Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 December	20 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 delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. BLPs need good reliable sources per WP:BLP. The "keep" opinions mostly point to porn awards. These are at best indications of notability, and rather questionably so since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. They cannot substitute for the BLP policy's requirements for good sourcing. While there are some sources cited here, we find policy-based arguments from the "delete" side about why in their view these sources are insufficient, but there are no rebuttals from the "keep" side. Sandstein 11:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe (actress)[edit]

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

There is a single source that passes RS and it's by Martin Amis so I would accept that even though it's an interview and of dubious independence but everything else is utterly unacceptable to.meet the GNG. Unless extra sources appear this is a living bio that fails to meet notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's really difficult to find sources for someone with a common single name. Luckily these citations already in the article [1] [2] indicate that she passes the GNG. Further, her AVN multiple actress awards and hall of fame status is evidence towards WP:ANYBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The second source literally says she likes fisting and did this in a scene. It's not enough and awards and halls of fame were explicitly rejected by the community as evidence of notability when pornbio was removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may find the author's detail of the scene mundane and unimportant, but this dismissive reduction is not appropriate description of the coverage. He devotes paragraphs and paragraphs to her scene and her predilections to set up the rationale for the obscenity prosecution. Significant coverage is about how much a reliable source reports on a subject not about how important you think their coverage is or should be. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the presented sources are not anywhere near enough to show notability. It is time we start applying some expectation of reasonable levels of coverage, and that is clearly lacking here. Wikipedia is far too plauged with under sourced articles, we have no reason to keep this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some more sources related to Chloe and those paired with the ones already in the article that were mentioned above, her several major award wins (Best Actress, Performer of the Year and her AVN and XRCO Hall of Fame Inductions) makes her notable and that she meets GNG and ANYBIO as Morbidthoughts asserted above. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the parts related to Chloe of The The Guardian linked in the article which is now behind a pay wall on it's official site part 1, part 2.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a book (The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle) that discusses Chloe and her films she directed, here on pages 87 and 183 plus a few other mentions elsewhere in it. It's an independently published book, but the publisher (Cleis Press) and the writer (Violet Blue) both seem to be notable.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:ENT. The above sources are passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP. For example, the Salon source is about the crackdown on extreme porn and not about Chloe, Village Voice does not qualify for notability, etc. Further, the statement that Further, her AVN multiple actress awards and hall of fame status is evidence towards WP:ANYBIO got to be a joke; PORNBIO was deprecated exactly because these various industry awards do not result in significant coverage towards BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently ignore WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." and WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" when it suits your argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment K.e. Coffman, Chloe was a pivotal part of that Salon piece, as she was one of the performers in the scene that caused the court case being discussed and was mentioned a fair amount in the article. Would you mind pointing me to where on here it says The Village Voice isn't a reliable source? I can't find anything that says it isn't. It may be an alternative newspaper, but it did have an editorial team and has even won journalism awards including ones for investigative reporting. In addition, the author (Tristan Taormino) is a noted writer and is notable enough to have her own wikipedia article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV (aka WP:GNG), and WP:NPERSON. The multiple porn-industry awards do not confer Wikinotability on our subject; not since WP:PORNBIO was deprecated. As to the rest of the links submitted above to support a general notion of notability, they are worthless, either on their own or cumulatively: A write up about where the porn business was heading in 2001, in which our subject is used among many others as a source or "inside" information; an open discussion with porn fans organized in 2000 by the "Adult DVD Talk" website that hosts such discussions with every other female porn-performer; some interview by a blogger plus another piece by a blogger, hosted in 2001 on Salon, about "extreme porn" with interviews by some of its practitioners, such as our subject; a 2005 report on "AdultFYI" featuring Chloe on her "AEE experience" (flu & no voice); and that's it. The rest of the links are about porn awards. We cannot be supporting inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of such thin evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some of the sources are reliable but there is need for more citation Georgiamarlins (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are indeed reliable but they're not about our subject, which is mentioned, at best, in passing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to others saying there are insufficient detailed sources about this person, the article is a BLP and so the sourcing requirements are much higher. How encyclopedic and BLP-compliant is it to mention that a person lost their virginity under-age? This needs to go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Boldyrev[edit]

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

Contested PROD (by myself), but after a discussion I realised that he did not appear in any matches. The "he played in the" part of the article implied to me that he had played in a match, but I did not notice the 0 in the infobox. My mistake here.

Fails WP:NFOOTY and a search in google does not show anything notability defining for WP:GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominationGeorgiamarlins (talk) 19:57, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enverus[edit]

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

Non notable company and still not matching with the requirements of WP:GNG. I see some references are bare urls. Abishe (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This reads almost like a press release - although I would expect more meaningful content from a press release. Even after reading it, I have no idea what they do. And yes, our family was in the oil business. If someone wants to re-write it, perhaps they might like to take a look at other oil-field service company entries, like Schlumberger or others in List of oilfield service companies? Tangurena (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this company has no significant coverage (entirely listings or local news), and does not inherit notability automatically from its client list. Having written most of the energy law articles on English Wikipedia, I have no idea what this company does and had never heard of it. They have seven followers on LinkedIn. I have one shared connection with one of their 750 or so employees. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have undone my closure of this discussion and relisted per a request on my talk page to enable further arguments to be put forward. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 19 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wen't through all the references ,they hardly seem independent of the subjectGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:10, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missy (actress)[edit]

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

AVN and a single newspaper fluff piece do not provide enough bio to hang an article on. IAFD is an inadequate source for the rest of the content. Fails notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete one newspaper fluff piece does not show notability. Hopefully we can now make some real headway against this set of articles that was for so long propped up by a set of inclusion criteria that treated PR level awards as actually worth something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, the two hall of fame inductions are a pass of WP:ANYBIO Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That argument was explicitly rejected when PORNBIO was depreciated and the argument is fundamentally whether this passes GNG or not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to the rejection of Hall of fame inductions. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find the discussion about depreciating the SNG. If the community has wanted to keep HOF as a criteria they would have left that part. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the RFC was concerned with minor Porn awards, the Hall of Fame was never discussed. I would argue it is the Highest award and well known, and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. So I am still at Keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC applies to all porn awards. Award wins without independent reliable sources that acknowledge them as significant achievements satisfy neither WP:ENT nor WP:ANYBIO. WP:PORNBIO now expressly points to WP:BASIC and WP:ENT to avoid ANYBIO. In the past three months, four members of the AVN Hall of Fame (Luc Wylder, Mark Wood, Mandingo and Joanna Jet) have been deleted at AfD. Porn awards by themselves no longer establish notability in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the Hall of fame - in fact two halls, is more than an award and has not been mentioned at all in that RFC. There are thousands and thousands of porn workers. Very few are in any hall of fame let alone two. 2002 AVN Hall of Fame inductee 2009 XRCO Hall of Fame inductee. Depreciated PORNBIO has caused me to vote delete 90% of the time. In this case, a deletion will be against our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the deleted porn stars listed above (Luc Wylder and Mark Wood) are dual hall of fame inductees. Once again, porn honors minus acknowledgement by reliable sources != notability. This is an appeal to PORNBIO criterion #2. That entire SNG was taken down because it undermines the quality and credibility of Wikipedia as a reference work, hall of fame or not. If independent reliable sources are available to acknowledge a performer's contributions to porn, he or she can pass WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Lightburst. This is an important point. Porn awards mean nothing since WP:PORNBIO has been (explicitly and entirely) deprecated. Halls of fame, pantheons, top performers' lists, and all such items have been rendered irrelevant. A person can be in the hall of fame of the Greek game of barbouti or of the Peruvian sapo and it woud contribute to that person's Wikinotability precisely nothing. We have to offer something beyond porn to claim a subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article, e.g. WP:NCREATIVE, WP:GNG. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the problem with AVN "awards" is that AVN is simply a trade magazine, it is part and parcel of the industry. These "awards" are given to people that they have legal and business interests with. Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to my comments above, the subject fails WP:ENTwithout support from independent reliable sources, and RS coverage is too thin to pass WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Halls of Fame" that merely exist as a huge sturcture of PR pushing industry self-promotion cannot ever add to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have only had minor roles and fails to meet WP:ENT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Users can't make up their own "porn hall of fame equals notable!" notability guidelines. If there were another article like the San Diego Union-Tribune, it would squeak past and be kept, but that sole article isn't enough. Zaathras (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show she meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage for a biography based on sources like the San Diego Union Tribune, Men's Journal [3], and AVN [4] and other books[5][6]. I agree with Lightburst that her hall-of-fame status and multiple performer (not scene awards) are evidence towards ANYBIO and WP:ENT (criteria 3) given they were not explicitly rejected for those guidelines in the RFC deprecating PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are kinda crap. Men's Journal is a blurb on the AVN award, the AVN link itself is porn industry self-promotion, the book cited as "[3]" doesn't appear to be an actual book at all. "The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror 20" is given as a title on the left, but it is just page after page of obituaries cribbed from an unknown source. Book "[4]" is "101 Nights of Grrreat Sex: Secret Sealed Seductions for Fun Loving Couples", a brief excerpt listing one of her films as good to bang to. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naw. The Men's Journal is two paragraphs of coverage of the actual winning of the award that people have been bitching about not having enough coverage about with the awards themselves. Meanwhile, the AVN link is an obituary that I'm wondering where the self-promotion of a dead person is. You are now arguing about whether this shit is actually important versus how much coverage sources give her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm arguing about you stretching sources past the point of credulity to support non-existent criteria. Porn awards are not notable achievements. Neither is an obit for a dead sex worker something that counts towards notability. That most of them don't shuffle off by 40 is a testament to modern medicine. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BIO / WP:ENT. Sources presented immediately above are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A few editors continue to assess articles as if WP:PORNBIO was never deprecated and they go on about porn awards & halls of fame as if they matter. But it was and they don't. The criteria are now found in WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia cannot become some random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 19:29, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Latina: Killer on the Loose[edit]

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

If there are sources for this, I'm not seeing them. GMG ^talk 23:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inline citations needed and secondary sources ,the external links are all primaryGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk)

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) 08:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lily LaBeau[edit]

