Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 4

Guide to deletion

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. No consensus to delete; consensus to Keep per RS from Cunard, which was unchallenged and was upheld (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Knoxville Opera

Knoxville Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources here are on the company itself, only the people that worked with the company. Many of these sources are not from reliable independent coverage. There is no clear assertion of notability. Transcendence (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Independent, national coverage has been added. A simple Google search reveals that threshold of notoriety is easily met - this is a major regional non-profit arts presenter in their 40th consecutive season. Countless articles in local/regional (Eastern Tennessee) journals. Article not perfect, but rather than nominate for delete, why not improve? Sbjoiner1 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Malitz, Nancy (1992-12-01). "Knoxville (opera)". Grove Music Online. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O902581. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  2. Lynn, Karyl Charna (1995). Opera Companies and Houses of the United States: A Comprehensive, Illustrated Reference. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-89950-955-6. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  3. Wlaschin, Ken (2006). Encyclopedia of American Opera. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-7864-4596-7. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  4. Van West, Carroll; Binnicker, Margaret Duncan (2004). A History of Tennessee Arts: Creating Traditions, Expanding Horizons. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. p. 389. ISBN 978-1-57233-239-3. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  5. Potter, Susanna Henighan (2009). Moon Tennessee. Berkeley: Grey House Publishing. pp. 355, 357. ISBN 978-1-59880-114-9. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  6. Olmstead, Marty (1997). Hidden Tennessee. Berkeley: Ulysses Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-56975-111-4. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  7. Greenwald, Robert (1998). 50 Fabulous Planned Retirement Communities for Active Adults: A Comprehensive Directory of Outstanding Master-Planned Residential Developments. Franklin Lakes, New Jersey: Career Press. p. 314. ISBN 978-1-56414-347-1. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  8. The South: The Guide for All Budgets, Where to Stay, Eat, and Explore on and Off the Beaten Path. New York: Fodor's. 2003. p. 526. ISBN 978-1-4000-1098-1. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  9. McRary, Amy (2019-01-10). "Tune up: Knoxville Opera brings love, tragedy, madness and music to East Tennessee schools". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  10. "Knoxville Opera celebrates 40 years with gala". Knoxville News Sentinel. 2017-10-19. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  11. Mason, Doug (1998-07-12). "Raising their Voices - Gala Concert celebrates Knoxville Opera Company's 20th anniversary". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  12. Mason, Doug (2005-09-04). "Scaling back - New opera director weighs creativity and frugality as he balances the company's budget". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  13. Mason, Doug (2003-11-30). "Knoxville Opera's history comes to life in new book". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  14. Aston-Wash, Barbara (1992-09-20). "New East Tennessee Opera Guild To Lend Support To Opera Company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  15. Mason, Doug (2007-08-19). "Backstage: A 2007 Series on Performing Arts Groups. Late founder's vision lives on with opera company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  16. Combs, Michael (2007-10-13). "Knoxville opera a big plus for community - Citizens Voice". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05.

