying that this is the only question here, but if she was not a full Prof. this page would be deleted by now (rightly or wrongly). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Right. Sadly, nobody has commented in the discussion on what are the non-US equivalents of US criteria. And that is relevant here, as the claims that her position is or is not equivalent to US positions we consider notable are NOT based in any guideline or policy. We do NOT have, as far as I can tell, any written rule about notability of positions in Australia, New Zealand or in fact for most other countries. Just saying 'it's similar to US' is not really a well reasoned argument (similar how?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep same reason as above and support sources found by Stuartyeates and RebeccaGreen. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you tell us which sources in particular you find convincing and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I looked into whether Preston was cited in any syllabi [17] and found an article citing her work from a PhD student at Kansas State University ([18]) and a syllabus citing her work from Parsons School of Design ([19]) among others. That said, these are citations to her involvement as an editor which means I would need to consider some amalgamate of WP:PROF criteria 4 and 8. I also don't know how involved she was as an editor, but I'm assuming her contribution was equal to that of the other editor in terms of involvement. Userqio (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on reasons give above and this article having her in the title (from fn 15) suggests to me that she is notable. It was hard for me to verify that the sources that she did not author exist -and- discuss her. If those who want a keep can provide a list of those articles she in which she is mentioned in the text of an article or book, and even better something we can verify online, I think that would make the case. If those who want a delete can show me that the references provided to her article are not legit, do not mention her or were written under her direction or some other direct involvement, then I might change my vote to a delete.