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

Interviews and fluff do not equal notability of the quality we expect for a living biography. Award wins no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, the rationale of the nomination shows the nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE and check if there are additional sources out there that make her notable. She is extensively written about in these sources and passes the GNG [7][8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 interview about abuse from James Deen, 2 similar 3 a single quote. These are only useful in an article about James Deen as there is no real.bio about this person except that Deen abused her on set. If that's all we have then we can't base an article on it as it's a BLP vio through being UNDUE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 20 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." I don't believe it is a BLP UNDUE violation to have a short summary of her career along with the allegations of abuse. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not count towards GNG and single quotes do not either. This is no where near passing GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, doesn't pass GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. This is an encyclopaedia and not some random collecton of information. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Saga[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Never released, and the cancellation didn't generate enough publicity to attain notability for that. Technically ineligible for PROD because a version of this was deleted at AfD in 2005 before being recreated in 2006. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some coverage through GameSpot, but it’s very scant. I get the impression that the game was killed very early in development based on the statement released about it. There’s really not enough in the developer’s article to warrant a redirect at this time, though that may change if the developer’s article is enhanced at some point. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprising to find that the article has lived on for 13 years in this state (which isn't a grounds for deletion, but still). In any case, video game fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, most likely because it never came to be. My searches turn up WP:ROUTINE announcements that 99,99% of all video games has, which is "X studio announced Y video game", or "Y video game is cancelled". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominationGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced text about a stillborn piece of software. Wikipedia is not a directory of software or of anything else. -The Gnome (talk) 05:13, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Kerkove[edit]

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

All the sources bar the book are typical industry publicity and awards hype. The book is about a film and there is not enough bio to hang this off. Basically she did a film and later divorced her husband. Fails notability and a living bio should do better than this. Suggest we redirect to the ball of fame Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always try to avoid "Delete" votes in a BLP but in this case I strongly agree with the nominator.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete All the references except the book are from the lying, promotional porn industry publicity machine. We must keep that crap out of the encylopedia. The book coverage is far too thin for a BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of what is functionally news releases does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The text reeks of promotional sewage, which never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple google search shows nothing ,no news ,no anythingGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration consultant[edit]

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

Contents not supported by references. As the references make clear this is a field populated by unqualified fraudsters. Not what the article implies at all. Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not for cleanup, and Afd not for removing objectionable material (otherwise Donald Trump would be target #1, also #2, #3, ...). In Canada, you can become certified as a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant after training.[10] California has an Immigration consultant checklist. Maryland has a list of what such consultants cannot legally do and a " Maryland Immigration Consultant Act, Md. Code Ann. Commercial Law §§ 14-3301 to 14-3306".[11] I may get around to overhauling the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ,not fully convinced by the references ,it qualifies for WP:HEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamarlins (talk • contribs) 20:32, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Haskey[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. If there's anything more than trivial soap opera news articles mentioning the character's name a single time, then that's something more than I'm willing to deal with in a cursory search. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really? The PROD was removed as an editor began work to improve and source the article, and this AfD was opened eight minutes later. You haven't given the editor or the article a chance at all, and it comes across as pointy. I'd recommend merging to a relevant character list if nothing can be done, but the character is a regular on a BBC daytime soap, with a few award wins and nominations that are now mentioned & sourced within the article. A quick Google search is promising source wise, though to those who are unfamiliar with the subject area, it might not look like it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone removes a PROD without a comment, most of the time it's simply a decline without improvement. I don't expect the whole detailed message on the talk page shebang, but some mention of "going to improve the article" in the edit summary would help. I'd disagree that mere nominations in such a narrow reward space mean much of anything towards notability though. TTN (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do not assume good faith then. I removed the PROD and minutes later began more edits. This AFD was retaliation. Do not be so hasty with these PRODS and AFDs. These are not tools for your one-upmanship.Rain the 1 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is due to the fact that you made no comment and made two cursory edits having nothing to do at all with solving the issue noted in the PROD. I admit I may be jaded, but that's probably, without exaggeration, the exact trend in 95% of undone PRODS. TTN (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly passes WP:GNG... Just because an article has little sourcing does not mean that it isn't notable. Al Haskey is a regular on a nationwide soap opera watched regularly by millions of viewers daily. There are plenty of independent and reliable sources out there. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, DarkGlow. I'm afraid Wikipedia does not work the way you put it. We need sources! In fact, without sources there can be no notability. This much is clear and for this reason Wikipedia notabiity (aka Wikinotability) is not the same as how we understand notability in real, daily life. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm not sure you understood my phrasing. What I meant is that before the article was expanded, it had little sourcing, therefore it was believed he was not notable. There are lots of sources out there which can be used, therefore they just needed to be added to satisfy GNG (which they now have). Perhaps my wording was a bit confusing. In short, the article just needed development from sources we already have available. – DarkGlow (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The impressive expansions and improvements by Raintheone in recent days with cited reliable sources establish notability to the point that this article should be kept. (For what it's worth, I believe TTN acted in good faith with the PROD and subsequent AFD; if TTN had known or had been told there were significant improvements ongoing and did the AFD anyway, that would be one thing, but I don't think that was the case here or that there was any malicious intent.) — Hunter Kahn 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are soap opera news articles considered insufficient? The fact that multiple independent soap opera magazines exist suggests that there's interest in the subject. Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussion. There is enough coverage to support WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been a regular character on a daily BBC1 soap with millions of viewers for 7 years and the article's been expanded now so I would have to agree with the other "keep" votes Ichosethisusername (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject comfortably passes WP:GNG on the basis of sourcing. Now, could everyone join in on the reviving WP:NFCHAR? -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 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. This is a very poor discussion. What needs to be addressed is the sourcing (or lack thereof) that establishes the notability of the topic. Apart from the nomination, the "delete" opinions barely do so, but the "keep" opinions do so even less. Arguing about what consensus means is entirely beside the point here. The article is therefore deleted based on Randykitty's and Headbomb's statement, who seems to be the only persons who have actually looked for sources. Sandstein 11:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "No indication of notability (yet?) WP:TOOSOON". Article dePRODded with reason "Please do not remove Caucasian Journal from Wikipedia. This project is important for peace-building and civil society development in countries of South Caucasus". However, this is not policy based. No in-depth discussion in RS independent of the subject (not surprising since it got established only this year). Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete due to previous PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see the notability. Don't see a good merge target either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist as a courtesy for @Blanes, whose added sources were not mentioned by the discussion participants

Thoughts on the added sources, @Randykitty and Headbomb?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the ping, I had already removed this from my watchlist. As I had the article also on my watchlist, I saw the added sources 2.5 weeks ago, but didn't think that it added much to notability. I just looked again and stay with my "delete" !vote. Headbomb's !vote was long after the additions, so he must have taken those into account, too, but I guess he'll comment himself shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Czar: indeed, nothing to add. Being quoted in a handful of venues isn't enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the deletion arguments. This is not notable. To further demostrate how unnotable this magazine, see how many times this magazine was used in Wikipedia [12].--SharabSalam (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with deletion arguments. If someone could quote exactly what is notable and unnotable for Wikipedia articles on mass medias, please? Otherwise it's speculation based on personal tastes without reference to generally accepted rules. 94.43.12.141 (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just see the links to guidelines and policies quoted above. And none of the arguments given above are "personal tastes". --Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I believe we have different views on what the word "consensus" means. According to Merriam-Webster, the Latin word consensus means general agreement,UNANIMITY. In the case discussed, as far as I can recall, there was at least one comment against deletion, specifically asking to keep the article (on the grounds that the journal was important for civil society or something like that). Therefore, according to the said definition, we cannot observe consensus in the sense of UNANIMITY of opinions, IMHO.Blanes 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've already replied on your talk page, "Consensus is not the same as unanimity." There is plenty of documentation for WP's operating procedure and I suggest starting there instead of the dictionary. Articles require significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. czar 00:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point you've just touched. Do you generally place Wikipedia above the (world's most trusted) dictionaries? Just curious.Blanes 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, but that's how we use it in WP. Please read WP:NOTUNANIMITY. It's the same with "notability", which we also use in a manner that's perhaps not entirely consistent with the dictionary definition. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Palmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current sources are a database entry and an award roster. Mr. Palmer's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only mentions in a sci-fi fan magazine[13] and some sort of avant-garde creative writing essay[14] (NSFW). Cheers, gnu 57 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may have passed our deprecated pornbio standards, but fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 19:16, 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 keep. Consensus is that the article should be improved, and deletion is inappropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Information Commission[edit]

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

No articles link to this article which subject to miss out on passing WP:GNG. The references provided are bare urls which are prone to link rots. Abishe (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a statutory body of a State Government . Hence have provided the State Government Links . Would further references help ?Regarding the notability , just like Prime Minister of a Country , Chief Minister of a State , RTI COmmissioner , Tamil Nadu Information Commission is notable too in my opinion . Please correct me if I am wrong .--Commons sibi (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well first of all the article needs to be rewritten with some copyediting. More reliable references should be added to make it beyond WP:GNG. I don't think there should be a separate article about Information Commission of a particular state in India. I also noticed there isn't any article for any other states in this regard. Abishe (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply CopyEditing could be done . In my opinion , some state/states not having article of their respective Information Commissioner , is not a valid argument for other states not to have it . Other way around , every state's IC article can be created . --Commons sibi (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current state of the article does not affect its notabilty, per WP:CONTN. In terms of availability of sources, A Google search indicates a fair amount of coverage, and that's just in English. It certainly doesn't seem any worse in terms of notability than any of the other articles in Category:State agencies of Tamil Nadu, or, to use an equivalent western example, List_of_California_state_agencies. There's some musing that "individuals in charge of government major departments (Transportation, Police, Education, Fire, etc.) that oversee populations of 100,000 people or more are generally considered notable". Similarly, I'd argue that bureaus of a regional government responsible for serving 72 million people should generally be considered notable. -Kieran (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government bodies are generally notable. I'd want some convincing that this isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 9 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 // 09:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I spent a few minutes copyediting, and was able to quickly find further independent references to satisfy GNG. There is the potential to expand the article further. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG . Rocky 734 (talk) 08:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1)[edit]

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

For some time I have not had any issues with these pages, but I recently put forward my opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale, and during that time took a look at two different Wikipedia Policies - WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT, and from this I have begun to wonder if this page is doing the exact same thing - being tailored to be only of interest to fans of The Apprentice (UK), and thus not for those of general interest. I nominate this page for AfD but with three suggestions to consider:

KEEP - The page should be retained because there is a consensus amongst editors that my concern of it being only interesting to fans is unfounded.
DELETE & MERGE - The page should be deleted as they're purely of interest to fans, but information for candidates who already have articles should be merged in to their respective article.
DELETE WITHOUT MERGE - The page should be deleted, as none of the information is of general interest and should be preserved.