  Sources with quotes

  Malitz, Nancy (1992-12-01). "Knoxville (opera)". Grove Music Online. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O902581. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: In the 20th century the city became the home of the Knoxville Opera. Founded in 1976, the company gave its first four seasons at the Bijou Theatre (800 seats) in downtown Knoxville. In 1979 it moved into the larger Tennessee Theater (1550 seats), a 1929 movie palace that had been restored in 1969, its shallow vaudeville stage deepened and orchestra pit enlarged. In 1982 Robert Lyall was appointed general director, artistic director and conductor. In 1986 the production of Carlisle Floyd’s Susannah was televised for the Tennessee celebration of Appalachian culture. In 1989 the company presented a world première: Rachel by Kenton Coe, the state composer laureate. In 1991 the company moved into the Civic Theatre (2500 seats). Lynn, Karyl Charna (1995). Opera Companies and Houses of the United States: A Comprehensive, Illustrated Reference. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-89950-955-6. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: KNOXVILLE. Knoxville. Opera. Giuseppe Verdi's La traviata inaugurated the Knoxville Opera in October, 1978, at the Bijou Theater. Verdi's great middle-period work was the sole offering of the inaugural season. The Knoxville Opera was incorporated in 1976 with the assistance of the Knoxville Council of Arts. The second season expanded to two offerings with further expansion to three operas taking place during the sixth season. The first opera of that season, Johann Straub's Die Fledermaus, marked the company's final presentation at the Bijou Theater. The double-bill of Pietro Mascagni's Cavalleria rusticana and Ruggero Leoncavallo's I pagliacci celebrated the company's move into its new home, the Tennessee Theater. The company witnessed its first world premier, Kenton Coe's Rachel with Stella Zambalis and John Stevens, on April 7, 1989. The casts feature both up-and-coming and established singers in the lead roles, supported by local talent. The three-opera season offers traditional works in a stagione system. Recent productions include Straufi's Die Fledermaus and Puccini's Tosca. The company performs in the 1,539-seat Tennessee Theater. Practical Information. The Tennessee Theater is at 604 South Gay Street. Tickets can be purchased at the Knoxville Opera offices at 602 South Gay Street. Wlaschin, Ken (2006). Encyclopedia of American Opera. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-7864-4596-7. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: Knoxville: Knoxville Opera, founded in 1978, presents its productions in the Tennessee Theater. It premiered Kenton Coe's Rachel, libretto by Anne Howard Bailey about Rachel and Andrew Jackson, on April 7, 1989. Other American productions include Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story, Carlisle Floyd's Susannah, Mitch Leigh's Man of La Mancha, Meredith Willson's The Music Man, Frederick Loewe's My Fair Lady and Richard Rodgers' Oklahoma, The Sound of Music and South Pacific. Van West, Carroll; Binnicker, Margaret Duncan (2004). A History of Tennessee Arts: Creating Traditions, Expanding Horizons. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. p. 389. ISBN 978-1-57233-239-3. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: The Knoxville Civic Opera Company was created in 1976 and gave its first performance of La Traviata, with nationally known Tennessee native soprano Mary Costa, in 1978. Since 1978, the company has mounted over fifty productions. Since 1988, educational programs have reached over sixty thousand people, primarily students, and have introduced opera as an art form using the Knoxville Opera Studio Apprentices. Potter, Susanna Henighan (2009). Moon Tennessee. Berkeley: Grey House Publishing. pp. 355, 357. ISBN 978-1-59880-114-9. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes on page 355: The Knoxville Opera (www.knoxvilleopera.com) offers four performances annually at the Tennessee Theatre in downtown Knoxville. The opera also organizes the Rossini Festival, an Italian street fair, every spring. The book notes on page 357: In April, the Knoxville Opera organizes the Rossini Festival (www.rossinifestival.org), an Italian street fair that takes place on Gay Street and at Market Square Mall in downtown Knoxville. Special wine tastings, opera performances, and European music combines with a vibrant street fair with a pronounced Mediterranean theme. Olmstead, Marty (1997). Hidden Tennessee. Berkeley: Ulysses Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-56975-111-4. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: The Knoxville Opera Company produces four performances a year, including operas, concerts and musicals, accompanied by the Knoxville Symphony, in bboth the Tennessee Theatre and the Knoxville Civic Auditorium. Greenwald, Robert (1998). 50 Fabulous Planned Retirement Communities for Active Adults: A Comprehensive Directory of Outstanding Master-Planned Residential Developments. Franklin Lakes, New Jersey: Career Press. p. 314. ISBN 978-1-56414-347-1. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: The Knoxville Opera Company regularly presents nationally and internationally known stars in guest appearances. The South: The Guide for All Budgets, Where to Stay, Eat, and Explore on and Off the Beaten Path. New York: Fodor's. 2003. p. 526. ISBN 978-1-4000-1098-1. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The book notes: The Knoxville Opera Company (865/524-0795) sponsors New York Metropolitan Opera competitions each year, along with two locally produced operatic performances. The Knoxville Symphony Orchestra (865/523-1178) presents nearly 200 concerts a year, often with esteemed guest artists. The Knoxville Opera Company and the Knoxville Symphony Orchestra both perform at the Bijou Theater Center (803 S. Gay St., 865/522-0832), which also stages seasonal ballet and plays. McRary, Amy (2019-01-10). "Tune up: Knoxville Opera brings love, tragedy, madness and music to East Tennessee schools". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: Love, tragedy and madness, wrapped in music, played across the Farragut Middle School gymnasium Wednesday as the Knoxville Opera came to the school. ... First eighth-graders and then sixth-graders climbed the school bleachers for the performances. The opera will perform this or other programs at 23 schools in six East Tennessee counties this month. Because of donations to the program, the performances are free to the schools. ... This is the eighth year of school outreach. Other selections have included "Romeo and Juliet," "Cinderella" and "Carmen." ... Students don't walk into the gym unprepared. The opera sends participating schools a study guide about the work. The Farragut students spent a day talking about Lucia di Lammermoor's plot, about musical terms and how to enjoy a performance, said FMS Director of Choral Music Kimberly Mink. "Knoxville Opera celebrates 40 years with gala". Knoxville News Sentinel. 2017-10-19. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: The Knoxville Opera Company will celebrate its 40th season with a gala concert next weekend. It will offer a veritable greatest hits of opera moments, some from the company’s past productions and some that music director and conductor Brian Salesky calls his “bucket list” — operas he would love to stage for Knoxville audiences. ... Contemporary opera stars Rochelle Bard, Catherine Daniel, Aaron Short and Scott Bearden will perform at the gala. Salesky will conduct the Knoxville Symphony Orchestra for selections such as Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries, the Confrontation Scene from “Mary Queen of Scots,” and works by Puccini, Rossini, Verdi, Mozart, Bizet, Lehar, Offenbach and others. ... Even with such a legend involved, this single concert is just one among numerous highlights of the Knoxville Opera’s history. University of Tennessee voice professor Edward Zambara spearheaded a collaborative effort by community arts organizers to launch what was originally called the Knoxville Civic Opera Company with a production of “LaTraviata” in November of 1978. It starred Knoxville native and New York Metropolitan Opera icon Mary Costa as Violetta, one of her signature roles. Mason, Doug (1998-07-12). "Raising their Voices - Gala Concert celebrates Knoxville Opera Company's 20th anniversary". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: t was 20 years ago . . . well, not today. But this coming weekend, the Knoxville Opera Company is celebrating its 20th anniversary with a Gala Concert showcasing some of the favorite stars and operas from previous seasons. The Gala Concert is at 8 p.m. Friday and 2:30 p.m. Sunday, July 17 and 19, at the Tennessee Theater. The emcee for the season finale concert will be opera legend Mary Costa. The Knoxville native starred in the Knoxville Opera Company's debut production in 1978. She sang Violetta in "La Traviata," her signature role. "Brindisi," the drinking song from the first act of "Traviata," will open the Gala Concert. The performance will end with another toast to toasting -- the champagne song from the finale of "Die Fledermaus." Mason, Doug (2005-09-04). "Scaling back - New opera director weighs creativity and frugality as he balances the company's budget". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: That's the short book on Salesky, who skidded into town about the same time his predecessor, Frank Graffeo, announced his resignation. Graffeo resigned April 19. By the end of April, Salesky was hard at work planning the opera company's 2005-06 season -- a job normally done at least one year in advance, and usually more like two or three years. So there was no grace period for Salesky to knock around and get to know his new city. Instead, he disappeared into a corner office decorated to someone else's taste and laser-focused his mind on coming up with an artistic, engaging and saleable season for an opera company whose budget is $400,000 lower than the price tag for the season before. ... Salesky comes to Knoxville Opera at a time of restructuring. Last spring, the board committed itself to retiring the company's debt, a bill that had been mounting since Knoxville Opera debuted in 1978. The debt was at least $250,000 when the board cashed out the opera company's endowment and began a fund-raising campaign that has reduced the debt to about $60,000 in past payables from the 2004-05 season. Mason, Doug (2003-11-30). "Knoxville Opera's history comes to life in new book". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: <bblockquote>It's one of the anecdotes found in a new history of Knoxville Opera written by Peter Acly. The 64-page book was introduced at the Oct. 17 performance of "Turandot," which opened the opera company's 25th anniversary season. ... Acly, a professional writer and Knoxville Opera board member, interviewed more than 30 people, and pored through the opera company's extensive archives of clippings, reviews, programs, photos and posters, to tell the story of the company's first 25 years. Aston-Wash, Barbara (1992-09-20). "New East Tennessee Opera Guild To Lend Support To Opera Company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: The Knoxville Opera Company has a new arm - the East Tennessee Opera Guild. ... Fourteen years ago, when a group of opera buffs met to form the Knoxville Civic Opera Company, there were strong misgivings on the part of some. ... In 1982 - a big year for KOC - there was a move from the 900-seats in the Bijou to the Tennessee Theater where 1,530 opera goers could be accommodated.(It marked the beginning of a three-production season and a name change to+Knoxville Opera Company. Robert Lyall, who had joined the opera the season before as artistic director and conductor, became the general manager. ... Basking in great-crowd success, the opera has moved to four productions a+year - a theatrical production and concert in addition to two operas - and+again has outgrown its house. Last year, KOC moved to the Civic Auditorium+where there are sell-out audiences for the 2,400 seats, a larger orchestra pit, stage and more backstage space. Mason, Doug (2007-08-19). "Backstage: A 2007 Series on Performing Arts Groups. Late founder's vision lives on with opera company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article notes: But the big dogs must have their day eventually. And with the Aug. 7 passing of Ed Zambara, this seemed like a good time to Backstage the Knoxville Opera. Zambara was the founding artistic director of Knoxville Civic Opera, as it was called during its first years. ... Knoxville Civic Opera, incorporated in 1976, made its debut in 1978 with Verdi’s “La Traviata,” starring Knoxville-born diva Mary Costa. ... Zambara’s successor was his former assistant Robert Lyall. Lyall took Knoxville Opera fully professional, dropping “Civic” from the title in 1983. ... The debt was passed on to the next artistic director, Francis Graffeo. Knoxville Opera had lean years. Productions were scaled back. Emergency pleas for donations to “keep the doors open” were frequent. ... Graffeo exited in April 2005, the same month that Brian Salesky arrived hurriedly, planning a 2005-06 season on the fly. He has had a death grip on the Knoxville Opera Company’s budget ever since. Salesky does not like debt. He kills debt. Combs, Michael (2007-10-13). "Knoxville opera a big plus for community - Citizens Voice". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-11-05. The article is written by Michael Combs, a "professor emeritus at the University of Tennessee". The article notes: You don’t even have to like opera to appreciate Knoxville opera. Even the causal observer can’t help but be impressed with the recent resurgence of the Knoxville Opera Co. Just a couple of years ago, Knoxville Opera was barely hanging on, but today, the company is operating in the black and is projecting a very rosy and exciting future of fi rst-class productions that are all locally produced. What a turnaround! ... Today, unlike many other nonprofi t arts organizations, Knoxville Opera is paying its bills because Salesky will not produce opera that the people of this community are not willing to support. While he has no shortage of artistic emotions, at the same time he is a stickler for the bottom line.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Knoxville Opera to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Please add relevant information and sources to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per sources added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE. Coverage of people who work with opera companies is coverage - even the Met Opera has guest stars. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG RockingGeo (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

