Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

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 redirect to Nonbinary gender#Definitions and identity. If there are details from this page that editors want to add to the target article, the history is available. RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bigender[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:GNG, WP:CFORK, and WP:MEDRS.

WP:GNG is not met because there are not multiple reliable, secondary sources giving significant coverage to the topic. My own search for sources bears this out. Sources are all trivial coverage, being WP:DICDEFs at best, or are self-published sources (WP:SPS).

Reliable sources also do not treat this as a distinct topic from Non-binary gender and often simply name-drop the term (along with a quick definition) along other terms for non-binary gender. Thus, this article is a content fork (WP:CFORK) of Non-binary gender.

Gender identity and transgender (including non-binary) health are medical topics; yet no sources exist that meet WP:MEDRS that discuss this as a distinct topic. Compare the 182 PubMed results for non-binary with the 3 for bigender. Of those 3, the first two do not meet GNG, let alone MEDRS; the 3rd is setting out an untested hypothesis in a hypothesis journal and so is clearly unacceptable under MEDRS.

Here is an analysis of the sources currently in the article:

Name-drop, survey result which doesn't distinguish from cross-dressing
Name-drop, part of non-binary topic
Dicdef, survey result from an outlier survey which found an overall prevalence of being transgender at least an order of magnitude higher than other surveys (see Transgender#North America)
Dicdef
Dicdef, part of non-binary topic
Dicdef, part of non-binary topic
Dicdef, part of non-binary topic
Dicdef, part of non-binary topic
Name-drop
Name-drop, primary source
Name-drop, part of non-binary topic
Name-drop, opinion piece
Name-drop, part of non-binary topic
Name-drop, part of non-binary and transgender topics, primary source
Name-drop, opinion piece
Name-drop
Name-drop, part of non-binary topic

The first AfD, in 2007, offers no convincing rebuttal against deletion. There are 10 Keep votes and 1 Delete; but 5 of the Keep votes are just WP:ITEXISTS, 1 is just saying it's WP:INTERESTING, 1 is WP:ITEXISTS coupled with links to sources that merely "mention" the term, 1 is based entirely on dead links, and 2 are just "per" votes. Examining the sources put forth, I find 11 that are dead links, one that is just a dicdef, these two which are paywalled, but there is no mention in the title and beginning portion, so probably not significant coverage, one which is just more dicdefs and name-drops, and one which is just a name drop. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – A poster child for a topic that is "notable" in the English sense, but not in the Wikipedia sense of Notability. I’ve looked before, too; and there just isn’t much there; maybe in a few years. No chance of expanding this beyond a stub for the time being. Per WP:NOPAGE this should not be a standalone article. Probably should redirect to Nonbinary gender#Definitions and identity, until someone adds a section about it there. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crossroads. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crossroads et al. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No matter the outcome of this AFD, deleting the page's history is inappropriate and unbeneficial. Whether the content stays in an article of its own or is moved elsewhere is fine by me, but the fact that the nominator repeatedly blanked the page without a consensus on the grounds that it lacked reliable secondary sources, then nominated it for deletion as soon as reliable secondary sources were added, makes me seriously question whether or not this nomination was made in good faith. Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙 14:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crossroads and others. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 24 December 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Arnoux[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:BLPCRIME. It reads as a coatrack or attack page, and I do not think we need it. Guy (help!) 22:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I would be willing to consider this. If it can be proven that any of the sources are reliable and show adequate representation of the subject in reliable sources, I would be happy to reconsider. MPS1992 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .. The journalistic sources seem reliable enough, but without the criminal allegations there would be nothing notable. Since it's still in court, then per WP:BLPCRIME it should be deleted. FrankP (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being investigated for fraud is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME Apart from basic biographical details, most of the article concerns allegations which are as yet unproven. Neiltonks (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be added again if new info arrives.BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPCRIME and NOTNEWSPAPER Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .. The journalistic sources seem reliable enough, but without the criminal allegations there would be nothing notable. WP:BLPCRIME it should be deleted. JeanDeLaRomandi (talk) 23:22, 23 December 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 speedy delete. Image used in article was uploaded by an already-tagged sockpuppet of blocked User:Qualitee123. Clearly a case of WP:CSD#G5. ~ mazca ^talk 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Street (street in Leicester)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Unremarkable residential street with no claim to fame and few usable sources. Sounder Bruce 21:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable street locally. Believed to be one of if not the only cobbled road left of its kind locally and possibly far and wide. Has featured in the news etc and more sources will be out there somewhere. Created as a stub as it’s a work in progress. sources. User:Stoneh18 21:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the only cobbled street in a city hardly enough for WP:NOTE. Is there anything else this particular street is famous for? castorbailey (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 21:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 21:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable road. Lack of independent sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Created by likely sock of User:Qualitee123 under circumvention of block. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:18, 18 December 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in Fawlty Towers[edit]

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

A list of one-time characters, fails WP:NOT#PLOT and redundant to Fawlty Towers#Episodes, where the plot and the guest stars are covered. There is precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters that such lists are nonnotable. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. No example of other series having similar pages castorbailey (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appropriately enough, these guests are unwelcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed. If somebody really wants guest stars to be spoken about on this wiki, maybe we could write a paragraph on the Fawlty Towers page saying something along the lines of "There have been several guests on the show, such as..." Foxnpichu (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guest characters are the definiton of not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ogilvy[edit]

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

Non notable author and journalist who has no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE shows subject of article isn’t notable at least not now. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No objections or other input after two relists, so treating like an expired WP:PROD. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aikat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Coverage that might meet WP:GNG is based on the Telegraph India article, which I do not think is independent and the prabhatkhabar.com article (for the latter, I have not registered and I cannot read Hindi). The remainder of the sources are either dead links or are blogs.

The Ford campaign doesn't help establish notability - people 'participated in huge numbers' because 'gratification of Rs 1 lakh also acted as a bait for the people across the social media platforms to participate in the campaign.'

The Padma Shri nomination doesn't help establish notability - anyone can nominate anyone. I can't see that Aikat comes even close to the selection criteria which call for 'distinguished and exceptional achievements/service' and 'a lifetime of achievement'.

The creator of the biography has been blocked as a sock. I believe the article is simply promo. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:09, 18 December 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 Zalaki. Please feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zalki[edit]

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

This article seems to be similar to Zalaki. The places Zalki and Zalaki which are mentioned in respective articles belong to Karnataka. Abishe (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zalaki. I agree they’re pretty certainly the same place. Mccapra (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could this be merged with and redirected to Bijapur district? Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zalaki, though an additional spelling appears to be Jhalki. Will have to research WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now WP:GEOLAND criteria Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per User:Mccapra. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Davidson[edit]

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

Many problems with this article, including almost no notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Out of the references used, the only headlines that she is mentioned in is the university of denver magazine and a student magazine from the university of denver (duclarion). It seems she attended the university of denver at the time of publication. This is obviously very insignificant coverage. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a person does not need to be named in the headline for significant coverage, which this person has: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For example, in the Time article, Davidson is quoted three times; similar material is in several of the other reliable sources. There are certainly things I'd edit in the article, but AfD is not for fixing such trifles.Bearian (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted can't increase ~~his~~ her notability - it would be inherently non-independent, unless there's actually accompanying content about the individual directly. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her* Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - you get your name in a newspaper and you get a wikipedia article? No way. I think myself and every person i know has got their name into a 'reliable source' at some point in their lives. WP: GNG stipulates that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". The time magazine article isn't even about her, nor does it address her in detail. This should be a snowball delete, i dont even see how it's an edge case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an easy delete, there are no sources in the world (that i know of) that address the individual "directly and in detail"...Except for the university of denver magazine and the university of denver student magazine...and as she attended the university of denver, that's kind of insignificant (school magazines write about their students all of the time). Perhaps the organization she represents deserves a page, but the case for her having her own page is very thin. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An easy call. There's no significant coverage of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 20:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She has passing mention in several high quality RS's, but is only given direct coverage in a couple university rags. Not quite sure that cuts mustard. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only coverage is by university publications o fher own university. Such publications are usually indiscriminate, and therefore not RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Red[edit]

