Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

Premium Prestige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Sourced with unreliable references. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keemokazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Entertainment, Syria, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I had double thoughts before finally agreeing that the notability of this article is very questionable. Firstly having many subscribers or views on YouTube doesnt credibly means the article is notable. There is nothing whatsoever credible about this article. There are some promotional contents in the article. For me, it doesnt meet WP:GNG, and such, I may decline in an AFC review. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It looks like there are some decent references and he has over 2 million subscribers, but I think cleanup is needed to solidify notability here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Internet, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmymade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable article that doesnt meet WP:ENT. Sometimes celebrities may appear in trivial mentions, which doesnt mean they meet WP:SIRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism. BD2412 T 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Internet, Japan, California, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, and Internet. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama Style Icons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Politics, Business, Fashion, Sports, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bollywood Hungama. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no independent and reliable sources for the event itself on the web, Google News, Google Books, Yandex etc. Since there is a lack of independent, reliable sources with SIGCOV, the article fails WP:GNG and the supplementary essay WP:NAWARDS. However, a redirect could be made to Bollywood Hungama and a brief mention could be added there for the award. The Night Watch (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete orDraftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey WelchtoHawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach BryanorShaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Read the article.

  "Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

  She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (ordraftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff(talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizzorgyatt XanderK09 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like "your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Achievers Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Madeforall1 speedy keep only applies in certain situations listed at WP:SKCRIT, none of which apply. If there are additional sources with WP:SIGCOV please consider expanding the article with them to facilitate analysis by other editors, it is not a requirement but definitely helps, thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:199B:E3C0:2FAB:D007 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. C F A 💬 04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Sources primarily covering the nominees and recipients do not offer WP:SIGCOV of the award itself which is necessary to meet GNG. Just because certain people have received the award does not mean it is automatically eligible for its own article. I'd support a redirect but I can't find a suitable target article. C F A 💬 04:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see notable and reliable references about the award, All seams to be organic, The article has a significant in-depth coverage about the event, nominations and the winner, meet WP:GNG Feellingfly (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Feellingfly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The article having significant coverage of the event means nothing for notability. What matters is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. An article could be 20 000 words long and cover everything about the topic and still not be notable. C F A 💬 23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [1] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.