Alongside this page, I also nominate the following pages for the same reason, so the above suggestions should be counted for all:

Delete and merge. Fancruft in this state, but I think a "List of The Apprentice candidates" or something similar is a reasonable concept for a list article. Not sure why there needs to be one for each individual season. If one candidate is themselves notable (e.g. Susie Ma, Katie Hopkins, Leah Totton etc) then we can by all means have an article on them as individuals. — 🦊 22:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see we already have such a list article. Let's just use that. — 🦊 22:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was tempted to nominate List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates as well, but I changed my mind on the belief that the article could be cleaned up or remade to something more appropriate. GUtt01 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use existing list article - Agree with Fox, per WP:FANCRUFT no need for individual articles per season with such detail. Existing list article serves purpose enough, anything more would be unsuitable. eeveeman (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - Per Fox and Eeveeman. A single list is enough, if that. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge and use the existing article - the additional details on each person is their personal bio unrelated to the show. If these people are notable, they have an article which covers it and this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, if they don't have an article, they aren't notable and this info is just not needed. Anything specific to the show can be added, but should be limited to 1-2 sentences, similar to how non-reality TV shows or films summarize a character. There is definitely no need for any "play-by-play" re-cap of what he did on the show. These articles are a plague which I've noticed for a while now, and I'm glad someone else brought it up.--Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I hadn't come across the AfD I mentioned in my reasoning above, I reckon this AfD wouldn't have been created unless someone had seen the two different policies. Particularly the one connected to "What Wikipedia is Not". GUtt01 (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most TV project (not the reality) editors know that and also know about these set of articles, we just stay away from them as it's almost impossible to get "consensus" to fix/merge/delete their articles. --Gonnym (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with or without merge - Gonnym is correct on the notability issue. The articles are also magnets for trash-tier and actually-deprecated gossip-level "sourcing" that is completely unsuitable for BLP content on Wikipedia, which all of these articles are. Strip out the gossip-mag content and there's really very little left - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles' history, which may be plagued with tabloids and non-indep press releases, but keep the redirects so they go to season articles. Any salvageable where-are-they-now info covered by sites of repute (Independent, Telegraph, Guardian, Times) can be merged to the season articles. ミラ P 03:21, 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 no consensus. A decision on whether or not to merge can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free City of Greyhawk[edit]

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

Fictional location in Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No secondary sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are a few independent sources, and I will see if I can find more, otherwise merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked "Designers & Dragons" by Shannon Appelcline and that book mostly discusses Gary Gygax's unrealized plans to fully detail the city in publications. He does note that Jon Peterson's book "Playing at the World" (2012) discusses the city of Greyhawk, but does not say to what degree; unfortunately, I do not have that book yet (Christmas is coming though, so we will see). BOZ (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's coverage in both books, I'd be happy to support keeping the article. If this is deleted, perhaps it could be later recreated with a bit less plot summary and a bit more analysis from secondary sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should I add the parts from "Designers" about how Gygax wanted to detail the city, or would that not be useful? The book doesn't seem to say anything else about it other than several mentions of unpublished planned sourcebooks about the city and other parts of the setting, but I can check again in a few days when I have the chance. BOZ (talk)
      - It's not a lot, but it's something! At the very least, it's the sort of thing that may be worth including in a broader article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You got it! It will have to be next week, but I will try to check that out Monday morning. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Great; I can't really withdraw this nomination now that others are supporting deletion, but if it's deleted in the mean time, we could restore it to userspace. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I actually was able to add more than I promised. :) BOZ (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete by merge and redirect per BOM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most recent addition of material from Applecline's book gives good secondary-source background about the publication history. Agree with Josh Milburn (talk) that deleting all of the plot summary in Section 3 ("Summary of published information about the city") would strengthen the article.Guinness323 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - very valuable. I do now think the article should be kept (but, as above, can't really "withdraw" this nomination now). BOZ, could I recommend you lose the non-free image and trim back some of the plot information? If you were to do that, I think you would be justified in removing the maintenance templates. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will see what I can do - it's been a busy day and I may have already used my quota of free time that the universe allows me. ;) Meanwhile, I forgot to point out earlier that the book has far greater detail about Castle Greyhawk as a topic than it does about the city. I can put that on my ever-expanding to-do list. BOZ (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't feel the current incarnation of the article is strong enough to be independent. Strip it of all unneeded info, and it'd be quite small. The topic should be explored more in the main article to see if this information can bolster it, and then be split out later if it proves to have too much weight. TTN (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting, where this world first appeared and which lends a better real-world frame for this topic. Fictional locations are rarely ever notable and tend to make for PLOT-y articles with trivial appearance info, as this one is a prime example. Almost all refs just retell the plot or fictional facts that have no relevance for the real-world (WP:NOT#PLOT).– sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sourcing and comments of Boz above. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. Even with the work done by BOZ, only a scant few bits of the "Development" and "Publication History" sections are actually worth preserving, as being referenced by secondary sources. The vast majority of the article is completely unsourced plot detail, and even the two sections I mentioned are largely composed of simple lists of appearances that are similarly unsourced or sourced only to primary sources. When you take all of of that out of consideration, there is very little left, and not enough to sustain an independent article. The sourced information on the "real world" info should be retained somewhere, though, and I think Sgeureka's suggestion would make a better location for the merger than the main Greyhawk article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mynett[edit]

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

Classic failure of WP:BIO1E. He's alleged to have had an affair with Ilhan Omar, which is the sole reason he could conceivably be considered notable. It's means this is more of an attack page than legitimate biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ~~and suggestion~~. I agree with your statement. Before you nominated this article for deletion, User:Muboshgu, I inserted a "see also" in Ilhan Omar's article here. I think this information should be moved to Omar's article if Mynett's article is deleted. But the number of references trimmed to the best major national outlets, as I mentioned at Talk:Tim_Mynett.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, it was your edit summary, which I saw on my watchlist, that alerted me to this article existing. I oppose merging this content to Omar's article. It's only an allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, per you and Pokerplayer. Struck out "and suggestion".–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and I think info regarding the divorce can be merged, but the FEC complaint should be left out because WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Juno to this since they created the page. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pokerplayer513, the page creator was already notified. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NPERSON, being only and momentarily semi-famous for one fling, uhh thing. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged" fling. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people do not qualify to have Wikipedia articles just because they're alleged to have had an extramarital affair with somebody else who does have a Wikipedia article. But this makes no other claim that he's notable for other reasons independently of who he allegedly boinked, and the fact that you can jengastack a giant cluster reference bomb of nine or ten separate citations onto one sentence, verifying and reverifying and rereverifying that fact while adding nothing new, is not a notability booster. This is a classic WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 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) 10:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venba[edit]

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

Poorly sourced actress. No source of notability. Most roles are minor (unknown). Other roles are main lead roles in small budget films. DragoMynaa (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject evidently fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 08:52, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Marshall[edit]

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

Non-notable development league coach. AHL coaches can be notable if they've coached over 200 games, per WP:NHOCKEY. An AHL season is 80 games, which is how many Marshall coached. His career outside that appears to be as a talent scout and trainer. I've found no independent coverage aside from announcements of his coaching position. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ooof. This sub-sub-stub is almost in speedy range, and given that this guy never did anything else save for some minor front office jobs and playing Division III college hockey, it's about as NN as it gets. Ravenswing 02:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete development league coaches are almost always non-notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. I suspect he's done more than what's mentioned in the article today, but without more information this article should go. PK T(alk) 14:24, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Techspardha[edit]

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

~~Unsourced~~ very poorly sourced advertisement/event listing. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the comments in AfD 1 that this coverage in [15] Tribune (Indian Newspaper) makes it pass WP:GNG--DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 08:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Change TV[edit]

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

Renominating since the last AfD was closed as no consensus nine months ago. This article concerns a short-lived campaign conducted by non-notable company AIM Tell-A-Vision to have the Nielsen Media Research Group change the way it counts Latino/Hispanic viewers. The sources included in the article are not sufficient to indicate lasting notability under WP:GNG or any other criteria.

Of the references listed in the article, the first is the initiative's own website. The second is a piece on AIM Tell-A-Vision's website, responding to a short blog/opinion piece in the New York Times ([16] since it's not linked in the article directly). Obviously the initiative's own websites are not independent, and the blog post is 200 words mostly about other things.

The third article is from HispanicTips.com, a defunct blog. The fourth, from Mediabuyerplanner.com, has an extremely narrow audience which hardly indicates notability. Truth, Lies, and Media is a defunct blog.

The articles listed at the "HCTV Links to Articles" archive are all mostly links to the initiative's own press releases and/or "press" from minor, non-notable publications. Broadcasting & Cable, like Mediabuyerplanner, is a narrow audience. It also reads like a slightly rewritten press release and shows no indication of fact-checking or actual journalism.

The only decent source listed is The Globe & Mail article, which is reasonably on-topic and fairly in-depth. But...one article from over a decade ago isn't enough to maintain an article on an initiative that changed nothing and largely petered out after two years.

I wasn't able to find any additional sources on a search (including newspapers.com). In the absence of any more reliable independent sources, I don't think we can keep this article. (Side note: creator Robgrose is likely the same Rob Rose who was the CEO of AIM TV and the creator of this "initiative" - take that as you will.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a page which has been orphaned for over a decade regarding a non-notable, short-lived company. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually worse - it's an initiative created by a non-notable company. We're getting into recursive non-notability, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Foxnpichu (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both the nom's argument here, as well as StraussInTheHouse's in-depth analysis of the sources in the prior AFD, have convinced me that the current article simply does not pass the WP:GNG. Searching for any additional coverage in reliable, secondary sources beyond that has turned up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Institute[edit]

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

20,000 members is a claim of significance so how come in the fourteen years of this article's existence, nobody has supplied independent evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any independent sources that mention it, let alone cover it in-depth, it appears to be a non notable institute. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was originally created as a stub in 2006, when our notability criteria where vastly weaker. Looking over the history, I see a couple of attempts to flesh this out, but they've all been by WP:SPA's and have all ended up being reverted as WP:COI, promotional, copyvio, and the like. I did some searching of my own and didn't find anything useful, but "Energy Institute" is a somewhat generic term, which complicates searching. I suspect that a national professional society with 20,000 members is likely to be notable, but the onus is on those editors who want to keep the article to find sources which meet WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is linked from a surprising number of other articles . . but I think that's probably only via templates, such as Template:Energy in the United Kingdom. It links to Petroleum Institute - which may also need deleting? But I'm not familiar with practice, principles or policy around deletion, so I'll leave it at that. - SquisherDa (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Is this part of a plan to strip down to a stub and nomininate for deletion all the similarly sourced organization articles in Category:Engineering societies based in the United Kingdom and Category:Professional associations based in the United Kingdom not to mention those based in the US and other countries? If not there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. Such organizations are not covered in the mainstream press. We keep such organizations if they have an impact on their fields, and there are various ways of determining that. This one is on the UK's list of "Approved professional organisations and learned societies". It also publishes a scholarly journal that is held by 720 mostly academic libraries. Engineering and technology are underrepresented here compared to the sciences. There is no reason to compound the problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your feelings about STEM topics (not to mention that I share your punch-card and RUNOFF experience). But, We keep such organizations if they have an impact on their fields isn't how this works. What we need is independent, reliable, secondary sources. I agree with you that we want to include organizations that have an impact on their fields. We measure that impact by the fact that sources have written about them. No sources, no article. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

although "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." (from WP:NEXIST). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No argument about that. If you could list a few good sources here, that would help. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier! - a connection with the real world! CiteScores, Impact Factors - hey, it's Christmas!! An editorial board comprising actual people! connected with actual universities! The points in the earlier posts here, about WP:SPAs etc - and of course the article text - left me with the impression tht the whole article was spam, scam or even fraud (probably trawling for membership subscriptions from students in other countries with an uncertain grasp of English) - and wanted deleting without undue delay.

