Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 3 June	5 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cady

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any role significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR #1: all his roles were fairly minor; nothing to indicate he meets any other notability requirements; nothing online at least. There may be press coverage in 1980s print, but there's nothing to indicate this is likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not provide sufficent information about the subject and the subject is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2017 (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. So Why 08:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Morrow

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

Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. This article is a synthesis of unrelated factoids posing as an otherwise unknown Scottish clan. In some cases, the people mentioned in the article are members of unrelated families (like the Scottish Clan Murray and the Irish MacMurrough dynasty) or otherwise random people from Scotland, Ireland, and the USA. "Clan Morrow" turns up two hits on Google Books, both are novels. A couple observations:

The pictured coat of arms is Irish and has no connection to Scotland. In the 19th century, John O'Hart wrote that it was one of the coats of arms of the MacMurrough family of Leinster. Later in the 20th century, Edward MacLysaght, the Chief Herald of Ireland, stated that the arms were that of the MacMurrough kings of Leinster, and that the arms "are not borne by any family now, the various branches (Kavanagh, etc.) each having its own distinct coat of arms".
The men associated with the Ragman Roll, Robert Bruce, and Harlaw, are Murrays.
The DNA stuff is pulled from a blog exploring the Flemish ancestry of the Murrays (since in some cases the surname "Morrow" is a variant of the surname "Murray").
The other individuals in the article are just random names cobbled together to make it seem like they are related in a meaningful way. Apparently no one knows the familial origins of the Americans other than the assumption that they were of 'Scotch' or 'Scotch-Irish' ancestry.

In short, concocting an otherwise non-existant 'clan' out of such people and heraldry is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir. No original research has been done. The "Murrays" of Red Harlaw and of Bruce are as much Morrows as Murrays. If not more so. P. MacGregor Chalmers anglicised most of those names as Morrow. The Scotichronicon as I provided evidence for mentions "Sir Thomas Morrawe". I'm not trying to fabricate any history nor distort it. I'm researching it and placing in one place which I think seems coherent. I never said any of those folk were related. Maybe a Clan was the wrong thing to name the page. I know all about Morrow being a variant of Murray. However most are not. The names Morrawe and Murrawe are far closer to Morrow than Murray, which is one reason why the Morrow name exists, and people pronounced the name as "Morrow". Nearly every book you can read about the Morrow family states that ultimately they either come from Ireland or Scotland, or came from Scotland, settled in Ireland and then went to America. I know you'll probably end up deleting it. You know more about this Wikipedia craic than I do, that's a fact. But I'll stand by my own conclusions. Dr. J. T. Morrow stated the arms for Morrow belonged to both the Irish and Scottish branches of the family. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hope this all goes off smoothly whatever the result is. I'll stand by my research however. Which I've been doing for the past 9 years on my family. Best regards Sir, and God be with you. -MacMorrow Mór. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMorrow Mór (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks to be Original Research, splicing togther people with superficially similar surnames into a 'clan'. Author says "I'll stand by my research", which I think is the problem, it is 'their' research. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - My thought initial thought was that if the page is a collection of weakly connected facts about Scottish Morrows, an alternative to delete would be to merge to Morrow (surname) (with or without the redirect, I'm not sure). However, MacMorrow Mór has already added some of the material to that page. Since WP:Preserve is met, or nearly so, with the duplication of the material between the two pages, and since there really doesn't seem to be any reliable sources for a Scottish "Clan Morrow", this page fails verifiability. That said, the page on the surname could possibly benefit from some cleanup, at the very least dates and publishers could be added to the references. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a quick look and can't verify that this clan exists. A Google search brings up this site as a listing of Scottish clans - and it's not on there. http://www.scotclans.com/scottish-clans/clans-a-z/m/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) -- Clans are essentially a highland phenomenon, a statement that others may dispute. The article is a collection of miscellaneous material regarding people with the name or names like Morrow, bringing together a variant on Moray (which is I thing Highland); perhaps a lowland family; and something Irish which may well precede the Ulster settlement. Something very brief dealing with the multiple origins of the surname might be useful as a preface to Morrow (surname), which ought mainly to be a list article of people with that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per the request of the creator. Hut 8.5 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Rick's Mastering the Art of Technical Mittwork

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

Notability and advertisment Alexf505 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to explain that mastering the art of technical Mittwork is a DVD series — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggmatrix (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to the Boxer's page as a subsection, does not need its own page. Alexf505 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Does not need its own article; a Google turns up no articles, but instead just product listings Hazarasp (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied as promo. Even the two authors of the DVD series are of questionable notability.PRehse (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lake Lafayette. Whether the title is a useful redirect after merging can be discussed at WP:RFD if necessary. So Why 08:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette heritage trail park

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

No indication of it meeting any notability guidelines. It's a local park. John from Idegon (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect redirect title to city it is in. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur.TH1980 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - It isn't even a proper title per MOS or COMMONNAME. If someone were to create a redirect at the proper title, I wouldn't have an objection. But this is pointless. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (because there's some valid content here) to Lake Lafayette. --Lockley (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content, as appropriate, to Lake Lafayette, Delete title no redirect per John from Idegon. I have no objection to including mention of the park in the Tallahassee, Florida article, but the content does not belong there. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2017 (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) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hellyer

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

Did Google Search and no news articles came up. All references in the article are either Primary or amazon links to the books (which is a form of advertisement). I recommend it for deletion. Alexf505 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability or not aside, the article is not written from a neutral point of view, reading more like a promo piece than a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a highly advertorialized (auto?)biography of a person who has no notability claim that would confer an automatic pass of any Wikipedia notability criterion — he could still get an article for it if the sourcing were solid enough to clear WP:GNG, sure, but of the 15 sources here 11 of them are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, with just four that actually count as reliable sources — and two of those four are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, while the two that are genuinely about him are covering him only in the context of being the crowd warmer who pumps up the studio audience before a television taping begins. That is not a context in which one or two pieces of media coverage are enough to show encyclopedic notability. For what it's worth, while I can't seem to find any evidence of this and I suppose I might just be having a stroke, I'm quite sure we've seen somebody trying to stake his wikinotability on being Paul Hellyer's grandson before. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes, we have: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Hellyer. To be fair, that discussion is dated 2005, so we should let this discussion run its course rather than speedying this as a recreation of deleted content because of a 12-year-old discussion. But I'm reassured to know I'm not having a stroke. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery Of Mazandaran's Daevas (book)

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

No independent references. Contains too little information to be a useful stub. Appears to be promotional for the book. Google search turns up nothing about this title. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any sources anywhere to show secondary refs. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no sources. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Original source added And was also added to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumasp (talk • contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage by independent reliable sources needed for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The article has no independent sources. Searching found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep:Other sources added to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumasp (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumasp:, Although you have added sources they don't appear to satisfy any notability guideline. If you disagree please explain which source/sources satisfy what particular notability guideline elements. Also, you can only !vote once. Gab4gab (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK for lack of significant coverage of the book. There is an existing article on the mythological Kay Kāvus. There is no evidence that this book is a reliable source for that mythology. It seems clear to me that this article is also intended to be promotional. I saw nothing in the added citations that would go towards the notability of this book. --Bejnar (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (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. Despite the very long discussion, no one but the article creator advocated keeping it, with the consensus being that the subject is not notable. So Why 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N4 (record producers)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Of the 9 sources only one of them is about N4 and contradicts the article. It starts of by saying "You've never heard of him, but Freek van Workum making beats for TI, 2Chainz and Kid Ink" and says that N4 is an alias for him...no mention of the other producers. The article says we have never heard of him...and the dearth of sources supports this statement. All the other sources are simple credits. As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet. Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment Please read all of the references thoroughly. N4 is clearly shown to consist of more than one producer and has been credited for major releases that are deemed notable. These works have charted on Billboard, been certified gold and platinum, and had significant exposure on multiple occasions.