World Bloggers Awards

World Bloggers Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources that mention this are basically doing press, not getting into the nuts and bolts of where this organisation came from, who's behind it, etc. With many of our articles suffering from award mill bloat, we need to ensure that award articles have properly established notability.

And just to jump the gun on the Forbes sources, like this, this was written by a contributor, which I'm pretty sure is a fancy word for blogger, and it would not surprise me if these people pay to be allowed to publish articles at Forbes. (Indian film articles often suffered from inflated financial figures submitted by a Forbes contributor, Rob Cain, and I would not be surprised if he was just some marketing tool.) Note also that next to the contributor's name is a little information icon where, if you hover over it, you'll see Forbes disclaim responsibility for the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The sources in the article are problematic for the mpost part. At the time of nomination, references 1 and 3 are from the same Forbes contributor. A Forbes contributor is a writer who is using Forbes as aplatform to distribute their articles with no editorial control over the content from Forbes. As such, it is essentially a glorified blog and not a reliable source. References 2, 4 and 6 are from L'Officiel, a fashion and lifestyle magazine so one would think the coverage would accetpable. However, a closer look at the reporting shows the two articles are in fact press release regurgitations. References 4 and 6 are in fact the same article. Compare this L'Offciel article with this Google cache from the awards's official site. It's the same. Compare this L'Offciel article with official site's 2019 award page. Only Reference 5 moves the notability needle, abnd I am not sure how much that would be for an article from an Indian newspaper based out of California. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Margarita Bowl