Maybe not!

Given the article has been here since 2006, and has made basically no progress, and is open to such severe criticisms, maybe what's wanted is communication? with those single-purpose contributors? with Elsevier? with "Editor Paul T. Williams University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom"? with the members of the Journal's editorial board?? - conveying some idea of our need for sources and of course, above all, neutral viewpoint!! Because yes, there's a real risk of our sourcing rules and reliability criteria screening out notable industry-specific material - systemically distorting our coverage, in conflict with Wikipedia's distinctive potential role in the print- and online-encyclopaedia ecosystem. But this article, as it has existed throughout its ten+ years, is a horror!

The Journal is the kind of thing we'd accept as reliable without hesitation, in STEM articles generally. So for notability of the Institute, all it would take would be a "happy tenth birthday Energy Institute" note or squib in the Journal.

StarryGrandma, where / how did U find that 720 libraries hold the Journal?

-SquisherDa (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SquisherDa, using the Online Computer Library Center's WorldCat here]. Results will vary slightly with your location. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of evidence of the notability of the organisations which eventually joined together in written form in academic libraries. Notability is not confined to online presence.Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's easy to lose sight of the fact tht both references and evidence of notability don't have to be online. But when they're not it can be a little hard to evaluate them, establish how relevant and how convincing they are. For cases of this kind, StarryGrandma's approach looks useful! - SquisherDa (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that sources don't need to be on-line. But, they do need to be WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT. They also need to be specific. It's not enough to say, "There are sources that exist off-line". You have to say what they are. If there's a book, give the author and title, so somebody could go find it in a dead-trees library. And, while Journal of the Energy Institute may be notable (I have no idea if it is or not, but let's assume for the moment that it is), that doesn't make the Energy Institute notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability means already well-known. We show this by finding reliable sources, but well-known is the key. Academic libraries are willing to pay the hefty library subscription rate for its journal. We can see that online through WorldCat. The Energy Institute is the organization does the assessment of British engineers in energy fields so they can be licensed and accredits the engineering courses they take. We can see that online at the Engineering Council's website.^[1] StarryGrandma (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Professional Engineering Institutions". Engineering Council. 2011.

Keep. The two earlier organizations that constituted it were the major national associations in their fields, and the combination continues this status. The Institute of Petroleum in particular was a world-famous organization in its field with international influence. Since this is the combination article for these also, there should be no problem about sourcing; I'll see what I can do. But it seems absurd for an encyclopedia to have notability rules that make it difficult to cover such organizations--it's should be part of the basic coverage, and their inclusion can be justified on the basic of the fundamental policies that WP is an encyclopedia and NOT INDISCRIMINATE over the notability guideline. The guidline is just an expansion of NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and major national organizations meet that fundamental qualification. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Hooperbloob (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many editors are insisting this organisation is notable but are failing to provide any evidence re independent, reliable, secondary sources. Do we just take everyone's word for it? Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Valley Charter High School[edit]

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

A short-lived charter high school that does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. The only source being used in the article is just local coverage announcing its closure. Searching for additional sources only turns up a small handful of additional local-coverage regarding the closure, and results for other similarly named but unrelated schools. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete not every failed attempt at a high school is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 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. (non-admin closure) Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Nikolić[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 independent of him. Falls short of WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nikolić was a recipient of the Order of the Cross of Takovo, a significant Serbian award. This qualifies him as notable per WP:ANYBIO (1). Nikolić appears to have designed a number of important Serbian buildings, which in my opinion qualifies him as notable per WP:ARCHITECT (4). Krakkos (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as a sidepoint, it would be nice if the OCT article included a list of (notable) recipients? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to more than few Gbooks references that can added. Recognised architect.scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is indeed a notable architect, more information can be added on his works. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and recognised architect with a number of significant buildings to his credit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, recognised architect of significant buildings (as seen in fotos). Must in a lot to find in non-English references & state of article is not reason for deletion. A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE in Serbian would be wise.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShipHawk[edit]

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

ShipHawk does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They are a small start up company with 65 employees on Linkedin. They have very minimal press coverage. They have a few articles, a lot of press releases, and lots of directory listings / profiles. Other than that, they don't have much. Half of their references barely mention the company. In addition, the page creator is a SPA, who is most likely an employee of the company. This article's sole purpose is to serve as an advertisement for the company. I don't see how this obscure company meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Sonstephen0 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources are simply not there: The usual self-references, e.g. here; an article on Ad Age about Walmart going against Amazon with a single mention of our subject; a 2014 piece on a website about eight of the "new breed of entrepreneurs who are transforming traditional industries" which includes our subject; an Inc. report on "outside logistics" that name drops ShipHawk once; plus two routine articles on Tech Crunch, one about the firm raising capital and the other an advertorial. A case of WP:TOOSOON, we may wish on them. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keoghtom[edit]

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

Minor D&D deity. No secondary sources cited, none found after a search. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor fictional character/deity. There are no reliable secondary sources being used in the article at all, which is nothing but in-universe plot information. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing of substance in reliable sources. Most results, in fact, are not even talking about the character, but instead about the ointment that bears his name. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge is a waste of time, that list should go to, all GNG-failing fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that merging isn't warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhtred of Bebbanburg[edit]

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

No notability shown, in-universe trivia; not a single source; tag unresolved for months. Alt. merge any relevant detail to The Saxon Stories and The Last Kingdom (TV series) respectively. CapnZapp (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Saxon Stories for now A character list would be very useful here, as this character is not independently notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why The Saxon Stories and not The Last Kingdom (TV series)? (Not disagreeing, just curious) CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. No sources, pure PLOT summary, possible OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:ALLPLOT, zero sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:24, 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. BD2412 T 20:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Coffey[edit]

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

Non notable actor falling short of WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007, I understand that a discussion is now to take place regarding the article? - dflaw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflaw4 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously as I wrote the article I would like to see it remain. The actor has had two significant recurring roles in well-known TV series, both of which ran over the course of about a year. The recurring role in Major Crimes involved a prominent side storyline which involved main character Rusty and which fed into Rusty's love interest storyline. The actor has also appeared in several TV movies for Lifetime, including Manson's Lost Girls and Killer Vacation, and notable films such as Hard Sell and Endings, Beginnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflaw4 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I don't see any lead/main roles of significant films or TV series. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lead/main roles in movies Battle for Skyark, Killer Vacation, Manson's Lost Girls and upcoming Smiley Face Killers.Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails the WP:NACTOR criteria, which should be addressed specifically by editors who claim notability of the subject. Wikipedia is not a storage of all-encompassing information about anything. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to the question of lead/main roles in significant films/TV series (Criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR), while the actor has not starred in any television series, he has had two significant recurring guest roles in Bunheads (in fact, he was already listed on Wikipedia's page for Bunheads) and in Major Crimes. His role in Major Crimes involved a side-storyline that ran over the course of about a year, and which was important to the development of main character Rusty, as it led him into a relationship. The actor also appeared in Major Crimes' companion vlog that character Rusty creates and uploads to YouTube—few guest-stars were featured in this series of vlogs. These roles, therefore, were not mere guest appearances; they involved important ongoing storylines. The actor did star in a web series, which received awards. Does winning awards make the series significant? Not necessarily, but it certainly adds to its significance in the critical realm.

As for films, the ones in which he has had lead or main roles include Battle for Skyark, which received mainly negative reviews from critics and viewers (there are about a dozen critic reviews via imdb.com). Does a negative response mean that it wasn't notable? I would argue no, unless notability is taken to mean quality, which I don't think it does. Killer Vacation and Manson's Lost Girls are lifetime movies, but I don't think this automatically rules them out, since lifetime movies have been in production for over 20 years and even very well known actors/actresses appear in them. With respect to Manson's Lost Girls in particular, I would argue that the actual subject matter (Charles Manson) lends itself to significance; indeed more than a dozen critic reviews can be found via imdb.com which discuss the way in which the movie portrays Manson and his followers. (And though it has not yet been released, the actor is to have a main role in Smiley Face Killers. Thanks to the fame of the main actor Crispin Glover and screenwriter Bret Easton Ellis, one would expect the film to be notable.) Other films the actor has had roles in, albeit not main roles, include Hard Sell and Endings, Beginnings, both of which are certainly notable (with their own Wikipedia pages, too).

The WP:NACTOR guidelines provide three criteria, but do not specify whether all three must be met (that is, Criterion 1, Criterion 2 "and" Criterion 3) or whether only one of them must be met (that is, Criterion 1, Criterion 2 "or" Criterion 3). This is ambiguous and arguably only one must be met. But assuming that all three are meant to be met, with regard to Criterion 2 it is difficult to measure the popularity or the size of a fan base of an actor who isn't a major star. So it would be quite impossible to classify a fan base as "large" or not; it would be pure speculation.

Criterion 3 is very subjective and, again, difficult to adequately address. There are many Wikipedia articles on entertainers who would be considered neither "unique" nor "prolific" nor "innovative", though certainly competent and hard-working in their fields. I believe the actor would fall into the "competent and hard-working" category, but again, there lies a great deal of subjectivity there.Dflaw4 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, and by this I mean on the basis of your own words, criterion #1 is not met (since, as you said, "he has not starred in any television series"); criterion #2 is not met (since you find it "quite impossible to classify a fan base as 'large' or not"); and criterion #3 is not met either (because, as you said, it is "very subjective and, again, difficult to adequately address").

Well, guess what, the reponse to all those objections is sourcing! Wikipedia is all about sources. If we have reliable, independent sources indicating that any of the three criteria is met, we have a claim on notability. We might even have an article.