The fact that people had at one point never heard of a producer, yet Vice has published an article outlining his/their success says it all. There are a lot of people who are not interviewed or often written about, but are credited to major works. They are clearly notable and have entries (e.g., Bangladesh (record producer). In regards to your argument of "never heard of him", please read: http://www.creativeloafing.com/music/article/13058131/the-biggest-rap-producer-youve-never-heard-of

How does WP:NORG relate to a music group or producers? If we are talking about McDonald's or the United Nations, I can understand this argument.

In regards to WP:NMUSIC:

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

Music producers are a key element of a songs success and are also entitled to certifications and awards, such as Grammy Awards (Please see: https://www.grammy.org/files/pages/producer_definitions_for_awards.pdf) Perhaps some of the terminology at WP:NMUSIC should be updated to avoid confusion from individuals not familiar with the subject.

Producers often credited as the writers and/or composers of music. Music credits can be a tricky thing. At times, the individuals are credited under their real names, artist names, group names, or even typos. N4 has been credited for all of these. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply All articles have to meet the WP:GNG which means that there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" is defined as coverage that addresses the subject directly and in depth. None of the sources do this. Here is as requested a thorough look at all the references:

freekvanworkum.net-not independent as it is the web site of one of the members of N4 and doesn't even mention N4
noisey.vice.com- this is an interview with freek van workum that claims that N4 is an alias for freek van workum

Memory Lane- not independent, N4 is on their roster
The source- not in-depth, the article is about Kid ink N4 is simply listed with 9 other producers he works with
Billboard- doesn't mention N4
Barnes and Noble- not in depth, N4 is simply credited among 24 producers
WWE- doesn't mention N4
EA- doesn't mention N4
Billboard- doesn't mention N4
Tunefind- doesn't mention N4
Official Charts- doesn't mention N4
itunes- doesn't mention N4

So to summarise there is only one source that is in depth but is in fact a solo interview with Freek van workum that wrongly suggests that N4 is his alias. The subject must meet the criteria in WP:NORG because N4 is an organisation, in the way that Wikipedia defines it, that produces records for artists but it is not an artistic group such as a band so the WP:NMUSIC criteria do not apply (maybe that could be changed but this is not the place to discuss that). So I confirm my analysis that this page does not show notability for N4 and despite the fact that the company has produced notable artists and other producers are notable, notability is neither inherited nor inherent. Domdeparis (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Memory Lane (publishing group) - Listed to replace a poorly referenced link added to show the members of N4.
Noisey/Vice - N4 notability - Freek van Workum is a part of N4, a referral to N4 is inclusive of him. If N4 was not notable, they would not bother to mention it.
The Source - N4 is credited
Billboard - Song notability
Barnes and Noble - N4 is credited
WWE - Song notability
EA - Song notability
Billboard - Song notability
Tunefind - Song notability
Official Charts - Song notability
iTunes - Song notability
Allmusic - N4 is credited
Discogs - N4 is credited

All of those articles are mentioned to show the notability of the songs/albums, and then show that N4 (and it's members) are credited to those songs/albums.

"N4 is an organization". In this case WP:NORG does not apply, please read at the end of the first paragraph where it says, "For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." This is exactly what N4 does. As I have shown, N4 clearly satisfies the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

And when you go to NMUSIC you will see that it refers to artists, bands, composers and lyricists. And as N4 have never been credited as being one of these for a notable song NMUSIC does not apply. I'm sorry but you are clutching at straws. I may be wrong there may be a precedent that overrules the notability guidelines but rather than trying to give a definition to something that is contrary to the guidelines it points to I would suggest that you search for sources that prove their notability as producers. Until then and so as keep this discussion manageable I will not reply any more. Good luck and happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

N4 has been clearly shown to consist of more than one member, the members have been listed together on all notable songs, either under their own names, under N4, or both, as producers, writers, and composers. Notability as producers/writers/composers has been proven. The links show their credits, even the art work on Money and the Power shows it. They are listed as a production/writer group (by the publishing group). Differentiating the individual names and the group names is trivial. Are you suggesting a page for each member of N4?

Perhaps the WP:MUSIC page does need to be updated. If a producer is credited and able to receive a Grammy Award is it not notable? Remember, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing the songs.

You seem to show a lack of understanding on this topic and went against a senior editors decision to not delete the page. No further input is required. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't let that one past. I originally tagged for speedy delete which is simply a way of avoiding a deletion discussion this was refused but that doesn't mean that the subject is notable. Please read WP:DPAFD this should help you understand the deletion process, and try and keep your comments on subject and avoid making personal remarks please, these are often seen by the community as being a way of trying to discredit another's arguments when one is on shaky ground. You said something interesting though could you clarify which songs N4 has been credited as having written or composed because this is clearly a criteria for notability if the song is notable. I may have missed that in the article. From what I can see there is just a list of songs produced. Domdeparis (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently bring up irrelevant points and change your reason(s) for deletion. This is why I can only assume you are not very knowledgable on the topic of music.

The title "producer" if often used in place or alongside the titles "composer" and "writer". Please see: https://www.discogs.com/Kendrick-Lamar-Section-80/release/5360202 for Kendrick Lamar's album Section 80. There are no credits listed for writers or composers. By your logic, this album and it's producers have no notability.

Another example can be shown here: http://www.allmusic.com/album/through-the-pain-she-told-me-mw0000488310/credits. Sean Combs has been listed as a composer, and Diddy (the same person) has been listed as executive producer, primary artist and producer. It may seem confusing, but this is a common practice in the music industry.

Wikipedia's own page for Record producer needs some serious work, but this might help you: Understanding the Music Business. Please read under the section "Songpluggers" where it says, "In the rock and hip-hop fields, the artist generally either writes her own matieral or co-writes with a producer."

Additionally, see: Producers: What They Do & Why You Should Consider Using One. Please read under the section "What Do Producers Do?" where it says, "On the other end of the spectrum are the producers who are involved in every element of the recording from co-writing the songs to engineering to playing one or even all of the instruments."

Common sense should prevail in this situation, it is clear that N4 consists of more than one producer/writer/composer, all of whom are individually credited on each song/album alongside N4. Bobbybobbie (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobbybobbie: it is OK to edit your own comments if it has been only a short while but reediting your comments every 2 hours or so is not considered best practice. Please read WP:REDACT. Thank you Domdeparis (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning this, @Domdeparis:. I made some minor changes to improve the readability for any other editors. I can easily follow the guidelines set out at WP:REDACT.