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

Non notable DJ & radio personality who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've tagged this with G11. Seems unambiguously promotional to me. It was inappropriately created in mainspace by a paid editor after a previous version was draftified. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the Speedy Delete tag, since this was already listed at AFD and should go through the process here. These are two different processes. AFD is a discussion and consensus. Speedy Delete does not allow for discussion. WP:PAID is allowed at Wikipedia if proper disclosure is posted on the editor's user page.. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page has an odd history - it was initially tagged for A7 and G11 by another user, then the nom sent it to AfD one minute after the CSD tagging, presumably not having seen the tags - then the author blanked the page, so the CSD tagger removed their tags, and then someone restored the article because it was at AfD. I think the initial CSD tagging was correct and it was only removed because of a technicality. However, if it would be better for this to go through AfD then that's fine. (And while paid editing is allowed, paid editors are instructed to submit drafts through AfC and not create articles directly in mainspace, per WP:Conflict of interest#Paid editing). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SpicyMilkBoy & Maile66 sigh, it was silly me tbh. Lapablo correctly placed a speedy delete tag on the page (which it very well qualifies for) at the exact same time I opened an AFD for it. Both actions occurred simultaneously. Sorry for the mix up & all. In the end it is a promotional piece for a non notable subject.Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of actions that need to be cleared up here. Apparently @Lapablo: moved the article to Draft:Jeremiah Red without leaving a redirect, so there are two versions. Then @Justlettersandnumbers: blocked @Runawaytonight:, so the author is not able to reply here, but has filed an appeal for unblock. A whole lot of people got involved in this, before any one part of it ran its course. Perhaps the first step should be to see how the unblock appeal plays out. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i had moved the article to Draftspace and issued a notice on the authors talk page but minutes later the same copy of the article was republished by the author in mainspace. When i had found out that it was recreated i tagged it with CSD G11 at the same time an editor also took it to AFD hence i had to withdraw the speedy tag. 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Lapablo (talk)
Comment. Yes, Maile66, I blocked the editor for the combination of promotional editing with a promotional username implying shared use – which includes several years of undisclosed paid contributions (the editor claims to be "a boutique creative service company catered to various brands in the nightlife industry"). I see no reason to believe that this page is not more of the same, although no disclosure has been made, and thus a violation of our Terms of Use. Note: I've had to remove a good deal of the content from it, as it was copied directly from the sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 19 December 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) 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Fortune[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Has none of the 3 top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. His biggest wrestling accomplishment was being a division 2 champion, but that doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is primarily the usual coverage of a pro fighters--results and promoting an upcoming fight. The only unusual coverage is the article on him being pronounced dead when he tried to cut too much weight too fast in college, but I don't think that's enough to meet the GNG. The only thing that's changed since the article was previously deleted was that he's won more Bellator fights, but that doesn't meet any notability standards. Sandals1 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:36, 18 December 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) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Costello van Steenis[edit]

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

He has none of the three top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage does not seem to meet the GNG--it's fight results or promoting an upcoming fight. Sandals1 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subjecet fails WP:MMABIO and sources are routine fight reports thus fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oberservation seems wrong, there is a Vice articile dedicated to it. I also found this article, seems enough to pass GNG. Dwaro (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you reference is a promotional interview with Fabian Edwards before a fight where he mentions van Steenis as an opponent he'd like to fight. That's a passing mention which doesn't count towards meeting WP:GNG. I don't know if Vice is a reliable source, but even if it is that's one article--which is far short of the multiple sources of significant independent coverage required to show notability. I'll wait to vote to see if more significant coverage is produced. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails the MMA fighter notability criteria at WP:NMMA. My search, admittedly in English, didn't find coverage that I believe is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. I found his name in MMA databases and in fight results, but nothing that would be atypical for any pro MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 04:22, 24 December 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) 23:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaka Miura[edit]

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

Non notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights and WP:NMMA requires 3. Nothing to show she's notable as a judoka to meet WP:MANOTE. Routine sports reporting does not meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails WP:MMABIO as a mixed martial arts fighter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 19 December 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, but I am moving this to Draft:Lyla June Johnston to allow RebeccaGreen the opportunity to engage in proposed improvements. BD2412 T 03:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyla June Johnston[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL & WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG. Johnston is a political candidate and does not hold any other public office. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for free posting of campaign brouchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale given by Johnpacklambert + she clearly fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 15:14 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in political party primaries for offices they have not already held — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And no, the existence of a smattering of local coverage in the campaign context is not an automatic GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, either, because every candidate in every election can always show a bit of local coverage — so a political candidate is not notable for that unless and until her coverage nationalizes to such a degree that her candidacy can be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, which is not what the sources here are showing. And the only other way a candidate gets into Wikipedia is if it can be demonstrated that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, and this article isn't showing that either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform to publicize the campaigns of aspiring politicians — we consider the enduring notability of our article topics, not just their momentary newsiness, and being a candidate in a primary does not pass the ten year test in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is a free PR platform for those who have been elected to certain offices, judging from the countless "biographies" out there completely lacking in any biographical substance whatsoever and the regulars who push content in such a direction. If you spend all your time babbling away in deletion discussions, you won't have any time left to see that for yourself. I find it hilarious that they included a photo while at the same time carefully avoided any mention of her ethnicity, which I would believe to be the first question one would ask upon viewing that photo. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not supposed to amount to campaign brochers. Elected canddiates will have broader sources so we do not have to be reduced to them. I have created hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, so do not accuse me of only seeking to delete articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that not all of our articles about elected politicians are of best-practices quality yet is not, in and of itself, a reason to exempt other people from having to satisfy our notability standards. Believe me, I'm fully aware that we have lots of badly written and badly sourced articles, even about people who do otherwise meet our notability standards — I'm not as naive as you seem to think, trust me — but that's a reason to fix those articles, not a reason to exempt other people from actually having to pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am editing the article and adding some sources, including an article from 2005 about her as a slam poet. It is problematic that this has been created because she is a political candidate, but she has been in the public eye for much longer than that. If this article doesn't get deleted first, I will continue editing it and assess whether she has enough SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, aside from her candidacy. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Stauffer[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur, no coverage and single claim to notability is founding companies with notable people. Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bit in the lead about him being "featured" in various publications is misleading. Coverage I'm seeing is focused on his app, Xpire, not him. Some of the news sources claimed as featuring him don't even mention his name. His other app, Bitzy, has no real independent coverage from what I can tell. Google reveals more trivial stuff of the same nature. Skeletor3000 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that GEOFEAT is met as a listed building that was unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballintoy Parish Church[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Barkeep^Chat 18:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Barkeep^Chat 18:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Barkeep^Chat 18:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Barkeep^Chat 18:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GEOFEAT as a Grade-B+ listed building.[1] -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nationally listed buildings are usually kept and this passes WP:GEOFEAT, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a listed building, WP:GEOFEAT would appear to be met. However, that the content appears to be entirely copyvio'ed from one of the sources is something that needs addressing. If kept. Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 22 December 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. Subject meets core GNG with SIGCOV in several material RS. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Milani[edit]

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

Delete - fails all notabliity requirements. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES, simply running in an election does not result in notability, regardless of who one's main opponent is. Mr Milani was not elected as an MP. Although he is a local borough councillor, this level of politics is too low level for notability. As per WP:POLITICIAN, a politician must be at least of a subnational (province/state-wide) level to warrant notability. Mr Milani is not a member of the London Assembly (which is county-wide), so fails notability on these grounds too. His only other position of authority - VP of student development at the NUS - is again low-level. Were he NUS president, that would be different, but this position just doesn't seem notable enough for an article. FirefoxLSD (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: passes WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE easily. See Al Jazeera, CNN, The Guardian, Jewish Chronicle 1, Jewish Chronicle 2, New Statesman, Quartz, Times, Vice etc. in addition to other sources providing non-trivial but not full-length article coverage. WP:NPOL is an additional way (to GNG) that someone can meet notability, not a requirement; WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 18 December 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. Tone 09:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Guards (USA)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations or the general notability guideline. The article has one reliable source that discusses the group in depth; the others are variously primary sources, unreliable sources, or contain only passing mentions or no mentions at all. I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. (Previously prodded and deprodded.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sort of organisation it is there are enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization does meet the notability guideline for organisations.