So, it's astounding that after describing how our subject does not satisfy any of WP:NACTOR criteria, you're suggesting to Keep the text on the basis of nothing really (except perhaps on the basis of personal preference). But that is not how Wikipedia works. This is not some exhaustive cinema directory nor a collection of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice, Dflaw4. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not mean to make it seem as if I was voting again. Thanks for your correction. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 does not require the actor to have starred in any TV series, but to have had "significant" roles. Whether a role is "significant" or not is subjective. I outlined why I believe the actor has had "significant roles"; I certainly did not concede that Criterion 1 was not met. I only mentioned Criteria 2 and 3 in passing, as WP:NACTOR is ambiguous as to whether all three criteria must be met or only one. In fact, you say that a claim on notability would be made out if sources indicate "that any of the three criteria is met"; therefore, I take it that only one criterion must be made out. If you do not believe that the sources demonstrate the actor to have had "significant" roles in "notable" TV series, films and other productions, so be it. Thank you for your response, although the tone of your comments really wasn't necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to what I stated above, Dflaw4, behind which I stand in full. But I went back to examine the language and I found nothing that reads like an ad hominem or even adversarial. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I neither claimed that you used ad hominem nor were adversarial, but the sarcastic tone (e.g., "Well, guess what...") wasn't necessary, as I say. Thanks for your response. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Major Crimes. Recurring roles on two television series does not satisfy GNG, otherwise every actor and their dog would have an article. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been just two recurring roles, I would agree. However, redirecting is better than nothing. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the above editors for their comments. I am glad to see that the article had approx. 175 views over the past week, regardless of what is to happen to the article now. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regard to Criterion 2 of WP:NACTOR: Though I'm sure this is not how a fan base/popularity should ordinarily be assessed for the purposes of this criterion, it is interesting to note that, from Dec. 19 to Dec. 27, the article has had 216 views, with an average of 24 views/day. While these numbers are certainly not huge, they are comparable to—and, in some instances, high than—articles which have been kept (I'm happy to list some of the articles I'm referring to). I'm interested to see if the numbers will continue to rise on Dec. 28. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:07, 28 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) 10:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rivas[edit]

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

While accomplished, there is virtually zero in-depth coverage of him in independent, reliable sourcing. Some mentions, a few press releases, an interview. Appears it might be an autobiography. WP:BEFORE is a bit difficult, as there are other people out there with this common name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 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. Deleted by Anthony. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Chellaney[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is several dozen different copyvios and straight up spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its first editor is User:Chellaney. He has been in trouble before: see User talk:Chellaney. Deleted.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suryodaya English School[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything to verify this. Because the name is so generic, we need sources to tie together the name, location, founder and/or principal at least to even establish this is not a hoax. Further than that, going by the description, it doesn't seem to be community-managed, missionary schools might fall under private ownership in Nepal (strong hunch, but not sure), and so it should be required to meet WP:NORG too, in my opinion. But that would be a question for when it is shown to not be a hoax. Ok, it says "Father boarding" is its nickname, "Boarding" is a term reserved for "private, english-medium" in Nepal. So, it definitely ought to be required to meet NORG. Bringing this here, as the article could do with TNT anyway. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 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. Mainly due to promotion concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cisternostomy[edit]

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

This surgical procedure appears to be the brain-child of surgeon Dr Iype Cherian, and there is limited coverage in reliable sources that aren't authored by him. There is no coverage in medical text-books. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Note that the word is also used in the context of ventriculo-cisternostomy developed by Arne Torkildsen which is covered at Ventriculostomy. Note also that article is the result of paid editing, and as such it lacks any critical commentary on the procedure. I doubt this can fixed by editing, due to the lack of independent sources. --Pontificalibus 16:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is tricky to evaluate for someone who is not conversant with the subject matter, so just some general impressions:

- I don't think the provided sources necessarily show a problem with uptake. It's not straightforward to tell when a new concept has broken out of the group of its originators, but it appears to me that the spread of authors here is okay if still a little clannish. Same with cites for the original article [17]; some names pop up rather frequently but it's by no means just those.

- Promotion and POV might be an issue to some extent. There's an apparently overlooked little sentence hiding in plain sight... The retraction damage of orbitofrontal gyri is a small price to pay in bringing down intracranial pressure is what Dr Cherian feels about this.... that kind of thing does not inspire confidence. There is an apparently good faith "Limitations" section, but I'm getting a "very carefully phrased" vibe from that. And the largely unsourced "Development" section also has a similar drift. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION, article created by a paid (now banned for socking) editor that appears to be pushing a particular surgical technique, a quick gsearch brings up sites/papers by the one surgeon, Dr Cherian, as brought out by nominator, and just a warning to other editors, one of the gsearch pages sent me to a "your computer has a number of viruses" scam page that jammed my computer, a wikifirst for me (GGGGRRRRRR!!!!). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT. I was the original filer of the SPI referred to above. Some quick searching found enough sources (including, not for the squeamish, a YouTube video of the procedure being performed) to convince me that a reasonable article could be written about this. We've certainly got plenty of similar articles. But, the current version is so obviously a puff-piece for a particular practitioner, a total rewrite from scratch is the only possible way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Hatchie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having failed to appear in a professional game. I found one featured article on him (here) from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser but everything else appears to passing mentions or transactions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any support to pass WP:GNG for this one or any other measure. Offensive linemen at the college level rarely generate enough press to meet notability standards for inclusion in this encyclopedia and I see no reason to make an exception here. A player could be notable for college or even high school play, but I see no evidence to support that. Having not played professionally, that exhausts all paths to notability that I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and the coverage is just transactional reporting. I see no indication of meeting any SNG or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 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) 10:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jina[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Being a "ONE Championship Ring Girl of the Year" does not appear to be an award that shows notability. Neither does being the 49th best DJ in Asia or number three in Miss Maxim Model Search. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headliners Shipping[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:08, 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. Note that "delete and merge" is a problematic outcome; if material is merged, we need to preserve the contribution history. However, since the indication is that the material was copied from the other article to start, a merge should not be needed. RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria[edit]

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

Large amounts of content from 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria has been copied directly into the article, taking up most of the space. There is no need for this article to exist, as the main article already covers the timeline of the offensive. LiamUJ (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. LiamUJ (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. LiamUJ (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. LiamUJ (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge anything that's unique to this article into the main one. There's no need for two articles which are this similar to exist, all that will happen is that they'll diverge as they're independently edited, and will end up contradicting each other. Perhaps the plan was for the material to be removed from the main article but that hasn't happened (and isn't necessary). Neiltonks (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same position as above. --Semsurî (talk) 14:33, 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. Nobody has challenged the nominator's view this may be a hoax. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Turkmen Sahra[edit]

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

I can not find any reliable sources that indicate that this battle ever happened as described, and i am inclined to believe that this is partially, if not fully, a hoax. The first and second source, "Russia in the Constitutional Revolution", yields no search results on Google, other than Wikipedia mirrors and a false positive where a book (Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation In Iran From 1500 To The Revolution) has a section about Russia's role in the Persian Constitutional Revolution. If these are the same source, then the WP article has the wrong year for the source (2008 for Wikipedia article's Russia's role in the Persian Constitutional Revolution vs 2019 for Book with Section about Russia's role in the Persian Constitutional Revolution). The third source, http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/amanat.html , is simply a list of books by Abbas Amanat with minor biographical details. The Persian name, "نبرد ترکمن صحرا" does not appear in any of the Persian sources (sources 4, 5, 6 and 7). The fourth source is only used to support Turkmen presence in the Turkmen Sahra in the text, but not the existence of the battle itself. If Google Translate is correct, the fifth source talks about the reign of Mohammad Shah, but does not talk about a Turkmen migration to Bojnourd. The sixth source is rather unintelligible with Google Translate but as far as i can tell only contains a few trivial mentions of Turkmen but not anything about a battle in early 1911. The seventh source does not contain a single mention of Turkmen or 1911. Some Google Books searches seem to indicate that a battle between the Persian government and Turkmen did indeed happen in 1911, but it was late in the year (not March) and not in the Turkmen Sahra but it was in Esterabad. Also, the statement that this was "the last major battle of the Persian Constitutional Revolution" is patently untrue, even if this battle in March 1911 did actually happen. The Royalists weren't defeated until the Battle of Bagh-i-Shah on 27 September 1911.^[1] If this article is indeed a hoax then perhaps the author should be banned. If this is all a misunderstanding and this battle is real or a good-faith translation of a hoax from another Free source, then i apologize to the creator but i would tell him to be more careful with what he uses as sources in the first case and properly attribute material in the second case. Koopinator (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Koopinator (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koopinator (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Koopinator (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Koopinator (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirhosein Izadi: Could you please comment on this AFD? This is important. If you don't comment, i'll have to assume this article is a hoax. Koopinator (talk) 07:23, 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. Tone 16:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akuapem Poloo[edit]

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

A non encyclopedic article about a non notable supposed socialite who fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and does not satisfy WP:42. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. Krakkos (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in Instagram. Wikipedia is not a social media. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Association of Student Self-government[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:57, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Council of Bukovyna[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:54, 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. Tone 16:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habil Nurahmadov[edit]

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

Previously prodded. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Part of the wider clean up of non-notable Russian footballers following a change to NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:51, 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. Tone 16:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Gan[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Some coverage for business. Lots of press release including BBC article. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with scope_creep. Delete. robertsky (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another in our all too common articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. Many primary sources in article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. Reads like a glowing resume and not an encyclopedia entry. Would require significant cleanup if he was notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Very promotional, so could have been a speedy deletion candidate. Edwardx (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another promotional article about a non-notable individual written like a resume and fueled by primary sources, sky blue, bears defecate in woods. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:48, 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 Discounts and allowances#Trade rate discount. Tone 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trade rates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced orphan since 2009. See previous AfD, and WP:DICT. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Discounts and allowances#Trade rate discount, this is a WP:DICT which is additionally redundant as it included in the Discounts and allowances page.Ym2X (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Discounts and allowances#Trade rate discount - Definitely doesn't need its own article, and has been unsourced fir a decade. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:00, 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 redirect to List of KDE applications#Software development. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrello UML Modeller[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_KDE_applications#Software_development, where it is mentioned. I was unable to find sufficient independent reliable sourcing to meet GNG, but it is mentioned in the UML literature, e.g., [18]. With verifiability of basic facts, it is worth a mention as part of the KDE software dev tools at List_of_KDE_applications#Software_development. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_KDE_applications#Software_development, per Mark viking; there is no material RS for GNG on this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter worker[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced - for 12 years Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but open a discussion about a move/rename. The concept is undoubtedly notable and covered by numerous RSs, see: [19], [20], [21], [22] just for a taste. However, the terminology used varies, including 'commuter alien' (or 'alien commuter'), and just 'commuter'. I'm not convinced that 'commuter worker' is sufficiently specific, since that is more or less synonymous with 'commuter. However, the article should absolutely be kept and a discussion about the correct name can then be had on the article talk page. Hug^syrup 12:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly scope for an article about cross-border working, but this isnt it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? What is the argument for deletion other than 'completely unreferenced', which is no longer the case? Hug^syrup 10:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great improvement, thank you. But the article gives the impression that this is an issue only on the Mexico – United States border.Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, and I’d like to keep working on it as I think it has potential, but I think those sorts of issues can be dealt with outside of the scope of the deletion discussion. Hug^syrup 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unreferenced is not a delete reason per WP:NEXIST. An ambitious editor has now added sources. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its now worth keeping. Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Yellow Media[edit]