I would like to add that your requirement of significant coverage is invalid. This falls within the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles".

In the case of this article, the following applies under "Criteria for composers and lyricists":

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

In addition to this, please read the section "Others" where it states, "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria":

Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre. YES Bobbybobbie (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply

that's great congratulations! before I can withdraw the Afd can you please provide the sources that prove that N4 is credited as composer on notable songs because I don't think you've added them to the article page. Domdeparis (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSIC where it states, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Common sense would agree that the individual members of N4, alongside N4 itself - have been credited to several notable works.

Common sense would agree that in the example of Sean Combs (see here), that both names can used for the same person, but for different credits.

Common sense would agree that the title "producer" can and has been used with or in lieu of "composer" and/or "writer" (see here and see Section 80).

I have provided numerous examples and resources throughout this discussion - in order to educate you on the intricacies of crediting, and on notability - in the field of music.

I cannot completely blame you, as the page record producer is a mess, and this could carry on to other areas of Wikipedia, thus confusing those who have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Bobbybobbie (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to improve the article, @Domdeparis:. I am sorry if any of the comments seemed personal. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so no sources to show that N4 were the composers then? So nothing to back up the fact that they meet NMUSIC a part from your affirmation that producer=composer? So I'll let this ride out. If you want NMUSIC to be changed there's a talk page where you'll be able to discuss it with other "experts" like yourself. I nominated this page on the basis that it doesn't meet GNG which it doesn't. I gave you plenty of opportunites to improve the article pointed you to the different policies and you stubbornly camped on your position that producers are covered by NMUSIC. We'll see what others think now. Domdeparis (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, I am flattered, but I don't consider myself an "expert"; however, I have had several years of experience in the music industry. How about yourself?

Do you actually read anything that I write here? I can't go on repeating myself. Numerous other articles on producers have been submitted and accepted on Wikipedia, based on the exact same criteria.

Question time:

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

You say that WP:MUSIC doesn't apply, when WP:NORG states that it does. Within WP:MUSIC, the most logical criteria would be "Criteria for composers and lyricists". *Gasps* Are you defying the notability criteria at WP:NORG in which you - yourself referred to? WP:GNG refers the subject of music specifically to WP:MUSIC (again).

To be honest, I have been waiting for other (knowledgable) people to contribute to this discussion the entire time. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! @Domdeparis:, I have found a few pages that do not meet YOUR criteria. Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion? Here they are, in no particular order:

Do you want some more? Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... I am not actually saying, "They exist! So should this!" I am saying, "Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion?" (It's also known as sarcasm.)

You didn't answer my questions.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

The members of N4 would have been listed (individually) under writing/composing for publishing reasons. This is common practice in the music industry. Yes, common sense continues to apply. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is going round in circles we will have to agree to disagree and let others analyse the nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In closing, please see The Corporation (record production team). They were credited under "producer" for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here. (ASCAP is a very reliable source, when it comes to publishing.) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the above article it had a serious lack of sources to prove notability. A simple web search of "The Corporation Mowtown" turned up literally hundreds including Rolling Stone the Encyclopedia of Popular music the Telegraph Allmusic etc which all treat the subject in-depth. When a subject is really notable it is so easy to find the sources to prove GNG without having to use the notability criteria for a particular category of subject. I have added the sources maybe you could do the same thing for the other articles? Domdeparis (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. Imagine being your teacher...

This example was clearly used to illustrate the fact that a record production group's name is often credited for production, whilst the individuals are credited for writing/composition. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Are you going to mark The Corporation (record production team) for speedy deletion now?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, you still never answered my questions.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)

We are discussing the fact that N4 is notable based on it's works (as outlined in WP:MUSIC). Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the very last time none of the sources point to N4 being notable as per WP:NORG or being the composer or songwriter of a notable song. Notability is not inherited this may be "your" common sense but it is contrary to Wikipedia policy please read this it should help you understand why your common sense is not acceptable to the wikipedia community. WP:NOTINHERITED. As you are so set on N4 being judged by NMUSIC criteria, which I contest, please read criteria 6 and the footnote at the end of these criteria. You really need to reread WP:GNG and try and take on board what is written there. You have been unable to supply sources where N4 is named as composer so I refuse to withdraw the nomination. I am now going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass as I should have done a long while back, and let others decide. Repeating something 7 or 8 times doesn't make it true...either from my side or yours so lets just agree to disagree and drop the conversation and let others, who will have to wade through the sterile exchanges, decide if the article stays or not. Domdeparis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both WP:NORG and WP:GNG refer music articles to WP:MUSIC (why else would it exist?)

I've clearly shown that in the case of The Corporation (record production team), they too were credited under "producer" - for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here.

Clearly, you refuse to answer my questions - as doing so would completely destroy your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another example: Stargate (music producers). Production teams are clearly credited individually (in many cases) for writing/composing. I would attribute this to publishing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to record production teams, some members may not be involved in a particular piece of work, therefore each member involved is also credited for publishing reasons. For a clear example of this, please see The Corporation (record production team) and look under the section "Songs". Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NORG and WP:GNG .Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having refreshed myself on WP:Music-- doesn't meet that either.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended commentary

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It meets WP:MUSIC. Why do you people think it needs to meet WP:NORG? WP:NORG clearly refers music to WP:MUSIC. Can we please get people on here who understand the category of music? Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um how can I put it...this editor is an admin with 11 years experience and 50,000 edits and I think he is probably pretty well versed in policy and notability guidelines for the various categories, or at least better than both you, with your 400 edits and I with my 6,000 edits. Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:It seems like somebody has called in an old friend.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: I do hope you are not accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing @Dlohcierekim:. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: The comments and timing seem a little suspicious. I sure hope not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG, which are the two over-riding guidelines which should be used. In looking at NMUSIC, this group does not appear to meet any of the criteria in the "others" section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"@Onel5969:Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre." Bobbybobbie (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite strenuous arguments above to the contrary, there are no sources to support "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The only significant coverage is not independent, and the only independent coverage is not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Eggishorn: Thank you for looking into the article. They have produced/written notable works as per WP:MUSIC.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie:, you may want to read this essay. Most editors, (myself among them) think that notability has to be demonstrated for the article subject on their own merits, not for something they are related to. Your statement that they have produced notable works, therefore, is not persuasive unless there is coverage about the producer group themselves. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:Please read under "Criteria for composers and lyricists" in WP:MUSIC. There is no mention of coverage, the same for "Others".

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES

Nobody has been able to answer these questions, but they should help in the reasoning for creating a page for N4 and not two separate pages for each member; however, this can be done.

Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you bring it up, what common sense tells me, Bobbybobbie, is that you are likely either connected to this group or a fan and are trying to hammer this conversation into using Wikipedia to promote a group of, at best, very marginally notable producers. The "composers" criterion is not evaluated in a vacuum. There have to be actual sources about N4 itself. There is nothing more than credits for the group, which is not persuasive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Close... I saw the credits on the cover of the Kid Ink song they produced and looked into them some more. I then saw that they meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Hmmm... people really get upset when I question their knowledge here. I am certain that the sources I have here provided are more than sufficient. I proved that the members were credited for writing, production, and composition. WP:MUSIC is satisfied. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: oh dear...I think you may have started something that you are going to regret...I guarantee that you will have a repeat of the same futile conversation above. "1/ N4 are producers and have produced some notable songs, 2/ some producers are credited as being songwriters so all producers are the songwriters of the songs they produce even if they aren't credited as such. 3/ songwriters of notable songs are notable themselves. 4/ N4 is notable! Q.E.D" (sound of head being banged against a brick wall and the thud of sticks on dead donkeys all around). Domdeparis (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Well... It clearly does say in WP:MUSIC that they are notable for notable works. I personally don't care what you, or others think, but I go by what has been set out in WP:MUSIC. Anybody who mentions WP:NORG should be disregarded from this discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: If you know how to search for credits, then do so. You didn't even know what Allmusic.com was before this discussion... Try ASCAP too. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis:, I'm not certain I don't regret it already. @Bobbybobbie:, the insurmountable problem is that WP:NMUSIC itself says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. emphasis in original It goes on to say: ...the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed. emphasis in original This argument is claiming that exact type of exemption from reliable sourcing. As I said before, no independent source offered is significant, and no significant source is independent. This means that, whatever chain of causation (as it were) you wish to claim for recognizing notability has to fail. I'm sure the closer of this discussion will recognize this. You should also read WP:NPA and WP:BLUDGEON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:Haha! Oh you are very cheeky! You forgot to quote, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" Reliable sources are all there. What would you deem reliable sites for music crediting? They produced, wrote, composed notable songs. End of discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion is over. No, not for the reason (or complete lack thereof) you state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to answer my questions (as you would have embarrassed yourselves), but continue to converse. I can see that most of you have little understanding of WP:MUSIC and keep referring to other articles to back up your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NORG clearly refer music articles to WP:MUSIC and this article's subjects come under "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists." Why argue against this? There is even a section under "Others". Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

angry and outraged reply to a desperate Bobbybobbie. Nope. I just went through a bunch of open AFD's. What timing do you refer to? What evidence to do you present? What makes you think Domdeparis and I are friends? 19:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 15:12, June 3, 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No desperation over here, Dlohcierekim. I stick to the facts. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for some time and all of a sudden several people have decided to partake. Interesting. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can actually counter my points in regards to WP:MUSIC, nobody can answer my questions, and everybody keeps referring to WP:NORG (when it says to refer to WP:MUSIC). Somebody is saying that other articles supersede WP:MUSIC (where is it stated?) It's all a little strange. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also meets Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Some of you have recently had some speedy deletions declined on this basis. I am starting to think something is up here... It is seems that most people on Wikipedia have general knowledge, but few have specific knowledge on any particular topic. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: You are on the record for saying, "I am not a music buff", yet you continue to judge the topic? That says a lot... I see in a another recent case, you continue to misinterpret WP:MUSIC and argue that an album needs greater evidence of notability, when it was in several music charts (which is a criterion). Wait, this one is my favorite: "As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet." Anybody with music knowledge will laugh uncontrollably at this. It speaks volumes for the rest of your argument(s) and anybody blindly agreeing with you. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing several gold and platinum selling (notable) songs. This passes WP:MUSIC, how does it not?
How do people with little to no experience on music and WP:MUSIC have a voice on here? I get the feeling that we need to make some policy changes. In the future, specific admins should have access to specific categories - when it comes to the deletion process.

I also created DJ Montay - which was deleted by somebody not understanding the music criteria, and then placed back in it's article space. It too follows the same criteria that N4 has, yet @Domdeparis: sees no problem with it and even contributed an edit to it! This is too much...

This is not about me fighting for the page, it is not personal; rather, it's about a fair and reasonable process - where only people who thoroughly understand the topic(s) are involved. Bobbybobbie (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply put, if the sources provided don't amount to coverage above the standard expected by GNG, the subject of the article isn't notable. To head off any possible bludgeoning, I can honestly claim to be my own person, not canvassed by anyone and simply having noticed an abnormally- (and absurdly-, by now) long AfD in the log. I claim no specific knowledge or lack thereof in relation to the subject beyond that of a semi-educated layperson, which I'm pretty sure is what the average user of this website is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for your response, @BigHaz:. What is your take on the article in relation to WP:MUSIC? This is where confusion sets in. I have followed the guide for other work, and it was deemed sufficient; however, in this case - it is not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking specifically at anything other than WP:GNG, frankly. That's the "operating manual" for me. Neither am I looking to continue or buy into the war you've been waging with other users regarding this article and their ability or lack thereof to assess its notability. Since you've asked, though, I'll give you a very quick answer and leave the matter at that. MUSIC, ORG or any other guideline regarding topic-specific notability is precisely that - a guideline regarding topic-specific notability. A subject fulfilling enough of the criteria there is highly likely to have generated enough coverage to pass GNG. If they haven't, for some reason, generated that coverage, then they don't magically get an article simply because they tick NMUSIC's boxes. Likewise, they may have generated that coverage without ticking those boxes, in which case they're still eligible for an article. A band I saw on the weekend fits that last example perfectly, before you ask if that ever happens. Looking at this article, it's been demonstrated to my satisfaction that this particular team of producers haven't got the coverage required. Therefore, unless there's more coverage out there, they aren't notable within the definition of the term used here. I appreciate that that's annoying and disheartening to read that in relation to an article you've clearly worked on for some time, but speaking from years of experience I can say it does happen to just about everyone at least once. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disheartening at all - I do not take this personal. If admins/editors were able to clearly and specifically point to the correct criteria, it would be an easy process. I have been dealing with people unfamiliar with the topic of music and this is resulted in the lengthy discussion/debate. As soon as people start mentioning WP:NORG in regards to producers - it's a red flag on their comprehension of the topic. As I mentioned earlier, I have had an article approved and have seen several others approved on the same grounds. It is rather confusing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to WP:GNG:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
I have supplied the Noisey/Vice interview which is non-trivial coverage in addition to other multiple sources crediting their works (as per WP:MUSIC). Does not fail WP:GNG Bobbybobbie (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently the saga hasn't ended yet, some responses. Firstly, I refer you to the first (bolded) sentence of the GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Let's apply this to the source you mention. Is it "significant coverage"? There is some debate on this point earlier in this discussion (yes, I read everything before I commented, apparently I had nothing better to do at the time), but I'll take it as read that if you're going to interview someone who is a member of a group about what he and the group does/do, you're generating "significant coverage". "Reliable source"? Not being overly well-up on Dutch music journalism, I can't confirm in either direction, but let's assume for the sake of things that this is a reliable source. It certainly gives that outward impression. "Independent of the subject"? Ah, here's a problem. An interview - certainly one like this - is only marginally above a press release, in that Mr van Workum is doing all of the talking. That's not independent. Additionally, we should note that the word used throughout the GNG is "sources" in the plural. Even were this interview to be a different kind of music journalism, it still only amounts to the one source. You're right that there's "no fixed number of sources required", but with wording like that, I'd say we're on the hook for at least two, and two secondary sources for preference, rather than the primary one here. The fact that the other sources indicate that the producers have produced the given productions doesn't get around the fact that the article still needs notability not to be deleted. In the interests of having the article kept, may I respectfully suggest that the energies you're putting into flogging the same dead horse you did with other editors be expended in finding these additional sources? That's abundantly more likely to achieve the outcome you so clearly desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:IV before saying such things. The entire introduction is given by the interviewer (secondary source), and the remainder by the interviewee (primary source). By the way, the article is from Vice Media. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear definition. You can say that WP:GNG is all that matters, but then why does WP:MUSIC under "others" have exceptions for this topic? If this was clear then there would be no further discussion. Nobody here has been able to give a valid answer. It seems as though decisions on here are seasonal. I am not seeing any consistency. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you insist on continuing to flog the horse, though, let me point out that per IV, as you've rightly stated, the information given by the interviewee is a primary source. You may have missed it earlier, but for a subject to be notable, it needs coverage in secondary sources. Even if we take the interviewer's words as the equivalent of one entire secondary source, I'm not seeing the second or subsequent one the policy requires. The "exceptions under 'others'" you're talking about begins with the wording "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Last I checked, current pop music isn't "outside mass media traditions", so don't go insulting everyone's intelligence by clutching at that straw. Even were current pop music somehow mysteriously covered by this exception, you're still missing the point: if a composer or performer fits one of those criteria, there's highly likely to be the sources that GNG requires. In other words, it's not enough to wave your hands in the general vicinity of the article and say "Ah, but they've done X, Y and Z. Therefore, they're notable." You need to actually prove that with sources.

