Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 July	4 July >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Usama Khan

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

Subject does not yet meet WP:GNG. it's WP:TOOSOON. PROD removed by fellow editor referencing the three sources. (Two appear to be fan publications, the third is a decent write-up, but not from a reliable publication). Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like the article needs some reworking to clarify that the subject is the stage musical and the film is an adaptation of that, but given that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the discussion indicates there is enough coverage to support notability for the play. RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday's Warrior

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Has had COI and neutrality templates for 3.5 years. Citations needed for 3 years. The article also states, "Saturday's Warrior is not well known outside the Mormon community." PROD removed. by fellow editor. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Kamala Harris. RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Any news coverage of him is in the context of his famous spouse, and notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. I tried to revert this back into a redirect, which I think is appropriate, only to be reverted back, so here we are. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per Help:Page history, we generally do see that. – Athaenara ✉ 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elected municipal politician but unanimity amongst the commentators that she fails notability guidelines, in particular WP:NPOL, and lacks significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just Chilling (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Rashid

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

BLP on a member of a city council in Gonda has one source. Per WP:NPOL, members of city councils do not have inherent notability absent WP:SIGCOV unrelated to their council service. Chetsford (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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