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

I find no significant coverage under either the English or Telugu name of this company to establish it as notable under the guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Yellow Media has their own Active YouTube Channel ^[2], and is the production house of 17 TV Serials and Films in three different languages (Telugu, Hindi, and English). These TV Serials and Films were the recipients of 2 National Awards and 38 State Awards. Their journey started from 2000 and are still actively working on TV Serials and Movies. The works of Just Yellow Media warrant more than essential evidence for establishing public interest in the two Telugu Speaking States of India. --Anirudh.palakurthi (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Shuster, William (1912). "The Strangling of Persia" (PDF). p. 135.
^ Just Yellow Media YouTube Channel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 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 no consensus. While there was a delete vote alongside two keeps, the delete was practically a WP:PERX and fails WP:ATA, and a second relist failed to generate any more votes, so I'm closing this as no consensus default to keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Winder Newton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, so the fact that she's a candidate in a future gubernatorial primary is not a notability claim in and of itself. The only political office she has held is at the county council level, which is not an "inherently" notable level of political office — it's a level at which a person only gets into Wikipedia if they can show nationalizing coverage which demonstrates a reason why they could be considered much more notable than the norm. But this is referenced to a mix of primary sources (her council profile on the council's own self-published website, and two newspaper op-eds where she's the bylined author and not the subject) that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about the deaths of other family members, and a small smattering of purely local coverage of the type that every local politician everywhere can always show, none of which is how you demonstrate that a county councillor is notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless she gets elected governor she will not be notable. Politicians get routine coverage and that is all she has. The straining at finding a sign of notability here is just too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Salt Lake County together with Salt Lake City form a major metropolitan area with two very reliable newspapers, The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. With about 10 articles referenced from those two sources, it's pretty obvious she's notable. Being Chairwoman of the County Council is likely a very big deal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
County councillors are not automatically accepted as notable just because they have local coverage in the local media. Every county councillor in every county always has that, so if the existence of some local media coverage were all it took to hand a local politician a GNG-based exemption from having to clear NPOL, then NPOL would literally never apply to anybody anymore because every local politician would always get that exemption. Rather, we have a longstanding consensus that politicians at the local level (municipal, county, school board, etc.) clear the notability bar only if their coverage expands far beyond where it's merely expected to exist, to the point that they have a credible claim to being much more nationally significant than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smallbones. SL Tribune and Deseret News are regional media for the Mountain West states [23], not local, which gives their coverage sufficient weight to meet NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether a media outlet is "local" or "regional", for the purposes of making a county councillor more special than other county councillors, is determined by its location of publication, not its distribution range. If a newspaper is published in Salt Lake City, then its coverage of a municipal politician in Salt Lake City is local coverage that falls below the bar — the fact that it might happen to have supplementary readership beyond Salt Lake City alone does not turn its local coverage into notability-making "regional" coverage that would make her more special than other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 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) 08:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acadian Asset Management[edit]

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

Sourced only to its own website since 2006. A search turned up the usual mildly promotional stuff, but nothing third-party in-depth which could be considered WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this article listed on the WP:WikiProject Finance & Investment page. I'm adding a number of articles, and a few of them arguably work at proving notability, in my opinion. A handful are on the brink of routine, so it is isn't a deluge, just a smattering at this point. 70.240.207.189 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content.. References are based on interviews and fail the test for Independent Content as follows:
- This Forbes article and this Forbes India article (largely the same content) relies on information provided by the company and based on an interview with one of their analysts. There is no Independent analysis/opinion/etc. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This Bloomberg article has no in-depth information on the company and is largely a commentary on the Chinese stock market with quotations from this company's analysts. No Independent Content on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- This from Financial News is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
- This Business Insider article is based on the company announcement of their partnership with Microsoft, relies on quotations from company officers and contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Institutional Investor is entirely based on a phone interview with a company analyst, contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.

Based on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Texephyr[edit]

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

Appears to be an unsourced advertisement. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found several sources with significant coverage. Whether they are reliable, I can't tell. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Bearian, sources are available to make it notable, passes WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider the sources routine notices and not independent. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers of Ithilien[edit]

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

A very, very minor element of Lord of the Rings, even less significant than Ithilien, which is also up for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Rangers are only notable from an in-universe perspective. Honestly, this article should have been deleted a long time ago. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real secondary sourcing is connecting statements of Faramir to Catholicism. The problem is there is no direct evidence of Tolkien actually supporting this connection. Beyond this, since this is a statement by Faramir, any coverage we need can be included in the article on Faramir. There is no reason for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to really merge and since Ithilien seems likely not to be kept, not worth redirecting there. Hog Farm (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur, fails GNG. I note this has been boldy redirected to Ranger (Middle-earth) by User:Goustien, I've restored the article for the duration of AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Rangers of the North. Goustien (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely different organisation whose only relationship is the name and the work they come from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ithilien has now been deleted and redirected to Gondor#Regions. I suggest the same redirect for this article.--Jack Upland (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 merge to List of locations of the DC Universe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Wall[edit]

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

How is this comic book location notable? Sources are the usual PRMARY for PLOT, plus list of appearances in media. Nothing here seems sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 19 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} 09:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of locations of the DC Universe. The sourced creation info isn't too bad, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Fictional locations are rarely ever notable. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The location is notable within the fiction, but that's all. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parisa Roshani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for acrtesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still nothing to indicated notability, no substantial improvements over the rejected drafts. KylieTastic (talk) 12:16, 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 redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avari (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Fictional group (race) from Tolkien very minor element of the Tolkienverse, pure PLOT w/PRIMARY sources, fails GNG/NFICTION. Does not have a separate entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia. Maybe soft delete by redirecting to Elf (Middle-earth). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 19 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} 09:32, 19 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} 09:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering, per nom. As noted in the article itself, "Little is known of them, as they do not appear often in the tales." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering I cannot find any substantial discussions of the Avari. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). There is not enough sourcing to justify this content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). Not enough coverage in secondary sources to have a content fork here. Hog Farm (talk) 23:12, 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 redirect to Gondor#Regions. RL0919 (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ithilien[edit]

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

Yet another element of the Tolkien verse that does not seem to hold it own when it comes to GNG/NFCTION and is pure PLOT with PRIMARY refs. Does not have a separate entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 19 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} 09:01, 19 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} 09:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A minor land which is mentioned briefly in LOTR.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Frodo's just passing through it, minding his own business, when he runs into Faramir and narrowly escapes being slung into the hoosegow. I'm also going to nominate Rangers of Ithilien. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gondor#Regions, where it is already covered. There is no information here that is not just plot information sourced to the LotR books themselves, and the section in the target article is already pretty detailed, so no merge is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Regions This area is a minor part of Gondor. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Regions. I still think we need more secondary sources even there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments above. Hog Farm (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Ithilien. Goustien (talk) 04:58, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources appear to be blogs or PR. The medial studies don't seem to mention the product at all, hence claims made about the product cannot be substantiated. Likely promo or undisclosed paid editing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PROMO, WP:GNG, WP:CORP, The "London Post" is not a real newspaper but instead some spammy self-published source. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey there, Just took your points seriously and thanks for raising the questions. I have edited more Reliable Sources in the Article and will be adding more. And then comes to the other company with the same name yes there's another company to in New york which is also in the Medical research field but the topic on which i wrote is an Company/Organisation which was first to find the cure of a dangerous disease near about on 800,000+ people was Herpes. The company is Listed in many news sources and journals. I think now the article is ready to be keapt as an alteast a stub. I have did many changes around the articles also request other editors to help this articles if they can. Rajusinghchan (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
favour I think this article should be reviewed carefully as it is written in good faith. Company is doing good work by helping million of people. ☆★Sunil Butolia (✉✉) 16:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia[reply]

I don't want to bust WP:AGF, but it's, um, interesting that the above two editors are suddenly interested in this topic. Anyway, the new sources added are also not reliable sources - California Herald is another Spammy health-PR site. Another is a self-published debunking site that interestingly links to an FDA ruling saying that the company's products are junk.FOARP (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Just in case this gets missed, in one of the supporting links, a self-published article has the FDA literally saying that this is a garbage company peddling quack medicine. This article is not only not notable, but actually harmfully misleading (it tells people that there is a herbal "antidote" for Herpes) and should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There is a source from the Orlando Sentinel, but it is from a contributing reader; in other words not reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 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. Tone 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymin Shah[edit]

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

Comment: Non-notable internet personality ChessorCheckers (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable 20-year-old who has formed a few businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shunka Warakin[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE search returned cryptozoological fringe sources that cannot be used to establish notability or write a balanced article. Before cleanup, article consisted mainly of wolf sightings with no clear connection to the "shunka warakin" topic. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are more GBooks hits then I'd have thought, but none appear reliable (the accessible ones are self-published or fiction). No reliable GScholar hits. GNews results are like GBooks, some mentions, but niche/unreliable. Seems like non-notable, modern urban legend, unless someone finds a good source (if so, please ping me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not seeing any real notability. But article was gutted before nomination.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. So what if the article was gutted before nomming. No Problems at all. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mysterious Creatures makes Ringdocus AfD and Shunka Warak'in the same beast.—eric 17:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There shouldn't be any content under this title, it comes from a cryptologist, and would be a non-neutral redirect if the other article is kept. Piotrus you should probably look at the other Afd.—eric 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other AfD, and name "Shunka Warak'in" invented by cryptozoologists.—eric 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources, just the usual fringe inventions here, it seems. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 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) 04:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lindon (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Obscure Tolkien land. We don't have articles about many LOTR places, and this one seems no more notable than the rest. Fails WP:GNG, as it has received basically no coverage in reliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, as all references are primary. I could find no redirect target that both covers the subject and passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a minor land not featured in the major novels. I think we have way too many articles about places in Middle-earth!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkiencruft = no evidence of importance to anyone outside Tolkien fans (not even Tolkien scholars, no dedicated entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia - and it didn't even made it into that books index, which is pretty rare). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lindon mainly exists as a spot on the map. Then there is this in the article "Lindon serves as a narrative plot device, the final point of transition from the mortal changing world of Middle-earth to the unchanged Arda of the past." It does not function as an actual part of LotR, and is not worth having an article on. Just because Tolien named a place does not mean it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note I'm not arguing for either its inclusion or deletion, but to claim this is an "obscure" and non-notable region in Middle-earth is outrageous. It is described and covered in The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales/Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth in quite some detail, and as such cannot be treated with such wanton disregard. If you seek further convincing, it is listed in the Sindarin dictionary as well. If you haven't read any of the previously mentioned tomes, but have at least seen the latest films, you might recall that in the third of Peter Jackson's adaptations, one of the last scenes takes place at the Grey Havens, which is in fact located in Lindon. So there are many instances of it being discussed, mentioned, shown or otherwise described. "Don't be hasty", PK650 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Círdan, which already has most relevant information. Goustien (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 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. The non-notability arguments stated by the delete camp are stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waheela[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Before search returned primarily fringe cryptozoological works; there is not enough RS coverage to establish notability or write a NPOV article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sigh, are we really going to back through the same super-soaker fight we had in 2018 over Cryptids? In this case, I see a CBC article that just gets over the line for Sigcov (three short paras), and a description of them in this book published by Penguin which is a reputable publisher, so I'm inclined to keep though the indications of notability could be better. Can we please not let this discussion degenerate into "Because these sources discuss this mythical animal they must be unreliable" again? FOARP (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- toss that CBC article, the author claims it's from Cwichya Gwich'in Googwandak but it's not there. That's a major problem with some of these, they like to connect the cryptids to legends from native peoples. In proportion in it would be like adding a bunch about Leprechauns to the lede section of Irish people.—eric 02:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Real Wolfmen: True Encounters in Modern America" is not a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepSome limited notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cryptozoology origin, cryptozoology sources.—eric 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 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. Tone 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Line (Delhi Metro)[edit]