The organization also includes its various fronts, and as such, an assessment of the organization's notability includes the notability of its fronts. Some of these fronts include, but are not limited to:

- The now-defunct Revolutionary Student Front, confirmed as a Red Guards front in a primary source, covered here, here, and here.

- Anti-gentrification organizations, among them Defend Our Hoodz and Defend Boyle Heights, covered here, here, here, and here.

The organization meets the alternative criteria for non-commercial organizations in that: 1) the scope of activities is national in scale and 2) as demonstrated above, the organization's activities have been subject to substantial coverage by reliable independent sources outside the area of its local units, and 3) the article is not a simple collection of indiscriminate information.
The implication that Incendiary News, Redspark, and Tjen Folket are unreliable sources does not constitute an argument for deletion. Moreover, if upon elaboration the claim is that they are unreliable because they are biased, this claim must be justified and may nonetheless not necessarily imply unreliability.
That the other sources than the one mentioned in the initial argument "contain only passing mentions or no mentions at all" does not seem to be supported by the content of the sources cited; the articles contain in-depth coverage of the events concerning the organization, and that the articles do not narrowly focus exclusively on the organization itself, but rather its activities does not constitute an argument for deletion.AndersLeo (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good job by User:AndersLeo. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 24 December 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. ..... But prune it or the next discussion might well conclude its not maintainable Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of books critical of Christianity[edit]

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

Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. Some of these books are notable and have their own articles. Most of them are not. There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list. ... discospinster _talk 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not delete a list that has valid entries -- that would be content discrimination. If you want to challenge a specific item, then explain your reasons. A blanket claim that one or more unspecified titles is 'not notable' is a poor reason for saying the article itself is unworthy. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all items that do not have a wikipedia article. --Bduke (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" from WP:LISTN, also nominator states "There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list." and yet the lead sentence states "This is a bibliography of literature treating the topic of criticism of Christianity, ...".
- Comment: the entirety of the sentence you quoted is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." I believe that is more relevant to topics like List of mayors of Yerevan or something like that. Mayors of Yerevan are notable, even if each individual mayor does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is a clear scope. Lists of books about (whatever topic) could go on forever and include pretty much anything that anybody writes. If there is no limitation to, e.g., books that already have articles, then it is an indiscriminate list. The same function (of grouping articles of books critical of (whatever)) could be achieved with a category. ... discospinster _talk 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but remove any entry that doesn't have a Wikipedia article for the writer or the book. Rename to be List of of books critical of Christianity. Dream Focus 18:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not formally voting on this because I hold a personal POV against the subject. Nevertheless, this list is an unclassified hotchpotch of works. It would be much better if classified according to the nature of the criticism. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and prune – books critical of Christianity is a notable topic, and many books critical of the religion are notable too. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of all books; the bars of notability we already have set topics that deserve recognition from random ones. Pruning the article of non-notable books avoids the status of this list as an indiscriminate catalog. The name "bibliography" implies that this list is some sort of indiscriminate catalog, so it should be renamed to "List of books..." as discospinster said. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and trim a little. There is no need to limit it to those with a separate encyclopedia article. A list is , in fact, a good substitute for such separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 26 December 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. And trim Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of books critical of Islam[edit]

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

Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. Some of these books are notable and have their own articles. Most of them are not. There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Support deletion on the grounds stated above. benjamil ^talk/_edits 18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all items that do not have a wikipedia article. --Bduke (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list is aggressive towards a particular civilization. The revealer ^talk 13:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that's not really relevant and not why I nominated it. ... discospinster _talk 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" from WP:LISTN, also nominator states "There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list." and yet the lead sentence states "This is a bibliography of literature treating the topic of criticism of Islam, ...". Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the entirety of the sentence you quoted is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." I believe that is more relevant to topics like List of mayors of Yerevan or something like that. Mayors of Yerevan are notable, even if each individual mayor does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is a clear scope. Lists of books about (whatever topic) could go on forever and include pretty much anything that anybody writes. If there is no limitation to, e.g., books that already have articles, then it is an indiscriminate list. The same function (of grouping articles of books critical of (whatever)) could be achieved with a category. ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticism of Islam is a real thing. Nothing should be on the list unless the writer or the book have their own Wikipedia article though. Rename it List of books critical of Islam. Dream Focus 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you plan to do to books by authors who are Counterjihad-linked, far-right or unreliable? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, one could answer that 5 (five) books by Counterjihad-linked authors are listed in Criticism of Islam#Further reading. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you plan to do to books which are not about islam but about Eurabia, such Det mørke nettet and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and cleanup as suggested by User:Dream Focus. This is an important list that should not turn into an indiscrimate list. gidonb (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was titled Bibliography of Eurabia before being hijacked in March 2015‎. Now it is an awfull mix of reliable and unreliable sources, sources about islam and sources about the Eurabia conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée, User:Dream Focus had an awesome cleanup proposal! gidonb (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Dream Focus's proposal answer to my comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC) but I will look at it and ask a few questions. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This solution, as I see it, rids the books that are truly marginal. It does not dump books that individual contributors happen to dislike, be the arguments compelling as they may. There's no end to the back and forth in the latter case. To keep contentious articles managable we need simple rules that do the job. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and trim a little. There is no need to limit it to those with a separate encyclopedia article. A list is , in fact, a good substitute for such separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 26 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hashmi[edit]