As for your claim that there's "no clear definition", "[no] consistency" and "decisions...are seasonal", that's just simply not true. There is absolutely a clear definition - just not one you like the outcome of. Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in. That's why people can edit the articles and nominate those that they don't believe should be here for deletion, so that others can also review that and agree or disagree. If you see an article you feel needs editing, edit the darn thing. If you feel the subject of the article isn't notable, stick it on AfD and there'll be others coming along to discuss that. Again, I know it sucks to have people say "You know this article you've spent time writing? Yeah, it should be deleted". You're saying you're not taking it personally, but the fact that you're constantly making the same refuted arguments over and over again demonstrates that you're less interested in either trying to improve the article and/or build an encyclopedia than you are in trying to wage some kind of unarmed combat and irritate people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does only pop have anything to do with mass media? It can refer to behind the scenes personal, such as producers, writers, etc. The artists/bands are usually subject to the public. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Wh... what?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not being wilfully obtuse, consider, among other things, this essay, the forum in which we currently find ourselves, the fact that you can edit articles and the fact that anyone can create articles. Are they the kinds of things you would expect to find in a "finished product", because I sure as hell wouldn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the craziest thing I have seen on Wikipedia - thus far... Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there new articles being created, existing articles being edited and other existing articles being deleted 24 hours of the day, 7 days of the week? Does that not mean that Wikipedia is something other than the finished product? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz:...exhausting isn't it? Domdeparis (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly, yes. I've run up against this sort of chicanery before, though, so I came prepared. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: there's something that I am very curious about, if you don't like what goes on here in Wikipedialand and everyone seems to be incapable of understanding your reasoning why stay? Why on earth do you not just walk away and do something else maybe create a blog about music where you can write whatever you like and distribute your wisdom without being hampered by the unbelievers. Domdeparis (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If I create an article for the "Cash me outside" girl's music career, will you all back it up? It certainly passes WP:GNG.

It's not about my opinion, it's about facts. It was not me, but others - who credited them and presented them with platinum and gold certifications - which deems them notable for their work(s). This has all been outlined in WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia needs some work in this area, and I am happy to contribute to it.

When I am on an article about music and other editors keep referring to WP:NORG over WP:MUSIC, then go on to say outlandish things - like, "Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Yes... there certainly is a lot to discuss... Bobbybobbie (talk) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that Wikipedia is a community where we strive for consensus of opinion and the NMUSIC criteria were first created in 2005 they have been modified over a thousand times and no-one has deemed fit to add producers in the list of others. I saw that you started a section on this subject on the NMUSIC talk page and the person who replied said exactly the same thing as here. Even if you succeeded in getting the word producers added ALL articles have to meet GNG. There are criteria for singers and songwriters etc that point towards notability but this does not guarantee notability. A songwriter that was credited for a platinum selling record is presumed notable (this avoids speedy delete or PRODDING) but the sources have to prove his notability and not just prove that he was credited with a platinum record. If no-one wrote about this songwriter and no in-depth secondary sourceS (plural) can be found he doesn't have the necessary notability to warrant a WP page and that article could be challenged in an Afd nomination. You have an interview with Freek v w. Who is one of the members of N4 (notability is NOT inherited so the source 'could' be considered as helping to point to HIS notability and not N4's). You could maybe build on this and create an article about this person but you would need more sources to show notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to work on the entire subject. I said this in the start and you were up in arms about the thought of changing the wording of any Wikipedia guidelines. The person I was talking to couldn't give a definitive answer and mentioned that others are welcome to contribute. I don't entirely agree with his definition of notability (Re: New sounds), but this is where we contribute as a community.

As per your not inherited argument, the article clearly names N4 for his work(s) (so do the credits).

Well, it meets WP:GNG. It says "no fixed number" and "generally" more than one source. It all depends on the depth of the information provided on the subject. It doesn't have to be an entire article based on the topic. On this topic, I have provided a non-trivial source and several reliable sources backing up the group's achievements - as per WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's like talking to a brick wall... I apologise in advance as it is not normally the done thing but I'm going to have to shout now... THE SOURCES YOU ADDED DO NOT PROVIDE IN-DEPTH COVER OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE DIRECTLY SO DO NOT HELP PROVE ITS NOTABILITY AS PER WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the guidelines on the definition of "significant coverage". This is an article with room for improvement. There is no need to be so hasty to delete it, when it obviously has merit. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an article with room for improvement, why not do that? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - N4 does appear to meet criteria in Wikipedia:NMUSIC. The guideline says "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:" So we now know the company may be notable. Now we need to determine if it is notable. To do that we look at the sources provided and available. I didn't find any sources better than what has already been provided in the article. The sources in the article do not show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This tells me they do not meet our notability guidelines. ~ GB fan 11:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, this is a much better explanation than what the others gave. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically same conclusions as GB and above. Couldn't find externals on my own, and the inline citations aren't exaclty to par. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--We are discussing the topic of music notability here. Hopefully, there will be some improvements to the current guidelines. This has been a lengthy, but useful AFD. Bobbybobbie (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hi @Bobbybobbie: thanks for adding the extra sources to the article, I have checked them out and unfortunately they don't seem to improve the notability of the subject as none of them mention N4. I would invite the other participants to do the same if they so wish. If you can find some that do please don't hesitate to let us know here so that the different participants can check them out and see if that changes their opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am still adding further resources to the article. I will get some more in-depth credits on there soon. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just looked at the 3 sources added which prove that Freek van workum was a writer on the songs along with Nick Luscombe and 3 other writers that are not part of N4 but this still isn't in-depth coverage and the sources still mention N4 as producers. You may have enough sources to start an article on Freek van workum now but you will need some more in-depth coverage I think too but it's a close pass for him. Unfortunately none of the sources talk directly in-depth about N4 so they do not really help this Afd. Happy hunting. Domdeparis (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehashing the same arguments

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You seem to be on a witch-hunt (of sorts). This article passes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. This is why I created it - in the first place.