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

Unsourced article, that is at best a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and may be a complete hoax. Google searches don't turn up any obvious references to a "Peach line" proposed for the Delhi Metro. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is looking hoaxy. There is an extension of the Pink Line planned to open in December 2022. If there were a project of the claimed magnitude ready by 2023, there would already be major construction underway along with the typical third party coverage. Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 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 redirect to Thunderbird (mythology). If there is specific content that editors would like to merge, the history is available. RL0919 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird (cryptozoology)[edit]

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

Although sightings of initially-unidentified large birds are well documented, grouping them under the "thunderbird" moniker and proposing an unknown species is entirely unsupported by reliable sources and represents a fringe POV. The topic has not received sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG or write a balanced article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Thunderbird (mythology), per WP:PRESERVE. This article is really nothing more than a fork of the article related to the mythological animal, being one concerned with supposed sightings of it. Please, please let's not get into another argument about Cryptids again.... FOARP (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Thunderbird (mythology), either works for me. The problem here is a lack of reliable sources for a segment of the subculture's fixation on this particular topic. I'm sure a few exist, but the notability of this particular fringe group's interest in an entity from folklore is only notable for a small section at most at Thunderbird (mythology). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thunderbird (mythology). The Tombstone Epitaph episode is well known and reasonably well documented; that's worth a mention or a short subsection. Nothing much else to go on for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thunderbird (mythology) Its a thing, and I can see this being a search.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’d go with the Redirect suggested above. Brunton (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge to Thunderbird (mythology). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 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) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Langshot[edit]

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

unsourced stub of what is alleged to be an area of Glasgow, but so obscure as to be unidentifiable. Historical maps show Langshot Farm which is now under the M8 motorway and a nearby street of that name which contains a few tenement dwellings of no particular significance. Coordinates provided (to East of the farm) refer to a warehouse, previously Kinning Park goods railway station, historic maps from several eras do not show any nearby premises named Langshot. Creator needs to provide evidence of the notability of this place, I have been able to do so - it was the location of an unusually long tenement building, but nothing I have found for that mentions Langshot as the name of the neighbourhood. Crowsus (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. 02:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, having one building with a name or having had a farm by that name in a spot 100 years ago but no indication anyone uses that name for the neighborhood doesn't rate an article. JamesG5 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a topographical qualification Paul? I shouldn't have to go through barony boundaries, natural boundaries and natural land ownership time and time again. Did you study geography? The map is pretty self explanatory when you overlay it. Especially since Glasgows shape hasn't changed in 100s of years. Please go and look around. Everything is as it was back in that map...apart from a few warehouses, houses and a motorway. The the main stuctures of Roads and Trainways are the same. Even the outline of the lands the people seem acceptable such as Craigton or Linhouse.

Thas old back structure and map you dispute IS Glasgow. You can go around any area of that map and compare those "Farms" to built up housing or communities, they still have the same labels. The difference being that they weren't savaged by motorways or industrialisation.

A neighbourhood or Farm had a shipyard or motorway builton it and it became "the Clyde shipyard" or "the motorway".

That is how it is in Scotland. Our traditions are everything and Glasgow has a resoundingly large proportion of heritage site and preserved tenement buildings. I don't know what its like in other cities or countries that constant regenerate or have new money - our city was established around the barony.

Ibrox was once a farm. Dumbreck was once a farm. Linthouse was once a farm. Cessnock was once a farm. Shieldhall was once a farm. Craigton was once a farm. Cardonald was once a farm. I am saying this in statements because the reductive way you appraise these leaves a lot to be desired. I shouldn't have to justify the natural boundary of a new motorway and how it will obviously bring back the previous Label after a 100 year merger into a burgh.

What are we going call both side of the motorway? Kinning Park part 1 and Kinning Park Part 2? Cmon guys.

I can surely tell you that Kinning Park isn't in the middle of the motorway.

My article stands ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progress4weegies (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches bring up only "Langshot Street" (in Ibrox or Kinning Park) and "Langshot Farm" in the historical books I found (of which there weren't many,) then shortened to Langshot. I don't see any evidence anywhere the plot of land between the M8 is actually referred to as "Langshot" in modern times. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I added a couple of sources relating to the farm but I could only find one source where the name "Langshot" is used on its own and that appears to refer to the farm. However, local knowledge might indicate otherwise. Deb (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of overstating this, I have also really tried to find evidence of anything being referred to as Langshot in modern times without success. The industrial estate between the motorway and railway probably should have been called Langshot if there was sufficient respect for local history, but it doesn't look like that happened. As I have said on the article talk, I went up and down the streets on StreetView but no local businesses use the name, and a nostalgic forum discussion on a very long tenement at that location never mentioned the term once even though most of the participants were former residents pre-motorway. Yes, most places in the city (and indeed every city) were named after older estates and farms which were swallowed up, and I think we can all agree that there was a Langshot Farm of some local prominence prior to the arrival of industry and housing, but that is all that the sources verify. Not every old name survived to be used in modern contexts, and the fact that nothing has been found by multiple editors in searches for this particular name in the 20th century, even in the residential context before its core became a road, indicates that it doesn't justify a separate article. The existing refs could be a useful addition to the Kinning Park article. But maybe something will be found in the coming days. Crowsus (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a place without legal recognition and not an OS settlement. The sources only appear to mention "Langshot Farm" and the fact that an industrial/housing scheme ended up there. It could possibly be mentioned (and redirected) to an article on its burgh but even that seems questionable since the sources are still about the farm rather than the area but its probably a reasonably search term so I'd be fine with that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, and not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has now updated the article: they added four references to locations on Google Maps in the relevant area which currently have Langshot as part of their address. Having checked Maps as one of the first things I did yesterday after this article appeared and found no trace of the name, I'm 98% certain those addresses were amended today and have now been added to the article to support the argument. One of the businesses involved has a website with their address on it - listing it as Kinning Park. Therefore it seems very unlikely that they would use a different address on Maps to their website. As an experiment, I removed one of the more subtle Langshot additions and it was accepted as an edit with no questions asked so it is definitely something which could be done. If anyone has awareness of any tools to check when edits were made on Google Maps, please let me know so that I can check, or have a look yourself. Crowsus (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Geoland.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources I see merely prove existence, which is below the threshold for Wikipedia articles; fails the minimum standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 11:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, Crowsus, you have went around changing details of the BID I am employed to? Which business? You have no right to change people's company's to try and force your own findings. No wonder it's not on the map. ^^^^ He has done the same thing with the historic area Kingston in the past - removing it from Google Maps. This area is called Langshot, such that the local use the term, theaps also supports the finding NHS as Glasgow has been established around farms. I will not have someone from Australia or India dictate what relevant when the labels of their land changes with the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progress4weegies (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reply, although they can't respond as now blocked: First off, what is a BID and what is your commercial relationship to it in relation to Wikipedia, you have to declare all business interests which may influence editing, see WP:COI. I only removed the word Langshot from the address of one company (which it does not require, as it won't help anyone find the premises for reasons outlined above i.e nobody has ever heard of it) to satisfy myself from a technical perspective that you would have been able to do precisely the opposite earlier that day to try and influence this matter in your favour. The fact that, after I spotted the Langshot name in those company addresses having seeing none the previous day (and which other editors would surely also have pointed out when first trying to find this place had they seen it in addresses, but none did so) you then added those exact links onto the article as evidence of its common usage, then also specifically mentioned them in your edit summary as justification for attempting (again) to remove the AfD notice, is a clear indication, at least to me, that you have made these manipulations. Frustratingly I have been unable to find a function that shows when those edits were made, but there is no doubt in my mind that they happened between Wednesday evening 18/12/19 and Thursday afternoon 19/12/19, UK time. Lastly, FWIW I fully support the Kingston area's inclusion in the encyclopedia as can be seen in its talk page, although as I recall its article was fairly ropey in its quality and references when first created at the start of this year. I have absolutely not touched Google Maps in relation to that area or anywhere else other than the single one fully disclosed above. Maybe you're thinking of someone else, or maybe you're just inventing the whole thing as nobody seems to have thought of using that tactic except for you. It could also be pointed out that as the low level stuff can be edited by users, it falls into the same category as forums and Wikis in being a non-WP:RS when it comes to citation, so you're wasting your time. Crowsus (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find evidence of existence of an area anyone would call "Langshot". The Google Map references are, in all likelihood, faked up, as even cursory background checks show:

Claremont Centre: I found NO references to Claremont Centre that used "Langshot", other than this page. The firm's own website lists its address as "Kinning Park", not "Langshot"
Clutha House: I found NO references to Clutha House that used "Langshot", other than this page and pages which provide direction (via Langshot Street) to Clutha House.
Langshot Pet Park: This seems to be ENTIRELY made up, as I find no reference to its very existence other than -- you guessed it -- this page.
--Calton | Talk 00:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think business listings show notability per WP:GNG anyway. So even if they are genuine we probably can't keep this article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the criteria set out at WP:GEOLAND. I note the article creator is currently blocked; if it is true that they have fabricated sources, then this should probably be reflected in their block log. Pinging User:Jayron32 as the blocking admin. ——SN 54129 11:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a fire "on the farm of Mr. Lyon, Langshot, about two miles from Glasgow, near to the Paisley Road." in 1833, hardly of note but something I found. MilborneOne (talk) 00:10, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenny[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:SINGER and WP:GNG. Although a WP:BEFORE shows passing comments but nothing in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A real case of WP:TOOSOON. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't fail WP:MUSICBIO as she has two songs on national music charts. It also doesn't fail WP:GNG as two of the most reliable news sources in Portugal are SIC Notícias and SAPO. I don't consider it too soon as she has songs with over 10 million views on Youtube. She is well known on the country. Phospor (Talk 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with charting singles on a national chart and has coverage in Portuguese reliable sources so deserves to be included imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Atlantic306 says, she meets criteria 2 of the music SNG. I also think she might pass WP:GNG, but that's a borderline case, and others might see it differently. But being borderline GNG, and passing NMUSIC puts me in the keep column. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 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 Govan. Tone 16:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield, Glasgow[edit]