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

Non-notable film maker and actor. Has done a few short films. No in-depth coverage in the news. Nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 17:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 17:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 17:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I belief that Wikipedia articles is for the notable works, personalities and works etc. Instead of famous personals only. The submitted article is about I read in the book, talks and newspapers manly. The FITINDIA comment "Non-notable film maker and actor. Has done a few short films." is not argued well about the article as mentionned already that the filmmaker has got a Nation film award by Govt. of India in a national stage. His non-film work of Social Initiative are even not yet added as in Chhattisgarh we use to read about the person almost in an week in newspapers. I strongly belief that I put my point of expression on it, it's not to concerned into deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darpanashukla (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Darpanashukla (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
Agree with Darpanashukla. Need for more voting but its not a "non eligible" or not a notable filmmaker. The guy who have a national film award by the Vice-President of India how does he is not a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meercare (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Meercare (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Darpanashukla (talk • contribs). [reply]
delete no matter what criteria you apply, the subject still fails it. This guy was not notable 9 years ago, and still isnt. Also, I am getting a doubt of COI and/or UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:44, 20 December 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) 23:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of televised Notre Dame Fighting Irish football home games prior to 1991[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, too specific of a topic to warrant an article and borders on original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP How can it be "too specific"? And its not original research since the information is easily found. All the games listed have a link to their own articles about them. It is a valid list as it aids in navigation and provides additional information. Dream Focus 20:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. There are so many adjectives to the noun "games" in this topic: "televised" - "Notre Dame" - "football" - "home" - "prior to 1991". Way too precise of a list to warrant inclusion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: You're argument here sounds extremely nitpicky. Outside of deletion, do you have a different and less "precise" way to describe the topic? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BornonJune8:, let me be clearer: per WP:LISTN (the notability guideline that we use to determine if a topic is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia), this topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Thus, it doesn't meet our notability guideline for inclusion as an article on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Pretty simple. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:LISTN to me. The detail of the list seems a little to "granular" for an encyclopedia. Perhaps the article can be re-tooled for Notre Dame Fighting Irish on Television or something like that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:LISTN, and WP:DIRECTORY; per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Hardly a noteworthy topic that certain games are televised. Ajf773 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ajf773: How exactly is it hardly a noteworthy topic? Bare in mind, that there actually was once upon a time that Notre Dame's home games weren't exclusively broadcast by NBC. What is actually noteworthy in on its own, is the idea of a single television network having exclusive rights to a college football program's home games. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing LISTN, and specifically the idea that notable list articles have "been discussed as a group or set". The sources are all about NBC buying the rights in '91, indicating that the real notable topic is the ND-NBC relationship, which already has an article. Also fails the spirit of WP:DIRECTORY. This is too specific to be notable, and only the last sentence of the lede would be worth keeping and merging into the ND-NBC article. Nole (chat·edits) 20:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nolelover: While the article does ultimately revolve back to NBC's relationship with Notre Dame, it also when you go much further talks about CBS and ABC's (and ESPN for that matter) coverage of college football, since they were the principal network broadcasters of Notre Dame's games prior to 1991. The point is that you can't talk about one thing without bringing up the other. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BornonJune8:If you can't talk about one without the other, then why not talk about it in the post-1991 ND-NBC article? The issue is that you're making a very strong argument that the NBC relationship is notable, but not an argument that this list is notable. Notice how above where you say to Ajf that "What is actually noteworthy...is the idea of a single television network having exclusive rights", you're effectively making the argument that we're all making ... in favor of deleting this article. This topic--not ND on tv, or the NBC relationship after 1991--needs to be notable enough for its own list per LISTN, and that's why a number of us have voted delete. Nole (chat·edits) 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nolelover: If that's the case, then why aren't you arguing to merge the articles instead of all out deleting this particular one? Or make a suggestion that somebody else made and instead create a broad-scaling, all-in-one article about Notre Dame's history on television. And what I'm trying to get across is while NBC may have had exclusive broadcasting rights to ND's home games since, 1991, there was once upon a time, when that wasn't the case. Of course, NBC's relationship with ND is notable (with or without my input), hence why there's a separate article on their broadcasts. The list within itself, also reflects on how college football on television has gradually evolved. Take for instance, the 1984 court ruling pretty much allowed individual schools and athletic conferences were freed to negotiate contracts on their own behalf. It's doubtful or debatable that without that ruling, any of this would've really or ultimately happened. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @BornonJune8: I did think about merging though. Look at the last sentence of my original comment: "...only the last sentence of the lede would be worth keeping..." which is a recognition that some of the core topic might be worth saying in another article, but as written, only one sentence is actually worth "merging". The rest of the prose is about the ND-NBC relationship, which already has an article. None of that needs to be merged into an article that is about the same topic but is many many times longer. As currently written, I don't think we're losing anything by deleting. Nole (chat·edits) 14:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nolelover: I don't think that making an article that describes Notre Dame home games on television prior to 1991 isn't that much different than an article about the National Football League holding games on Monday nights prior to 1970. Are you saying that that particular list isn't notable on it's own since ABC would eventually turn the concept of Monday night NFL games into a series? BornonJune8 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @BornonJune8: The fact that WP:Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep this article, and while I haven't looked at that article yet, yes it's very possible that I would vote to delete that article as well if the context is the same as this one here, with no sources discussing that topic set as notable in and of itself. The fact that this monday night format eventually becomes notable is not a reason that the games before the tv deal are also notable. Nole (chat·edits) 14:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I have nominated List of Monday night National Football League games prior to 1970 for deletion (here) for similar reasons here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nolelover: For the record if not sake of the argument, here's how the Notre Dame-NBC deal was initially covered back in February 1990. Keep in mind in the context of how college football on network television was at by 1990, why did was such an earth shattering turn of events: COLLEGE FOOTBALL; Notre Dame Scored a $38 Million Touchdown on Its TV Deal, Notre Dame Jumps Ship, Signs With NBC, Notre Dame Breaks Ranks on TV Football Rights, ANALYSIS : Notre Dame’s Deal Shouldn’t Be a Shock, NOTRE DAME DEAL WITH NBC STIRS FUROR, ABC, CFA ALTER TV DEAL IN LIGHT OF NBC-NOTRE DAME, Notre Dame Sells Football Games to NBC BornonJune8 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1973 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team etc. already denotes the games which aired on TV with the network. An absurdly granular article is not needed just for the cruft of who the announcers were. Reywas92^Talk 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: That's only one article and season though, plus even if it already denotes the games which aired on TV with the network, it doesn't exactly list the announcers to go with it. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BornonJune8: Unfortunately, not everyone has an intense obsession with broadcasters like you do. The broadcast of the game is nowhere near as notable as the game itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Eagles247: You're argument that it might as well be deleted because in your words "not everyone has an intense obsession with broadcasters like you do" is extremely subjective at best. What's not to say that there actually is some people who go through Wikipedia who are inherently curious about how certain college football games (and sporting events in general for that matter) were broadcasts prior to the advent of the internet? And the broadcast of a game goes hand in hand with the game itself mind you. I mean, not everybody that is somehow watching or listening to it can literally go to the game in person. So they have to keep track and tabs of it on television or on the radio. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Eagles247: @Nolelover: Think about it this way, these articles dedicated to the broadcasts of sporting events such as college football during a particular time frame are at the end of the day, really no different than articles that list the episodes and seasons for scripted television programs. What I'm trying to get across is that these broadcasts are in essence, like episodes of said sporting program. The game results go hand in hand with the broadcasts, since they're detailing the "plot" (if you want to call it that) of said "episodes". BornonJune8 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @BornonJune8: I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, so I'll respond to that and this will likely be my last reply unless other points come up, as we're talking in circles. If these games are like episodes of a tv program, then you still need to prove that the program is notable. I agree with you that the tv program after 1991 is notable. I do not believe that the "program" before 1991 is notable enough for its own article or list given the current sourcing. I also believe that the best place for this topic is in the history section of the ND-NBC article. If you can find sources with significant discussion of ND's pre-1991 television status--not just passing mentions of which network they were shown on--then that's an argument that the list is notable. If not, you are not making arguments that will change anyone's vote. Lots of people are curious about topics that do not belong on Wikipedia--we have entire policies about that. Nole (chat·edits) 02:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nolelover: Well for starters, this article mentions the DuMont network picking up Notre Dame's games in 1950. This article brings up the fact that CBS televised a lot of Notre Dame's home games (including the 1988 match-up against Miami) prior to the 1991 NBC contract. Here's another article that mentions Notre Dame football on TV in the 1980s This article mentions that ABC provided a broadcast of the Iowa-Notre Dame game in 1949 on the same day of the annual Ohio-State Michigan match-up. This book mentions how in 1986, CBS and ESPN signed a deal to air their games on their respective networks. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Nolelover:, @Eagles247:, @Gonzo fan2007: More information on Notre Dame football on the old DuMont network: Onward to Victory: The Creation of Modern College Sports, Mr. Notre Dame: The Life and Legend of Edward Moose Krause, Season of Saturdays: A History of College Football in 14 Games, CFB150 – TV Turns College Football Into a National Phenomenon, WBKB Part II - Chicago Television, The Impact of Television on Georgia, 1948-1952 BornonJune8 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        There are some helpful sources in here and I've been working to integrate some of these into the exising ND articles, although that does not change my vote for this specific list. Nole (chat·edits) 05:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weather something was televised or not is not important enough to generate a whole list article on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: There are a dozen of articles on Wikipedia that all but center on list of events (not necessarily just college football or sporting events in general) that were "televised". So I don't understand exactly, in what context you mean: List of televised academic student quiz programs, Lists of television programs, List of Mariah Carey live performances, List of games televised on ESPN Saturday Primetime, List of Christmas television episodes and specials in the United Kingdom, List of non-televised Seventh Doctor stories, List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events BornonJune8 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Johnpacklambert: Furthermore, not that this is an absolute justification of the existence of this particular list, but keep in mind that listing certain televised events on Wikipedia depends on the amount of available reference material, and the suitability for a general encyclopedia of the subject matter. In a nutshell, some things which were not televised will be included, and some which were televised won’t be; that’s more or less irrelevant. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:37, 25 December 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. Tone 09:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hunny Mor[edit]