This AFD was filed on false grounds, as at the beginning of WP:N (the article W:GNG is within), it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (The box has WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO inside of it.)

Where on Wikipedia does it state that WP:GNG applies to WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO? It may surprise you, but this is what it clearly says. Please pay attention to detail. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject appears to depend on the notability of the artists it produces but there is almost a total disregard for significant independent sources. With that being said, I could not find any better sources than what is already available in the article to pass notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion-- Y'all! You're off topic. Again.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I would actually like to thank @Domdeparis: for nominating this page as it has created a greater awareness to the topic of record producer. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish I could say the same thing but you have exhausted us all by saying the same thing over and over again and refusing to accept the consensus. If you wanted to create greater awareness for producers you should have stayed on the NMUSIC talk page rather than wasting everyone's time here. An admin had to take this to ANI to try and stop your disruptive editing and even that didn't work...so no thanks will be coming your way from me. Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, so I get in trouble for repeating myself and I also get in trouble for making (new) comments - thanking the opposing party (even though I don't agree)? This is ridiculous. (corruption?)Bobbybobbie (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: You're not "getting in trouble" so don't be dramatic. Dlohcierekim merely collapsed some off-topic discussion that interferes with the ability of an evaluating admin to actually evaluate the consensus of the discussion about N4. Your comment, however, betrays the issue that has permeated every discussion that you have been involved in: That you think there are "opposing parties" in the first place. Please, please, read WP:Wikipedia is not about winning and the other essays and guidelines referenced there. Multiple editors (including, obviously, myself) have cautioned you here and in other places about the way you apparently feel compelled to respond to every comment and this is no different. You have been already warned that this behavior will get you blocked or banned. Let me take a different tack: Do you think that this style of interaction you are adopting is working? Wikipedia is an enormous project with over 125,000 active editors. The only way that works is through consensus. It you decide "consensus is wrong" then you will not have an enjoyable or productive time here. I urge you, one anonymous Internet user to another, to carefully consider if tilting at this particular windmill has accomplished anything useful. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y'ALL! Could we please carry on the off-topic conversations at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers)? Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of in depth coverage. I agree that record producers are a hard row to hoe, but maybe that is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Trout the editors who have made this the longest AfD I have ever seen. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC) ___ DoneDlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think there should be more about who they are as people and not merely what they've done as a career. It reads like a résumé, to the point that you could easily tag it as such. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ALLOFTHEABOVE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:04, 11 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lindex

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

The subject is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources to have the article meet the WP:GNG. So, the article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -. A well known chain in Sweden. The article needs improvements but that is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lindex is a well-known chain store, one of the dominating ones in its home market. I find hundreds and hundreds of articles about it when I do a quick search, as well as at least one potentially relevant book – however, I imagine the vast majority of all sources will be in Swedish, given its history as a Swedish company. See for example Computer Sweden, Göteborgs-Posten or Expressen for basic facts. /Julle (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Julle. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Moan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. There is a fair amount of limited coverage for participating in the reality show, but given the scarcity of sourcing for anything else, this fails WP:BLP1E. John from Idegon (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). Precedent set at another season 9 contestant article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Velour. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been working on this article, and have not yet finished. There are many articles included as sources, from outlets such as Access Hollywood, Vice, The Huffington Post, Houston Chronicle, San Antonio Current, and more. Additionally, he has appeared on notable shows other than RuPaul's Drag Race, such as Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen. Therefore, the page clearly satifies one of the main criteria listed at WP:ENTERTAINER: "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Thanks, TheKaphox T 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two shows barely counts as notable. WP:ENTERTAINER states "significant roles". I don't think these two roles he's had are significant. Oath2order (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Drm310. Oath2order (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - as nominator, redirect per Drm310 would be a satisfactory outcome; an outcome that would also allow the article's creator to polish the current article in his userspace until and if notability is shown. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability of the performer baring the show in which she starred. Therefore delete. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a simple GNG pass from sources already showing in the article. Don't overthink this: there are multiple, independent, published sources dealing substantially with the subject. Green light to write an article if that is fulfilled, no need to debate whether makeup artists are worthy of inclusion or whether special guidelines to allow an alternative path to prove notability for actors are met. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I echo the points made by @Carrite: Angusaditus (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2017 (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 notability arguments haven't been addressed: "Neutral, reliable or accurate information" on their own do not make a topic notable, the information needs to be substantial and independent as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airport CEO (video game)

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

Originally tagged as proposed for deletion. The rationale (which I stand by) was " It's too soon to have an article about a game that's still under development and has no announced release date." Given the fact that the developer is not that well-known, there's an absence of reliable third-party sources discussing the game so it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game lacks any coverage in WP:VGRS as in this search. Delete. --Izno (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an un-released game by a new studio, it can't be notable based on its own promotional material. WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thread consists of neutral and reliable information from the community, although the wiki page is a bit early. The game will be released soon though.

Delete per SPAM. Seems very self-promotional. Maybe TOOSOON as well. It might be okay at some point in the future to recreate this, but it's not kosher now. South Nashua (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not self-promotional, and provides accurate information. I know the game will be released very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4100:83F:29EF:12C3:3F3D:1E73 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2017 (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) 22:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bastani

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

I can't find any evidence of notability: Google News results are almost entirely bylines or brief citations, with no evidence of anyone having written anything substantial about him. Beyond WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, I don't believe he satisfies any of the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ACADEMIC. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence or assertion of notability. The Guardian describes him as a "student activist". --Lockley (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not nearly reach notability criteria. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of people noting and writing up about this writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2017 (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) 22:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wilson (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Doesn't come within a country mile of meeting NHOCKEY, no evidence he could meet the GNG, and I'd be curious as to learn upon what basis the article creator felt this was a valid subject for an article? Ravenswing 02:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about hockey, but I do have a question. Does this article subject meet NHOCKEY point 2 though ? Aoziwe (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. He fails NHOCKEY. See WP:NHOCKEY/LA for a list of leagues considered to satisfy the NHOCKEY criteria. Joeykai (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #2 was intended to cover two situations: the 19th century period in Canada before professional hockey existed, and the Cold War period during which the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia maintained ostensibly "amateur" leagues to satisfy the rules then-prevalent in the Olympics and the IIHF world championships. Ravenswing 19:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Experience/accomplishments to date fail to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. Article sources plus searching don't find enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a promo bio and statistics sheet rather than a balanced Wikipeida article.TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2017 (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 Youtube#Content ID. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Content ID claim

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

Not notable to have a separate article Sulaimandaud (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Youtube#Content ID as that is a plausible redirect. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above: the section in Youtube has more info than this standalone article, and even if you can probably find some coverage in the technical press about this, it's not a very significant topic and better treated in the parent article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Youtube#Content ID. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eluru. So Why 07:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narasimharao Pet