Margarita Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An orphaned, largely un-sourced article on what appears to be a non-notable series of TV events. Outside of the IMDB pages linked here, searching brings up very little. Basically, I found a one-sentence mention in an article about Superbowl marketing, and Floyd Little very briefly mentions that he played in it once in his autobiography. Neither mentions are substantial enough to pass the WP:GNG. However, not being an expert on Football, I'm bringing it to AFD rather than PRODing it, as more knowledgeable editors may have better luck at source finding. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale. This is WP:NOT. Wm335td (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete seems to only contain information that can be found at IMDB, and that makes this article 100% redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Willing to reconsider if such coverage is presented. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, Per above, not significant coverage,fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Female Autobots

Female Autobots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional topic. I think it should also be deleted, but List of female Transformers also exists, so this is also redundant. TTN (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete (or redirect to list of female transformers). This seems like it might be a WP:SYNTH issue, since there's no in-universe grouping of these characters to justify a list, or any external third-party sources that discuss these characters as a single group or source). 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, as non-notable. If there was a notable thing to mention about female autobots in particular, then it can be mentioned in Autobots but currently there is nothing of note here so it would make no sense to redirect it. I would also suggest bundling List of female Transformers with this since without this page, there is no encyclopedic basis for that page to exist either._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to List of female Transformers. There's no need to keep essentially the same information in two separate articles. JIP | Talk 09:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I think merging is a reasonable idea, JIP, but I'm concerned that the List of female Transformers will be the next article to get the axe, since it has more or less the same problems that this article does. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If List of female Transformers gets deleted, then Wikipedia will lose all mentions that female Transformers even exist. But on the other hand, the way things are going, Wikipedia will lose almost all information of individual Transformers anyway. JIP | Talk 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely a concern that I have. I could get behind the idea of merging this article with that one, but if in the future a decision is made to delete that article, then we might need to preserve the relevant information in the main Transformers article. I think this content is valuable, but there's always a risk when categorizations like this (which are largely sourced to in-universe material and organized in a way that non-Wikipedia sources don't use). 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The information is not being "lost", as one can navigate to the Transformers Wiki to get this information. On Wikipedia, should only be the few Transformers that are actually notable enough to receive unique commentary that is not just their plot summary. However, I am sure that the simple fact that female Transformers exist can definitely be mentioned in the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - As mentioned, this article appears to be largely synthesis, compiling information about individual female transformers characters without using any sources that actually talk about the grouping or concept as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Primes and Matrix holders. The target could be changed but redirect was the clear preference in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sentinel Prime

Sentinel Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect and briefly describe Sentinel Prime there. As is, just a mess of original research and trivia. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Autobots. Not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't List of Primes and Matrix holders be a more preferable target? Sentinel Prime was not part of the original Transformers G1 toy line and not produced as a toy, instead "Sentinel Prime" was invented by Simon Furman while working for Marvel Comics. It was only later, after the original toy line had ended, that Hasbro began using Sentinel Prime as an official toy character. JIP | Talk 11:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Draconic creature (Dungeons & Dragons)

Draconic creature (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article has no secondary sources, and no secondary sources can be found with a quick web search. There is no indication that the fictional creatures listed on the page have any sort of significance in real world. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not a very active user (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely in-universe, only primary-sourced game information. Not only that, but this seems to be somewhat of a synthesis of several different ideas and concepts from D&D, rather than a single, coherent topic, united only by the idea that these creatures are "similar" to dragons. Searches bring up no reliable sources, and even the non-reliable or fan sources that come up do not match the information being presented here. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Rorshacma. Non-notable gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. The article lacks secondary reliable sources , fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