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

Only claim of notability is coordinated the building of tallest water tank mural in India. Listed sources have only passing mentions. Subject does not meet WP:ARTIST. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stunt artisty to get in a record book is not the path to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 22 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Singh (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as president of a university student union. (In India, naturellement.) As always, this is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a person a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the article is not showing or sourcing a credible reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm -- not all of the sources here are about him at all, as some just glancingly mention his name in the process of being primarily about other things or people, and the few that are genuinely about him don't add up to enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL on a more notable political role. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nominator's analysis of sourcing with respect to notability and my own searches turn up only more sources about the DSU election incident with the subject being mentioned but with no substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student union presidents are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 22 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seesan Selvan[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD deletion. BlameRuiner (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - play for state-level team, does not pass NFOOTBALL, and sources are inadequate for GNG. Hug^syrup 17:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 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. BD2412 T 05:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee[edit]

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

After the completion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee, BornonJune8 created this article. I immediately removed the portion of the new article that was copied and pasted from the now deleted List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee (see diff).

Regarding the topic at hand, the Green Bay Packers played a few home games in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 60 years, primarily due to the fact that Green Bay, Wisconsin is a small market for an NFL team. Milwaukee provided a larger stadium and the ability to reach more people. However, after Lambeau Field was expanded in the 1990s, the need for Milwaukee games decreased, with all home games moving back to Lambeau Field in 1994. The team still draws a large number of fans and market share from the Milwaukee area.

I do not believe that the notability of the topic meets our WP:GNG, specifically lacking significant coverage about the specific topic as a whole (obviously a lot of sources mention or even discuss the fact that the Packers played in Milwaukee). Even if there is some notability about this subject, this information is already contained within numerous articles, none of which has become so big to necessitate a WP:CONTENTFORK into a new article. Further reinforcing this fact, BornonJune8, per their edit summary creating this article, copied text from Borchert Field, List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, Milwaukee Badgers, List of Green Bay Packers broadcasters, Sports in Milwaukee, Packers Radio Network, Milwaukee Mile, Marquette Stadium, and Milwaukee County Stadium.

Information about the Packers' time in Milwaukee should be properly covered in the following articles: History of the Green Bay Packers, List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, and Green Bay Packers, among a few others. A content fork on this topic is too specific to be justified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my !vote at the broadcaster AfD, I believe that this topic could be notable and I would like to give the article creator more than just one day to construct an article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, the article (and topic for that matter) can be summed up in a few sentences (see the 2nd paragraph of my nom). The article as it stands is primarily propped up my the List of stadiums section, which is sufficiently covered by List of Green Bay Packers stadiums. We don't need to duplicate a bunch of information to prop up a minor topic. There just isn't enough content to fill an article without significant fluff, and the relevant content can be covered sufficiently and more succinctly in other articles. Regarding time, this was primarily based on the immediate creation after the previous WP:AFD. Longer page curation can be taken in the draftspace. And AFD doesn't judge the current state of the article (which is obviously poor), it judges its merits for inclusion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I wrote up a more succinct encyclopedic article on the proposed subject: User:Gonzo fan2007/MIL. It seems like a nice enough stub, however almost all of this was merely pulled from List of Green Bay Packers stadiums and Lambeau Field. These other articles either cover the topic already, or are more appropriate for this topic and should be expanded accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... ish A team playing home games away from their own home field for this long seems like a notable subject. The citations are plentiful, but, it could really benefit from some non-Milwaukee perspective. Can any material be found from somewhere non-local that isn't just a coverage of the games themselves? Surely ESPN or SI must have done a write-up about the Packers in Milwaukee at one time. ValarianB (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to badger the keeps, but ValarianB note that almost all of the citations in the article don't actually cover the topic significantly. They are either game recaps or stories that have passing mentions of the Packers' time in Milwaukee. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did note that, yes, but there are two citations that note the 1994 departure and do a little recap of the history. Scant, but it's there. Consider my "vote" as a 50.1% in favor of keeping at the moment, it may get revised if things develop. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB:, @Gonzo fan2007: Oh, there's actually a pretty healthy amount of articles about the Packers' time in Milwaukee: On This Date in Sports December 18, 1994: Milwaukee Packers, Today In Brewer History: County Stadium's Last Packers Game, Jerry Kramer Talks About the Packers Playing at Milwaukee County Stadium, Green Bay 101: Where Do the Packers Play?, '82 strike made County Stadium Packers' home field, VIDEO :: Packers at 100 - The Team's Top 3 Milwaukee Moments, Packers Games At County Stadium | Notable Green Bay Games In Milwaukee, The 1994 Green Bay Packers (9-7) - PackersHistory.net, 2019 marks the 25th anniversary of the Packers leaving Milwaukee County Stadium, The Packers/Brewers Connection, The Road to the Ice Bowl Went Through Milwaukee: The 1967 Packers-Rams Western Conference Title Game at County Stadium. Also, I believe that you're (@Gonzo fan2007:) really jumping to conclusions by immediately removing the section on the television broadcasters for the Milwaukee Packers games. Just because that particular list was viewed as not notable enough for its own separate article doesn't mean that they still can't be relevant (in a broader sense) somehow elsewhere. If anything, they go hand in hand with the list on Green Bay Packers broadcasters. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First ref is Barstool Sports, which is certainly not a reliable source. Second ref got it's information from Wikipedia, so fails WP:CIRCULAR. Third ref is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. Fourth reference appears to be a blog. Seventh is a blog. Eighth appears to be a fan site of some sort. Tenth one is a post from an SBNation site from back when they were mainly user-generated content only. The rest seem to at least be from reliable sources, but I'd have to look into them further to see if they help this article pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: A section on broadcasters of Green Bay Packers games in Milwaukee is no different than a section on broadcasters in the article for the Bills Toronto Series or the Playoff Bowl. It may be too narrow or a subject for an individual article, but it's still essential to it's history when you get right down to it. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that in the case of Bills Toronto Series, you added the broadcaster info to the table. And your other example, Playoff Bowl, is a branded one-game-a-season series event like the Super Bowl (Bills Toronto Series was too) and nothing like the Packers splitting their home games between two cities. Who broadcasted the Playoff Bowl may be relevant, similar to who got to broadcast the Super Bowl. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I don't think that complaining about me adding the broadcaster information for the Bills Toronto Series is valid because not everybody has information about specific subjects readily available to them. For example, you can find broadcaster information on NFL games on this website. Who broadcast these special events should be as important or significant as the results themselves. You seem to suggest that there's proof that the broadcaster information isn't relevant or necessary since nobody bothered to add it to the tables until recently. Would it have honestly bothered you less if somebody else, with absolutely nothing to do with this particular discussion added the broadcaster information instead? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Just flat out laying out that the Packers played a portion of their home games a year in Milwaukee is way more direct than having to go from a bunch of different directions to get information. That would be like saying that there shouldn't be an independent article for instance, on the Buffalo Bills' home games in Toronto since, we should already know that Toronto is a part of the Bills' market and fan base. It's too presumptuous to assume that everybody should immediately or already know full well about the Packers' stint in Milwaukee. Don't think or look at this as a die-hard fan who is already "in the know". BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that it isn't notable or relevant. It should just be a section of an already existing article: List of Green Bay Packers stadiums. That makes the most sense. It can then be mentioned in other relevant articles as needed. But it's home should be List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, which is an article whose scope specifically discusses the various stadiums the Packers played in throughout their history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: It's a tad ironic that you're arguing that an article like this should be deleted, when in your opening paragraph, you gave a brief summary about the Packers' time playing in Milwaukee. Again, the articles that you suggested us to go (for why there's no need for an individual article) don't directly or squarely focus on the Packers' time in Milwaukee (but something broader in scope like virtually, their entire history). Also, the Packers didn't just play in a single venue in Milwaukee and the article that you directed me to is just a list and not an actual, in-detail summary. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every single possible topic doesn't necessarily warrant an article. Just because something happened, doesn't mean an article should be created on it. What I am arguing is that the topic doesn't meet our notability guidelines and is already covered by an existing article: List of Green Bay Packers stadiums. It is why we don't have articles like Green Bay Packers home games at Marquette Stadium. Sure it happened, and sure there are sources about it, but the topic is way too specific and is already covered by articles with broader topics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: You're really reaching here and using an apples and oranges argument. There's a difference between an article on the Packers playing in a singular venue like Marquette Stadium (which may have only been for a few or handful of years) and to an article that chronicles their over 40 year stint in Milwaukee. Sure, the Packers did play at Marquette Stadium, but it wasn't the only Milwaukee venue that they played there. And what's not to say that an article on the Packers' home games in Milwaukee isn't warranted? The list of Packers stadiums doesn't go into issues like game results, seating amenities, playing conditions, ticket sales, etc. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: The section about the broadcasters is supplemental information if you want to call it that. Think about it this way, wouldn't someone actually be curious about who actually broadcast the final Green Bay Packers home game in Milwaukee (Joe Buck and Tim Green on Fox in 1994). And dare I suggest that the Milwaukee games are in their own sense, "special events" just like the Buffalo Bills games in Toronto or the Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions playing on Thanksgiving. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with ample reliable third party sources. Agree the article needs to be edited, but AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald, curious as to whether you would support the merger of this article into List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, instead of deletion? Or do you think that this article and the stadiums article are different enough to justify two separate articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The time of the packers playing in Milwaukee is considered significant and I believe worthy of its own article. If it should be merged to another semi-related article would be a merger discussion that I think would be best handled outside the scope of this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as a concept, per all above. It should probably be renamed to History of the Green Bay Packers in Milwaukee, or something like that, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: You come across sounding like you're tooting your own personal horn when you bring up the argument that there's no need for an article like this since you already contributed heavily to an separate article on the list of stadiums that the Packers have played in. Again, that's fine on its own, but it doesn't go into other areas of interest like the exact dates each season and the teams that they played against in Milwaukee. Bare in mind, that you're all but required in Wikipedia to add in the Edit summary Attribution: content in this section was copied... to indicate when you forked the content from elsewhere on Wikipedia. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with RSs. Noteworthy topic and an article that serves our readers. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 19 December 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 speedy delete. G5 and G11 – bradv🍁 16:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Abdullah Mehmood[edit]