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

Stub of what is alleged to be an area of Glasgow. Coordinates point to the home of Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company for which an extensive article already exists. The ref provided explains a heritage project relating to the company's historic headquarters. I have spoken to the project staff and visited the building. Yes, before the shipbuilding, Fairfield was a country estate with mansion and farm outside the village of Govan. But it was then built on for industry and became very much part of Govan, and remains so today. Is it a real place of historical significance? Yes, certainly. Is it an identifiable residential neighbourhood, defined separately from the communities of Govan and Linthouse which would need its own Wiki article in addition to the aforementioned? No, based on all evidence I have seen. The creator asks what if the shipyard closed and the site was redeveloped, it would still be Fairfield so what then, and consulting the WP:CRYSTALBALL, the name might remain but developers might call it something else like Upper Clyde Urban Beauty Haven or some other nonsense, and we would be obliged to call a new article that, or more likely just add the info to Govan or Linthouse with redirects. Crowsus (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, having one building with a name or having had a farm by that name in a spot 100 years ago but no indication anyone uses that name for the neighborhood doesn't rate an article. JamesG5 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Govan~~, the 1st ref only mentions Fairfield, the 2nd is just to a map and the 3rd is a primary source. There are mentions of Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company in that article and there is also an article at Fairfield Offices. A Google Book search does return a few results for this area but they appear to be mainly talking about the company which we already have an article, therefore it doesn't appear this area is independently notable not being legally recognized on an OS settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given as noted that it was a ward it might well qualify as being notable for being a formerly legally recognized place. However it has been noted that ward boundaries change frequently and this might be an exception to that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Govan, which was attempted as part of ATD. Does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, and not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glasgow Govan (UK Parliament constituency). We ~~don't~~ shouldn't delete stuff on Wikipedia just because they no longer exist. The nom is to be applauded for physically checking on the ground but, for anyone who checks online, there is sufficient evidence online to demonstrate that Fairfield was a political ward in Glasgow (Fairfield (Ward 30)), and that it did once exist. See: here; here, here, here, and many other places (including 35 mentions in this PhD thesis). That said, I've do not know this part of the UK at all, unlike the nom, but looking at these old maps from 1885-1903 on the National archive of Scotland website, there seems to be no physical 'place' on the ground labelled as Fairfield. Thus a redirect to the parliamentary constituency which Fairfield was merged into seems more appropriate than deletion. I therefore don't think that redirecting to Govan is the right approach (and it's just possible that, with a lot of further research, a redirect to Glasgow Craigton (UK Parliament constituency) could prove to be a better target.) Note that Fairfield (UK Parliament constituency) already exists, but is the name of a ward in Liverpool - a very long way away!) Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Govan Also see Moorepark, Glasgow, Sandyford, Glasgow, and other articles by this author. While it might have used to be a constituency, I still think just redirecting to the 'place' is the most natural. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question we need to address is whether it is actually "a place". That will determine the target of the redirect.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Glasgow Govan (UK Parliament constituency) is a pretty good shout. I'll admit to ignorance of the Fairfield ward, which has some famous names as representatives and even an existing image on Commons; however, the ward map you kindly provided shows it covered a wide area, including several other neighbourhoods that developed subsequently, and the stub as created did not present as a historical place or a former ward but as a current neighbourhood, and as with the other nominated articles from the last 48 hours, the creator has unfortunately submitted an article with very little information, certainly in good faith, but this has required others to scramble about finding evidence to justify their existence or otherwise, when that should have been done before the article was published. Getting back to the point, I would suggest that Govan (ward) could also be a possible redirect option as this is the equivalent level of government covering the area, although this entity was only created in 2007. Aaarg I can't find any maps online to confirm where Craigton constituency ended and Govan constituency began in the relevant era, although my hunch would still be Govan covering it as the shipyard is pretty close to the centre of the place, and that's probably why a more identifiable Fairfield community didn't endure despite being the most famous local name: it was too close to the heart of Govan for most people to refer to the streets as anything else. Half a mile west and it might well have been a surviving suburb between Govan and Renfrew. Crowsus (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All current wards of Glasgow have articles; could this be made into an article about the ward? If it is redirected, it should be to the area or ward it is now part of, or to wards of Glasgow, as wards are primarily areas for which councillors are elected in local elections. Peter James (talk) 17:09, 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. It is clear that there will not be consensus to delete this article. Sandstein 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Isn't this a bit too poltical for here? The opening statement literally boil down to "Trump is a big fat liar." If we had articles about how many presidents were taking the piss and how often, Wikipedia would be a lot bigger. HalfShadow 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Political" is fine; POV is not. Do you see a WP:NPOV violation? If so, where? Anyhow, there's nothing stopping you from making "Veracity of statements by [other president]" articles, as long as they're notable. Wikiacc (¶) 01:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does the OP have any policy-based reason for deletion of this article? As was pointed out in the first AFD (a SNOW keep) this is a notable topic that has been extensively covered by reliable sources. Meters (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep do we really need to do this again? Aside from the fact that "Trump is a big-fat liar" is NPOV it is very much true and the veracity (or lack of) his statements is more than adequately covered by independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My point is, you wouldn't see an entry in an encyclopedia titled "People Who Lie The Most." At best, this could be a subsection of Trump's actual entry, as opposed to it's own page. HalfShadow 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your nomination is WP:POINTY? Okay. And let me know once the media starts widely reporting the veracity of anyone else's statements. Praxidicae (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POINTY is disruption for the sake of it. Don't get clever with me. HalfShadow 02:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't see a need re-creating this delete discussion after the way the first one ended. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the only reason provided, too political is is not a deletion criteria and even if everyone agreed that the article as written was too political that would be a case for a rewrite not deletion.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — There is a massive amount of published coverage of this topic, in multiple reputable sources. This can't be trumped with an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like potentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Obviously there's plenty of documentation for false statements made by Trump, but this article risks ballooning into an indiscriminate list of content that is only loosely related, which is something that is proscribed by WP:NOTDIRECTORY and can be explained more at WP:LISTCRUFT. It's easy to see why people may mistakenly believe that this article should be kept since it is obviously well sourced and the general topic is notable, but having it as a standalone article (rather than as a subsection of Donald Trump or a subsection of the topics he is talking about) is not really encyclopedic. (And of course you can find a lot of news articles about Trump being dishonest, but that isn't enough to justify an article. Much has been said about 'Honest' Abe Lincoln but no one would suggest putting together an article Veracity of statements made by Abraham Lincoln. Much has been said about Beyonce's talent but that won't be enough to save Beyonce listography. It's not enough to accumulate sources that touch on an article in general terms). Michepman (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — We've been down this road before. The volume of instances of content only continues to grow over time. Heavily covered in the media. Trump has his minions and I suspect this is just a few of them want to expunge the record of content unfavorable to him as he is being impeached. Trackinfo (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Actually I am not impressed with this article, but with the sources it's hard to argue against. I know the Trump's main article's quite big and struggles with space but it would be far better thing for the Project if the essential content of this article is to be merged there and the rest random opinions to be discarded. Definitely you'll not find any article resembling this one in context or in title in any proper encyclopedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely, numerous reliable sources have constantly reported on verifiably false or misleading statements, including fact checkers from The Washington Post and The Toronto Star; see, for example, references cited for File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png. SatisfiesWP:GNG easily and is not political. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant notability demonstrated in sources as a topic in-itself. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back essential items to main article/or other appropriate place. Israell (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a trout to OP. I don't see any attempt to work this out on the talk page first. The subject is obviously very notable and properly sourced. The "political" argument is spurious. We don't AfD articles which disagree with our political POV. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work. We follow the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the topic itself did receive more than a fair share of significant coverage while satisfying WP:NPOV as well from what I can see. Looking at some of the opposing views, I can see why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may be a concern, but ultimately I don't see a violation but will admit that perhaps a future edit or two could change that.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notable and well sourced. Negative facts are not against NPOV (as long as they're not given undue weight). Disregard for reality is Trump's brand, so the article should remain. 158.26.131.11 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable topic in the last three years, and one that will be studied by presidential historians for many years to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the biggest, if not the fattest, presidential liar in history, with falsehoods being spewed out at an unprecedented rate, so much so that The Washington Post (over 12,000 as of August), CNN ("Donald Trump lies more often than you wash your hands every day"), The Guardian ("The 'exhausting' work of factcheckers who track Trump's barrage of lies") and others are keeping count/track. Satisfies WP:GNG easily. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely to be contentious for some editors, but this is a topic with a shed load of coverage in RS and so worthy of coverage in WP. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexbrn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 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 Glasgow. In case there is material worth copying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wearieston[edit]

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

Careful Google search shows no indication this is an actual neighborhood or conservation area. This was apparently once the name of a farm that now appears to be all residences, there's one very old book on Google Books that mentions a bird count there & one old survey book that mentions a farm and office buildings by that name but nothing about a current neighborhood, conservation area, or other serious designation. Bing & Google Maps show a spot with that name but it's one building, not a neighborhood. This would need serious sourcing to remain. JamesG5 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete areas are not inherently notable. Legally recognized places are. Failing that, areas can only be notable with RSs. This area does not pass GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this turns out to be some historical predecessor to the current area then I wouldn't be against a recreation of an article in that context provided there is good sourcing. As it stand with this, it's claiming it's an actual current designation of this part of Glasgow which it's not and doesn't even bother with the properties that stood there that the nom learned of. Oakshade (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Moorepark, Glasgow and Langshot are similarly unclear to their actual status. Reywas92^Talk 09:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a legally recognized place or an OS settlement. ScotlandPlaces says its just "A farm house and offices". This seems to be unverifable never mind notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Glasgow. The article on Wearieston does not have a lot of information on the place, and could be redirected to Glasgow. Vorbee (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Craigton, Glasgow as it falls between there and Mosspark but shares a building style more with the former, but then would anyone ever search for the term? I have been in this area several times in the past, walking and driving (slowly and badly, it was in my lesson route) and would have supported its inclusion if I had seen any local businesses, signs or anything called Weariston which would reinforce a usage locally, but didn't see anything. The houses possibly got referred to as that shortly after they were built (early 1930s I think) due to the farm being there beforehand, but I don't think that was ever anything official and it fell out of use long ago. The oldest local residents may recognise the name and it's maybe worthy of quick mention on the aforementioned articles, but nothing more than that IMO. Crowsus (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is at best an obscure name (and one that has fallen out of use) for a subsection of a larger area. On top of this, this sub-area would not seem to be notable enough to merit its own article. I do not even think a redirect is worth it as I am skeptical that it is a likely search term. Dunarc (talk) 21:51, 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.

[1] "Professional Engineering Institutions". Engineering Council. 2011.

[2] Shuster, William (1912). "The Strangling of Persia" (PDF). p. 135.

[3] Just Yellow Media YouTube Channel

[1]

[1]

[2]