George Uhl

George Uhl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. #1 is a photo of (apparently) Mr. Uhl holding a tennis trophy; the remainder are listings of his industry awards, which don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful. I have also found no indication that Mr. Uhl meets any of the WP:NTENNIS criteria. Cheers, gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and salt the soil. "Winning tennis player" made me laugh.--Darwinek (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I think Darwinek was joking about salting, but don't salt. There is a neuroscientist by the same name who may actually be notable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Inayatullah Faizi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Inayatullah Faizi
• Articles for deletion/Inayatullah Faizi (2nd nomination)

Inayatullah Faizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This BLP has been discussed before, at a prior deletion debate in October 2017. At that time, the outcome was "keep", but I do rather feel that in-depth analysis of the sources was lacking during that debate, and there's an opportunity for us to discuss it more thoroughly. Strictly speaking the article may well qualify for speedy deletion under CSD X2, but as the article has been kept at a previous AfD I thought it better to renominate than to try to speedy it. —S Marshall T/C 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the only source is a PR piece about him from a university he was in some way connected to. Nothing even remotely close to being an indepedent, reliable 3rd party source is present in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I agree with the nominator that the decision of the previous AfD was unconvincing. But because of the language barrier I am not likely able to look for sources very effectively. I'd be willing to change my mind if sufficient in-depth independent reliable sourcing on him or his books can be found, regardless of its language. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Evans (politician)

Jordan Evans (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a local politician in a small town, with no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:NPOL. The only political offices she has held are secretary of her political party's local chapter in her own town and trustee on the local library board, but these are not NPOL-passing offices -- and the only other attempt at a notability claim here is of the "first member of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" variety, which AFD has consistently held is not a free pass to being instantly more notable than other library trustees or committee secretaries. And as the sources go, two of the four are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are not fundamentally about her, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself rather than being written about in the third person -- so all of them would be fine for supplementary verification of facts if there were other, better sources alongside them, but none of them are notability clinchers in and of themselves if there aren't other, better sources alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — This is a classic pitfall of additional notability criteria such as WP:NPOL. Scroll up slightly to the heading above that, at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, and it says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and then, just in case anyone missed it, it repeats: "a person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." NPOL, or WP:ARTIST or WP:ATHLETE whatever are additional paths to notability, not narrow hurdles a bio must overcome. This subject meets WP:GNG because she has been the main topic of significant coverage in multiple, good-quality sources over a span of time, and not only for a single thing. This includes 2017 [1][2][3][4], and in 2018 [5], and in 2019 [6][7]. This is in addition to the citation from 2016 and three more from 2017 currently cited in the article. It would be nice if all of these had been mentioned in the stub, but it's not necessary, since WP:BEFORE requires not just checking the sources in the article, but taking a few minutes to do a basic search yourself before nominating at AfD. It took me about three minutes to locate these. I could have done it in even less time if I'd started at https://jwevans.co/media/ (self-serving media pages aren't reliable sources, but pointing out the existence of coverage makes our job easier). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Three of those are not sources about her, but sources which merely quote her giving soundbite in an article that is about something or somebody else. A fourth (ThinkProgress) is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. A fifth (Boston Spirit) is a short blurb in a listicle in a local interest magazine. And while the other two would be fine for some additional verification of facts if the other sources in play were better and more substantive than they are, those two don't add up to enough — NewNowNext and Refinery29 are not sources that get a person over the GNG bar all by themselves if they're the best you can do. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, Agree completely re: ThinkProgress, a biased propaganda rag of John Podesta's left-leaning Center for American Progress. Refinery29 sounds like a blog; most of the others don't seem to meet WP:RS. Washington Post and NBC News articles look like tangential or passing mentions to me. Well cited rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Has been mentioned a lot of places, but none of it comes close to significant coverage. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep GNG has been met. Generally, this is true of people who have 1,300 word articles written about them in The Washington Post. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep of encyclopedic interest Lyndaship (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and rationale provided by Hirolovesswords. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep That is a chunky article and the rest of the coverage is beyond what is required. I think due to the nature of her existence, there will be more news articles, soliciting additional coverage as time passes. I think it is a solid keep. Far more than is needed to pass WP:SIGCOV. I can't agree with the argument that it is tenuous and is off the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG with WaPo article, Cosmo, Boston Spirit profile, and the news sources considering Evans a credible source to quote in articles about other topics. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Giving soundbite to the media is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself; Boston Spirit is a local interest magazine giving her a short blurb in a listicle, not a substantive or notability-making source; Cosmo is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, not an article being written about her by somebody independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - there has been lots of significant coverage - a local official can be notable, but is not automatically presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lots of significant coverage where? Virtually every source that's been shown at all is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her to any non-trivial degree, a local-interest listicle, or a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person — only one source has been shown that even gets her off the starting blocks, and one valid source is not enough to get her to the finish line all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong delete Special pleading has reached the level of adsurdity here. Being a member of a party committee at the town level is not a sign of notability, ever, under any circumstances. Being an elected member of a library board is never a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing here comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Horizon (festival)

