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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Abe

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

There is nothing here that would count as a reliable, indepth indepdent source. She has written and illustrated some works, however the easiest to identify case is her illustrating a book that was first published before her birth, and thus her illustrating an edition of it has little connection with the work being a truly notable one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the German Wikipedia entry has a lot more information about other works she has written and/or illustrated, under the names Rebecca Abe, Stephanie Schuster, Stephanie Fey, and Ida Ding; her maiden name was Stephanie Wagner. The German WP article has a link to this profile [1], but unfortunately no other reviews or articles about her. I will try to find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick google search leads me to the following articles: in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [2]; Augsburger Allgemeine [3] and [4]; SWP [5]. Still looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources I linked to above, with a bit more information. There is more biographical info to add from those sources, and I have yet to search for more. I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR - there may be reviews of her illustrations, but there are certainly reviews of her novels and articles about her as a novelist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Holy (band)

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

The article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per #6 of WP:BAND. There was a serious lack of sources though (none). But a quick search for Holy Holy along with Tony Visconti throws up literally dozens of references from sources such as The Guardian and Billboard, I have added 8 references but the article needs improving with information from these or other sources. I think the nominator could have been a little more diligent with his WP:BEFORE search, that said I do agree that the title could be less ambiguous. Maybe Holy Holy (tribute band) or Holy Holy (UK band or Holy Holy (supergroup). --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable given the people involved and the coverage that a Google search brings back. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied of it satisfying notability but continue to work on itMaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One argument I keep seeing here is that the band is notable because the participants are notable. Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED), so the group is defined as notable if it has done something notable. Has it received significant coverage from reliable sources that are specific to the group, and not coverage about the participants with a comment about the group? Has it released any notable albums? Has it charted on any national charts? The fact that Tony Visconti is a member of the group does not make the group notable. Mburrell (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Billboard The Scotsman and others as well as passing criteria#6 of WP:NMUSIC so there is no need for deletion imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A Google search brings up multiple coverages that satisfy GNG. William2001^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this article have to do with Japan? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 10 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Sayahi

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

Declined a hoax speedy request because it's either not a hoax or a really good one. However, can't find sources in English to show notability. I don't read Persian so I don't have a way to evaluate the sources in the article -- hoping for more eyes on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell this person is performing in a film, but being in a film is not a default show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John's comments -- the coverage is also really spotty in mostly user-generated or paparatzi-driven coverage, and the claim to notability at the beginning of the article doesn't make a lot of sense -- at the very least its self promotional, at the very worst its a hoax, and if its neither of those, the coverage in the sources appears to be minor at best. I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was more consistent coverage in Persian Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a promotional article, although again, I cannot read the Persian article. William2001^(talk) 22:08, 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 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.