well after a deep research i have witnessed that this child actually run those businesses . Do a research on those names , On Instagram it can be seen that he owns them. 2 of the business are only on instagram with over 200k audience of the business pages

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

This article appears to be largely a hoax promoting a 17 year old social media influencer. Many of the reference links are broken. Several others refer to someone else of the same name who appeared in a movie 8 years ago, when the subject of the article was only 9 years old. Many of the other links are puff pieces with no verifiability, like the Medium piece from an account that's done nothing else claiming he's won a photography competition but giving no details or information about said competition. Several other links to articles on entrepreneurs & such don't mention him at all. Many of the pieces that are valid links and do mention him only date to October of this year and are just short puff mentions, mostly by the same person. Plus the article is in broken English and entirely promotional in tone. All in all it's hard to see that he meets WP:GNG, at the very least this needs a complete re-write and severe scrutiny for claims and links re verifiability. JamesG5 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g5 and salt as it's already salted under Abdullah Mehmood. Praxidicae (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bivins[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer. None of the sources are in depth coverage and nothing else exists that I can find that would support his inclusion in Wikipedia. It's obvious paid editing and PR spam. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone, not encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - most of the article is run of the mill trivia, but if it can be sourced with independent references that he actually did tour the BET college circuit, he might be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and there are a lot of reliable references. Adding more reliable and in-depth coverage articles will be better solution than deletion. According to what Bearian questioned, "Did he tour the BET college circuit", he actually did. I saw references, will share them here if it is good to share here. XenoYar (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give new user chance to find suitable reliable sources to support claim of notability. Otherwise consensus is delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ First of all, the general notability is clear from general search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Secondly, the subject has been part of the notable events, TV shows, and movies like BET, CW network, WorldStar Hip Hop, Coca Cola, The Corner, directed by Charles Dutton, and the HBO series The Wire.

Regarding his presence in the Black College Tour here are some links, [[2]],[[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]].

Also, here are some links that discuss the subject in detail. [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]XenoYar (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XenoYar You may only vote once. Second please see WP:COI and third, none of your sources are independent coverage. Also appearing in the wire as a minor unnnamed character is meaningless, as there were hundreds of extras. Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Struck your bolded text, as you've already left your opinion here with such marking. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:32, 19 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angeli Arora[edit]

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

Article about a lawyer even though apparently having some impressive achievements in the area of law in Africa. There is not enough coverage to really bring her over WP:GNG. The references given in the article and found are biographies from sites she does work for. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG woefully.Celestina007 (talk) 15:14 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete no actual claim to notability. Being "one of the youngest" to do something does not make one notable, and partners in law firms are generally not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 19 December 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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Most Warhammer races are already deleted, redirecting to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, and nothing suggests this piece of fancruft deserves to stay around. Usual failure of GNG/NFICTION/PLOT with nothing but a PRIMARY source (and not even a footnote, just a general reference). The only merit this piece has is an example of the earliest era fancruft on Wikipedia, but that's pretty much about the same value as most stuff in the Wikipedia:BJAODN. Nothing salvageable here, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, which I assume is what the nominator is actually proposing - not deletion? 99.9% of the content in this article could only ever be sourced to Games Workshop publications, and the amount of substantial coverage in independent sources is little to none. Does not pass WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. A mess of fancruft and a how to play guide that fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Yup, more fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above unless some decent sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 25 December 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 Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drukhari[edit]

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

No idea why this is not under Dark Eldar, which would be a more common name, but anyway this is beyond fixing. Nothing here suggests this piece of fancruft deserves to stay around. Usual failure of GNG/NFICTION/PLOT with nothing but a PRIMARY source or two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) (although I'm not sure that article passes WP:GNG either. But for now that's a good target. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some decent sources are identified. I don't think I can really support redirect to Eldar. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). There is material in this article not in the Eldar article, which focuses on playing the game, but don't need two articles. RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 25 December 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. Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Sabbagh[edit]

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

After removing all unreliable sources from the article, there are no sources in this. I did a check for sources online as well, and found no published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalist. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves. RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High Elves (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Most Warhammer races are already deleted, redirecting to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, and nothing suggests this piece of fancruft deserves to stay around. Usual failure of GNG/NFICTION/PLOT with nothing but a PRIMARY source or two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, which I assume is what the nominator is actually proposing - not deletion? 99.9% of the content in this article could only ever be sourced to Games Workshop publications, and the amount of substantial coverage in independent sources is little to none. Does not pass WP:GNG Hug^syrup 17:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy as per Hugsyrup. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless some decent sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 25 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Edwards (footballer)[edit]

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

Danny Edwards never played for Port Vale or appeared in any professional football match. Soccerbase erroneously credits him with the appearance data for Paul Edwards for that season. The BBC report on that "debut" match is also inaccurate, Sky Sports correctly names Paul. Echetus Xe 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Echetus Xe 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails all applicable guidelines. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 European Athletics U18 Championships – Boys' 100 metres[edit]