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

Notability issue. Normal residential area in a city. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Eluru where it can be mentioned as a neighborhood of the city. Without sufficient independent notability, neighborhoods are covered in the larger area. MB 16:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per User:MB; A WP:BEFORE suggets absolutely no notability independent of the broader area. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: you probably meant one of the other two. Jupitus Smart 17:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! -thanks very much for that- my eyes did indeed deceive me. Thanks for the pointer, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Jupitus Smart: I didn't understand your comments guys. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: It's not important- just that I originally !voted 'per' User:Jupitus Smart, when, actually I meant per User:MB; so I then changed my post and thanked JS for drawing it to my attention. There you go! :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: sorry I hadn't seen the history. And it was not long at all lol —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 18:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – According to the latest census of India, the above place is a slum with a population of ~~930~~ 1433, as one can verify from the page no. ~~856~~ 860 of this district census handbook, which was published by the government of India. But slums are illegal encroachments in India, thereby fail WP:GEOLAND. - ~~NitinMlk (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)~~ corrected & expanded NitinMlk (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: Sir, the Narasimharaopet you reffered to is in Tadepalligudem, but NRPet in Eluru is mentioned at page no.860 near 124.—IM3847 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: Thank you, sir, for pointing out my mistake. :) NitinMlk (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2017 (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. Sock puppetry is not allowed. Thus all the sock votes have been discarded Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Raichand

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

Continually recreated article about a person who does not meet the General Notability Guideline or WP:NACTOR. Deleted at least 3 times in the past. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (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}}.

Delete Although the subject has acted in very well known movies, which had significant success at the box office, the roles in these movies have been insignificant. Fails GNG/NACTOR. Lourdes 16:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject of the article is not notable and the article lacks significant information. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails GNG and WP:NACTOR as he has had no significant roles in movies/TV shows. — Quasar G. 15:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject has acted in very well known movies, which had significant success at the box office, don't go to the past that how many times it's deleted just see there is cite and sources enough to make him notable. AfD must close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramvats (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Sriramvats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep, kindly go through the sources their on Reference and google his name for your reference - - Sriramvats (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete -- the subject's 'notable' roles are "Cameo" and "Soldier". Hardly significant. This is WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the subject captured around 5mis scene. After watching movie I'm commenting on discussion page, he is very important part of that movie and collected claps of audience too. Article is significant and must remove from AfD. - - Shirajmz (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Shirajmz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please note Using multiple accounts to contribute to AfD discussions can lead to the loss of editing privileges. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Suggest--Nominator its advice you to don't look at past that how many times article has been deleted, just understand the notability and for more reference watch movie. Just finally remove AfD and Let this discussion closed here. M97S (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M97S: My final word is no, I will not be withdrawing my nomination. Please do not attempt to close the discussion yourself. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: you first search the subject on google then say you decision. Reference is added which verify the cite and sources of subject. Kindly close the discussion and remove AfD. Otherwise I'll make other user will consider you as negative person M97S (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability criteria for actors. --bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is very significant and imdb also proves that he's very known actor. Bonadea is without confirming saying this all. Think before you say M97S (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC) — M97S (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note Did I not point out that using multiple accounts is not allowed? Anyway, I checked through Google and carried out other searches (following the process listed here - WP:BEFORE) before I started this discussion. The notability guidelines are quite clear. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: M97S, Shirajmz, and Sriramvats are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamratBornToPlay.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Barghouti

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

No evidence of any notability for this poet. I PRODed it because it had no references to attest to notability. The author had added substantial content about his publications but the references are all simply catalogue entries showing the books were published. Nothing speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The poet of the Intifada. I think he meets GNG just by the English book references. I am fairly sure he passes in Arabic sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for English-languages sources works better if his name is spelled "Barghouthi", e.g. this obituary. (The article ought to mention both spellings in its first sentence, and then use one version consistently.) Maproom (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and now does. Maproom (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and has been moved to Hussein Barghouthi. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found quite enough references with the proper spelling. He passes WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2017 (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) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Karn

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

Somehow this was kept after a 2014 AfD despite there being no objection to deletion. It should have been deleted then, but let's take care of it now since those concerns are still just as valid today. There's no evidence that Karn meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It reads like an advertisement or possibly even an autobiography. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - non-notable business person.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the problems of overzealous non-admin closures. Would have been a soft delete in 2014. Just a vanity page which fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 16:59, 4 June 2017 (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) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Entertainment Group

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. The article seems to be focused on the accomplishments of the founder rather than the company. Regardless, the company appears to lack notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company. Also, the claims about founder Raquel Bruno appear to be rather inflated: "Bruno has added producer credits to her repertoire, with her Disney Parks Magical Christmas Special being nominated for an Emmy" Her special? She's listed as 'talent executive' for that program on her IMDb listing. Yintan 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed all marketing and puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. Not much left and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing 19:36, 6 June 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Randhawa

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and fails to demonstrate WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local politician. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, city councillors aren't normally notable enough for an article, and "one of the youngest councilors in the province" adds little to that. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, cities of just 24K do not hand their city councillors a free WP:NPOL pass just for existing — the only cities that can do that are metropolitan global cities on the order of Toronto, Chicago, New York City or London. Secondly, being among the youngest holders of an otherwise non-notable office counts for all of exactly nothing toward boosting his notability either — a person is not automatically more notable than his colleagues just because he's younger than they are. Thirdly, as yet non-winning mayoral candidates don't get articles just for the fact of being mayoral candidates — and in a city of 24K, he still wouldn't be guaranteed a Wikipedia article even if he wins the mayoral election. And fourthly, the article's edit history reveals that this is an WP:AUTOBIO created by Arjun Randhawa himself — but Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for people to create articles about themselves. To qualify for an article, he would have to be shown and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for a smalltown municipal politician — but nothing here demonstrates or sources that at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:You might want to read the history more carefully -- the autobio created was about a different Arjun Randhawa--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. But that doesn't change much about my opinion, because it was never the crux of the point. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In looking for sources for the original autobio before deleting it, I came across the other Arjun Randhawa. The CBC article prompted me to change the article to this one, but I'd really like to see other sources than his local newspaper before making a strong case for notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:07, 12 June 2017 (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) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.T.F.O.M.F.