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

An individual event at an u18 championship doesn't get enough attention to warrant an article. The championship as a whole is notable enough, but not everything that happened there. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event competed in by no-one notable. Fails WP:GNG - no coverage other than routine reports that it happened (a lot happens but most of it, like this, is not notable in Wikipedia terms). Neiltonks (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the nominator point here as I would say this article is notable but the entire championship is though. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 European Athletics U18 Championships. I see no pressing reason why this detail should removed entirely instead of merged to the main article which is less than 25K in size. SFB 17:23, 22 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only a single article other than the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is listed. In my opinion, this page isn't necessary and can easily be replaced with a hatnote on the primary topic's article. Vaporgaze (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. If there's only one alternative to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC a hatnote is the best way to go. Neiltonks (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The hatnote is better.—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hatnote suffices (and I've just added it). PamD 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 04:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 21 December 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlabs[edit]

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

The article can be better merged with Logitech. I don't think there is a need to have a separate article. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable software. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination doesn't seem to be within the scope of AfD. -2pou (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: The original unanimous consensus was to keep, but this article has been relisted twice. Only one editor participated so far, but nobody is interested in deleting this. So let it be.--23mason (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company. In case of doubt, that's the safest course. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AppleOne[edit]

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

Non notable organization that does not qualify for inclusion per WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If ActOne Group survives their AfD and this is deemed not notable, might I suggest redirecting this there? Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the main organization is kept, there is no need to redirect every subsidiary. This is one of the things that Google does quite welll, and not really suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 26 December 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 speedy delete copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wright (percussion tutor)[edit]

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

Non notable percussion tutor who does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's had a successful career but I'm not seeing any particular notability in Wikipedia terms in my searches. In any case, the article is possibly a WP:COPYVIO as it's a very lightly-edited version of this bio on the Royal Northern College of Music website. Neiltonks (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the article for G12 speedy deletion, as the material was largely copied from here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 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) 23:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SFM Corporate Services[edit]

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

Company that offers shell company registration. The sources in the article are mostly self-published, non-reliable or based on interviews and other PR. The only other source I could find is this German Vice article which explains how the process works with the subject as an example but there does not appear to be sufficient significant coverage to pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Regards So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 18 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibife Alufohai[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Winning a non-notable beauty pageant is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Could not find any kind of substantial coverage on the subject. Passing mentions in reputable sources are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the founder of a notable event like Miss Polo International is enough to pass WP:ARCHITECT. Being discussed at length in reliable sources like Leadership Newspaper here and in Dailymail24 here is enough to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BASIC to warrant a standalone article. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a search I feel like subject meets WP:GNG based on the articles cited by User:Nnadigoodluck.Though I couldn't access the leadership.ng source, similar sources provide similar coverage counting towards WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:RS provided by Nnadigoodluck above. Celestina007 (talk) 012:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Smith (headmaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic per WP:TEACHER. This administrator (educationalist?) is not inherently notable for serving as a headmaster for a secondary school. KidAd (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that we have often considered headteachers of major public schools to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC #6, as does Who's Who (in which he features). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not pass any notability criteria. Academic notability guidelines 6 applies to tertiary, not secondary eucation places. Even if it applies to all tertiary places is not clear, but we are not going to apply it to secondary education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with JPL and disagree with Necrothesp here: Academic notability only applies to post-secondary educators and administrators, or to people who become notable for scholarly rather than educational or administrative work. We have kept articles on secondary school headmasters before, particularly ones of important schools, but through WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. So the question should be, is there in-depth coverage of Smith himself, or is it all incidental to coverage of the school? I looked but didn't find enough to convince me, and I'm dubious of the reliability of recent Who's Who publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have merely noted in a comment what AfDs have found in the past. So I don't really see how you can "disagree" with me! The British Who's Who is a notable and reliable publication and is held to be such by both Wikipedia and outside scholarly sources; unlike other similarly titled works it is not a vanity publication, and does not solicit entries or charge for them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable headmaster who fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 24 December 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 Paul Atreides. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muad'Dib[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This mess of an article (it is effectively a List of various things named Muad'Dib (an animal, a person, a religious term) also fails GNG/NFICTION/PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Atreides. Thank you, thank you, I unsuccessfully tried to have this "article" redirected nine years ago on grounds I thought were valid. I'm one of the biggest Dune fans editing Wikipedia and I don't think this "topic" is worthy of it own article.— TAnthony^Talk 05:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Atreides as per TAnthony.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paul Atreides. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section of Dune. One critter from a notable book.--23mason (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Atreides. The mouse and moon formation have zero importance in the series AFAIK (unless there was a post-Frank Herbert addition titled The Mouse on the Dune Moon in June). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Atreides. --causa sui (talk) 07:38, 21 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune Fremen[edit]

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

None of those characters seem to have been subject to any literary analysis. Some of them redirect to articles that have been redirected to List of Dune secondary characters, where this could be merged, but I am not sure if that list is notable either. There is also List of Dune secondary characters. At the very least we don't need three separate lists of Dune characters, one at most should be enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not need to have four different lists of Dune characters. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, more fancruft.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely redundant and unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.— TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 24 December 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 and redirect to Dune (franchise)#Plot arc. RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ix (Dune)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional planet with no evidence of passing GNG. PRIMARY sources, PLOT only content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor planet in the series.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Dune novels only contain one potentially notable planet. The others have not been discussed or studied by journalists or scholars. I have also noticed that there is a significant amount of "Dunecruft" that should be deleted. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (franchise), where this topic is already discussed in the context of the series' anti-technology themes.— TAnthony^Talk 05:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nix to Ix per nom. Frank Herbert didn't set any of the action on the planet as far as I can recall. Apparently, it is only of significance in his son's writings. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune (franchise), per TAnthony. Goustien (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Not sure a redirect is appropriate, since I couldn't find it mentioned in the article suggested (although I did simply skim the article). If a redirect is decided, it should be targeted to the specific section of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I should have been more specific and noted that I would redirect to Dune (franchise)#Plot arc, where this topic is discussed.— TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 24 December 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. Tone 09:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoAlpin[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything besides press releases about this online or in books. Also, while it doesn't have much to do with deletion, there seems to have been some COI editing on the article recently. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 23 December 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 John C. Malone. RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

500-channel universe[edit]

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

Single sentence article, basically just a quote from one person from a long time ago. Reference leads to a website called manta.com, instead of the Advertising Age editorial it's supposed to; the Manta website seems to some kind of Yellow Pages/business listing site. Article has been largely unedited since creation 9 years ago. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't even seem to be a topic. At best, as a second choice, redirect to Cable television. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it is reliably sourced and it is appropriate to have a one sentence inclusion into John Malone page. However, it's obscure enough term that I don't think it merits a redirect. So, my input would be to migrate a sentence + source to that page, then DELETE this page.
Redirect to John C. Malone. I have merged the relevant contents already. Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John C. Malone; there's an external link to it here, and while that's not in of itself a reason to keep this I think there's some value in letting it stay as a redirect and not breaking the link. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPC XL[edit]

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

Software appears to be NN. I am not able to locate the two supposed references in the article or see how in-depth they cover it, nor are they particularly reliable. Further searches for sources turn up only sales links: [10], nothing relevant at all [11], or only brief, trivial mentions [12]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ubald Klug[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I should note that a WP:BEFORE shows subject has been discussed in passing but never in detail nor with in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagor Dagorath[edit]

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

Another minor event from Tolkien verse's Silmarillion, not in movies or such. PRIMARY sources, PLOT only, fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was expecting to find reliable sources that could be used to improve this article. Instead, I only found a few brief mentions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There also seems a lot of OR in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything of worth on this can more than adequately be discussed in an article on the Similrillion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda. Goustien (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 23 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa Rhodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:GNG; was previously deleted and does not seem more notable now. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Take the industry specific blabber out of it and it’s gotta count for something that business publications CNBC and Forbes (did a whole article on her) have pointed out her success. Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough 3rd party, indepdent coverage in reliable publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trillfendi, she seems to have international notability.[14][15][16][17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 is dead

2 is an interview and therefore not independent

3 is also an interview in the context of a lifestyle piece about porn

4 literally says she did an AMA on Reddit and quotes from it. I

None of this is a GNG pass and no other guidelines are met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not straight interviews or straight primary sources disqualifying notability. The journalists in each article synthesizes the information and writes about the person. Journalists from more reputable sources are ethically required to do fact checking and do not just take everything the person says at face value. Sure, the feature may be based on the journalist interviewing the person but there is a reason why they did so. (noticing the person aka notability) Further connection problems is not a disqualifier of a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources presented are insufficient for WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. The links proffered as "sources" above are not much help. There is a piece on Rhodes in an Italian website, caused by and focusing on a marketing gimmick ("the winner can spend a fiery night with her", etc), which brings her as close to WP:BLP1E as one can get; there's a sociologist interviewing Rhodes here, in Uproxx, the article being about the life of a typical porn actress and not Rhodes herself, as is clearly stated ("Today’s up-and-coming porn starlet is a hustler of different proportions...Take for example Jessa Rhodes") - incidentally, the text's not making us very comfortable when it ends with a promotion of its interviewee, i.e. "Visit Jessa Rhodes on Twitter and Instagram at... also buy her charitable T-shirt for Profane Clothing", etc; there's a Forbes report on the 2014 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and AVN Awards show, with our subject name-dropped once; and a small write up in the Russian Lenta.ru about her reddit Q&A session, a typical piece of blather. One has to dig far and wide for sources but, in the end, one comes up with nothing much: The subject is simply not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. May need time to incubate. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Olugbade[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & does not satisfy WP:42. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 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. Tone 09:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Online Blockchain[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Specifically there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The only instance of coverage in a potentially reliable source was run-of-the-mill/routine coverage in a single Bloomberg article of the stock-market price increasing when the name of the company changed. There is coverage in the Daily Express, but per WP:RSP the Daily Express is not considered a reliable source. Whilst the company is listed on AIM, this is not a major stock exchange comparable to NYSE and as such this is not a WP:LISTED case.

Additionally, the article fails WP:PROMO as it is clearly promotional in content and was created by an apparent potential WP:COI account that has primarily edited articles related to Clem Chambers and his companies. There is no point in the edit history that is free of these WP:PROMO issues so WP:TNT applies. FOARP (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting if a firmer consensus than a soft delete can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's difficult to search for such a generic name, but the available sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV even if we ignore the reliability issues. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 18 December 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 no consensus. I appreciate people may have been busy roasting turkeys and peeling sprouts, but I think the discussion has run out of steam. (Like the sprouts). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spindal[edit]

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

To quote an earlier edit by Shhhnotsoloud, "this disambiguation page disambiguates no titles". Everything on the page would normally go under 'See also' as possible misspellings. A search for articles containing 'Spindal' brings up a couple of minor, partial-title mentions. Leschnei (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those rare cases where it actually does makes sense to have a dab page for a misspelling. "Spindal" is a very plausible misspeling for Spindel, Spindle and Spindale. The search engine isn't able to auto-correct in this case, and the standard solution – creating the respective misspelt redirects for each of the three articles – will not work: we can create something like Spindal (surname) and Spindal, North Carolina, but we can't create anything suitable for Spindle as it's a dab page (we can't have Spindal (disambiguation) redirect to it as that page does not disambiguate "Spindal"). There is one article, Biomega (manga), which has a paragraph about a fictional character named "Kahdal Spindal" and that may be added to the dab page (though in my opinion that does not constitute substantial content worth including); the only other mention of "Spindal" is at Azad Zal, and that's almost certainly a typo for "spindle". – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf it was a plausible misspelling for one word, no-one would query a redirect. Because it's a plausible misspelling for three words, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 12:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This disambiguation page disambiguates no articles that could be called "Spindal". (My previous speedy delete nomination was reverted). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: we need not accommodate every possible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fold, spindal and mutilate per nom. No such animal, and the number of possible misspellings of all article titles is enormous. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still warranting some discussion for this fairly edge case, given the near-balance (as Uanfala's reads as a Keep !vote)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see how people who might get to this topic and having a good redirect is helpful. Keep in mind that we have WP:NOTPAPER, so there's no need to delete a useful disambiguation page just because we don't have other useful disambiguation pages. Michepman (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except a disambiguation page with zero legitimate entries is not a disambiguation page. WP:ZERODABS is even stronger than WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise redirect to Spindle (a dab page) with {{R from typo}}. If its purpose is as a typo, direct to the existing dab page. If some of Spindal's contents should be merged there, go for it. czar 01:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the three entries can easily be merge there, but probably not Spindale – it's not very similar to "Spindle" and so it's likely someone will remove it from there sooner or later. Also, Spindle is not a small dab page (it's got about 20 entries), so a reader who makes the typo when looking for either Spindale or Spindel will not be served well. I think deletion is better than redirecting (though of course, I still believe keeping is best). – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an unusual and edge case - as pointed out redirecting from a misspelling is completely uncontroversial but our disambiguation policy does not cover what to do in cases where there are multiple plausible misspellings. Given that the current level of participation can only justify a no consensus close I think it meets the necessary standard for a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Gardner (Broadway actress)[edit]

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

Non notable actress failing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR & not satisfying WP:42 Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to me to actually pass WP:GNG with coverage provided in the article. Admittedly low coverage, but it's a stub. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added information from Newspapers.com. She was a bit of a sensation there for a while. I'm seeing some evidence of her in society pages as Mrs. Edwin T. Hall in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but there's actually a few different Mrs. Edwin T. Halls, it seems and I'm not sure which is which. Would be interesting to find out. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, per Paul McDonald, notability wasn't that questionable in the first place and as, per Megalibrarygirl, there was more information (and accessible online) out there. I am going to a library to access Variety and other entertainment archives in a few weeks; if this discussion is not closed as keep soon, please give me more time to find more sources on the subject. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 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 Return of the Mack#Nevada version.. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada (DJ)[edit]

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

Non notable DJ failing WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~comment~~ Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. I found a few mentions of Nevada, but all in the context of the one song that charted, and no coverage of the person. There are no sources to fill in a basic biography. The song is more notable than the person. ~~I don't have time to do a BEFORE right now, but I wanted to note that it seems to meets WP:SINGER by having a single chart on ARIA.~~ Schazjmd (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a lead single that successfully charted on multiple charts. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The charting song is what makes the artist notable, “The Mack” is a big song and charted in many countries. That should get the artist a page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CheatCodes4ever - So what you’re saying is keep the page? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a song peaks at number 9 on the ARIA, that means the song is notable enough to have a page. It also should get the artist a page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CheatCodes4ever - You may wanna add "Keep" in bold at the start of your comment then. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that. Sorry. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. It is unusual for a cover version to be notable but the performer not; but it is not impossible, and this is such a case. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. There is no evidence at all that Nevada gets anywhere near passing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. Our guidelines indicate that an artist who has a release that reaches the charts and/or shifts a lot of units is likely to be notable. However, in this case, the release is a cover of a song which is notable, and the original artist, who is notable, appears on the cover. When looking for reliable sources I found little which dealt with Nevada in depth, though I found this [18] which talks about Nevada's cover in terms of the original artist, Mark Morrison, which underscores that it is the song and the original artist which appear to be the notable aspects here. SilkTork (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 27 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Dodge[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG, WP:42 & WP:SINGER Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -- the possiblity of redirection to Spear Famoily is nt supported by the availabel sources. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 26 December 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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The D'Ambrosio Twins[edit]

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

Sources are weak and the article has too much unnecessary information to make it seem like the subjects are more notable than they are. One such example of this is the list of awards, most of which are lesser notable awards. Andise1 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs a lot of improvement but doesn't deserve deletion. Unless the twins are leaving the public life, they will continue accruing references and the deleted article would simply be remade at a later day. FLY 01:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in notable productions such as television series and have also received a number of nominations for Young Artists Awards which is a notable award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article might need further improvement, but for sure, it passes WP:ANYBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 24 December 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mehraein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe this person meets GNG. Most citations seem self-published. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: you've found the work of one of the more dedicated sockpuppeteers on Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 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.