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

Non-notable Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and unreferenced im ganz. At best this rates a redirect back to Shaggy 2 Dope discography, as part of the impressive over-documentation of Insane Clown Posse. --Lockley (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search gives hardly any results, and they're still basically dross. If articles on this sort of group are the best we can come up with, then (to coin a FTFOMFy phrase) we're all f****d. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Chiswick. I can find absolutely no real coverage of the album. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:35, 7 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Oliver

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, case of WP:TOOSOON —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with independent, significant, reliable coverage such as this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Rikster. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Rikster. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Rowan

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, a case of WP:TOOSOON —usernamekiran(talk) 11:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. There are already two-three legit sources on the article and a Google Search shows more exist. Rikster2 (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was a very good player for a top college basketball program. He is notable no matter what happens in the NBA draft Rogermx (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources, NBA Draft potential is irrelevent. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2017 (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. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American League of Legends Championship Series teams

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

This page amounts to Listcruft. Beyond its trivial, unencyclopedic premise of simply listing teams that have competed in a single tournament over the years- which can be found on each of the seasonal NA championship pages- there are no references and the only links it has to other pages are the ones from that template at the bottom, which is dubious content in itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's hardly indiscriminate. The NA LCS is the top-tier of North American League of Legends (the most popular competitive video game in the world) and is only below the world championships, which isn't an organized league. Calling it a single tournament is a bit disingenuous: it's a nine week league of ten teams who play a double round robin, and then move on to separate playoff and relegation/promotion brackets. A set number of teams get promoted into and relegated from NA LCS for each season, and both the teams undergoing it and the process itself is widely reported on by sources that cover the competition.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The sourcing needs to be improved, but it certainly exists. I would probably restructure it to be more like List of Premier League clubs, but that's not a matter for AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable series, but what is the reason that there needs to be a list of all the teams that have competed? Isn't that something inherited by the individual season pages? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there need to be a similar page for Premier League teams? All that information could also be discovered by just looking at the individual season pages as well, but it would be much more convenient to have the information on the same page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is only about the top tier teams, and since the tournament itself garners a lot of media attention It's hardly not-notable. Donald Trung (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

League of Legends is very notable and so is the tournament, but this list amounts to listcruft by listing off a wide spectrum that has no reason for being compiled, except maybe Wikipedia:INHERITED. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 4 June 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shaw (actor)

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 08:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable actor. --Lockley (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people by occupation

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

The occupations listed here appear to be indiscriminate. It contains most but not all of the lists of people by occupation. Per WP:LISTNAME, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." Power~enwiki (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being entirely indiscriminate. I'm not entirely sure that "Centenarian" (to take one example) is an occupation, and the list that link goes to is specifically for businesspeople who happened to pass the 100-year mark, so there are potentially further issues if anyone feels like wading through them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Standard, and very helpful and convenient List of lists article, of which there are tens of thousands [8], including List of lists of lists, Lists of people by nationality, List of lists of lists#People, etc. There is no reason not to have this article, and every reason to have it, as it is a helpful resource and more convenient than trying to wade through a Category. There is nothing indiscriminate about it; it is clearly defined and finite, and if any articles are missing, they can simply be added. The article also keeps the individual articles therein from being orphans. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a contents page, which goes hand-in-hand with various categories (WP:CLN). It serves as navigation for the reader to related articles. Individual additions that editors question (such as "Centenarian") can be discussed via the talkpage to include/remove as needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:USEFUL Siuenti (씨유엔티) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize that's expressly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WHICHBIT says that? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for navigational purposes. This article could only become redundant if we ended up removing every other List of x articles. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Seems like a pretty standard navigational list. We have some lists of people based on occupation. This is a list of those lists (or, if it's missing some, they can be added). It's an index, not a list of arbitrarily chosen occupations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Struck keep !vote for now. The more I dig, the more it gets messy. We have lists of people by occupation, but then each occupation includes lists of people in that occupation in particular countries, lists of former [occupation], many subtypes, etc. It's still a plausible index page, but with so many pages, there needs to be some big picture thought about organization -- and if it's woefully incomplete, since the purpose is navigational utility rather than a notable topic, it does a disservice to readers rather than a service (a common issue with index pages is that they give the incorrect impression of actually including all that they are supposed to include, dynamic list tag or not, since they are a meta list rather than an encyclopedic list). I don't feel comfortable arguing to delete, since the issues seem surmountable, but meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to close this as a snow keep, but it was undone. I'm unwilling to spend more time on this article until the AfD process finishes. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Softlavender. Lists of lists are a thing, and it's unfortunate that some editors choose to nominate them at AfD without first seeking to understand why they exist and what they are for. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2017 (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) 22:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Eka

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline and fails WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No references to indicate that he has acted in any notable roles in notable movies. Jupitus Smart 03:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence or assertion of notability. It's the creation of a SPA. --Lockley (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2017 (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 consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish that the subject is notable. Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Foo

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

No independent reliable sources to evidence notability. Youtube is not a reliable source. See also WP:HOWTO. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It based of that game from FaFaFa Slots. Lucy Desi (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to commend this at all. Wholly unsourced . Hoax ? If there had been a suitable category this would be a speedy candidate. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - wholly unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can find no reliable sources with any content. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Wikipedia actually notes slot machine games, as there is a well-populated category for them Category:Slot machines. There are hundreds of references to this specific game - Fortune Foo - on Google search, but they are almost entirely to promote the use of the game for gambling purposes. I do not have the patience nor the time to continue searching on Google for an article buried in the competition by gaming websites for customers, to locate applicable references for the subject, but maybe someone else will be able to do that. I am not a fan of gaming or gambling but more knowledge for the world is more useful than the current state of less knowledge for the world. So I argue on behalf of keeping the article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Symposium on Computer Architecture. further merges can be discussed elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISCA Influential Paper Award

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

DePRODed by auhtor without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non notable award. Fails WP:GNG. Only primary sources appear to exist. Still fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a $1000 prize isn't notable; there's no sign this is even the most important award given by SIGARCH. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Symposium on Computer Architecture. Not independently notable but there's no reason not to mention it at the parent article, in more detail than the present see-also link. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:International Symposium on Computer Architecture, as I think should be mandatory whenever a merge is proposed within an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Symposium on Computer Architecture sounds like a good compromise, especially since that article is so sparse. Clearly not independently notable. There do seem a fair number of notable authors of papers with this award. Similar situation for, say, Alan D. Berenbaum Distinguished Service Award, so another option would be to merge 'em all into SIGARCH W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2017 (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. Previously NAC closed as "merge to SAS Wrestling, which was a fine result, but that page was deleted two days ago for not being notable. Thus, the only reasonable outcome based on the discussion is to delete. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Tag Team Championship

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

has no notability not needed on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.66.24 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

created this from a prod added by the IP, using the IPs prod rationale. ~ GB fan 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a championship of a SAS Wrestling. Is this notable enough for its own article, not sure, but if not content should be merged into the main article and this should redirect there. That though is a discussion to have on the article talk pages not here. ~ GB fan 11:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I can't find anything covered in independent reliable sources and notability isn't inherited from SAS/RQW.LM2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into the article on the SAS promotion. MPJ-DK 10:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an article for SAS Wrestling doesn't currently exist (not saying it is or isn't notable, I haven't had a chance to research it yet), so this list can't be merged there. Nikki♥311 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable belt. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.190.4 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into the article on the SAS promotion.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 01:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wouldn't be notable even if SAS Wrestling was notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2017 (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) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terror threat analytics

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

The phrase does not appear to be notable and is a neologism. This article, which has no properly formed references, appears to be intended either to popularize a neologism or to promote a team or a "burgeoning field of research". Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete It reads like a corporate press release, and searching fails to find any significant reference to the term. Seyasirt (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it clearly is written by a "beltway bandit" (yes, was surprised we have an article on that idea!) trying to promote this to the US government. W Nowicki (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2017 (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.