Horizon (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable event. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - zero reliable sources about this run of the mill event that is so obscure that I can't see what it's about. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - my full respect to whoever created this article, but it really is a confusing mess. None of the citations establish notability, and I can't find any online that do. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Shurugwi District#Education. After a re-list (and re-check of name), still zero support to keep; clear consensus to Redirect (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dlemiti primary school

Dlemiti primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nn primary school that was recently created directly in mainspace, "primary school" should have its first two letters capitalised. I'm unable to find anything on this school online -Google for example gives me suggestions for Clementi Primary School in Singapore. The current 5 plain text sources is not helpful and per WP:DEL#7, WP:DEL#8 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Draftify - or delete. If this isn't a terminal school in Zimbabwe, it should be deleted. If it is, then draftify. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and or ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking I should have draftified this but happy with either — support John's comment above Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect: WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT to Shurugwi District#Education as per long standing practice for non notable schools, especially primary and middlde schools, and as evidenced by 1,000s of redirects ( and an expansion of a [[WP:ATD-R|policy),. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect as per Kudpungs comment. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hughesdarren I think you mean Redirect if you are referring to my comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Fixed now, I was initially thinking delete but you changed my mind. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect per User:Kudpung MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Kudpung. Lectonar (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Point of information - the name of the school is actually Dhlemiti primary school - user has asked at the Teahouse how to change the name - see Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_can_I_change_a_title_ie_"Dlemiti_primary_school_"_to_"Dhlemiti_primary_school"_.I_ommitted_"h". so we will need to re-search for sources - Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Searching on corrected spelling "Dhlemiti primary school" does not yield any useful search results for referencing. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas J. Greanias

Nicholas J. Greanias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the standards of WP:NPOL or WP:NPROF. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - fails the professor test because he's only been an adjunct, and as a diplomat because he's never been named and confirmed as an ambassador. I thank him for his service, but he's just a mid-level career officer. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete adjunct professors are almost never notable for being such, and no other real claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to Delete and a lean to Keep from the RS quoted; however, engagement stopped post the second re-list (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Positive environmentalism

Positive environmentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seemingly a neologism invented in 2006 (from the citation in the article) which has not caught on. A WP:BEFORE search turned up this 2014 article by George Monbiot whose title includes the expression, two other 2014 publications (1, 2) by Monbiot which mention the expression in passing, and this link on ELDIS about it. ELDIS seems to be WP:SELFPUB and therefore not WP:RS. The ELDIS link is of 2007 by one T. Clougherty, who (like the Alex Singleton relied on in the article) was associated with The Globalisation Institute. The fact that the headings on The Globalisation Institute's official website (you may not want to click on that link) are now "Penis Enlargement · Sperm Volume · Male Enhancement · Premature Ejaculation" suggests that their ambitions may have changed or have been changed for them. Fails WP:GNG, delete. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Possibly keep. The concept is older than 2006. My university library search came up with 76 article hits, including 27 peer reviewed journal articles spanning back to 1994 and going up to 2018. Did you search Proquest or another academic search engine before making this nomination?4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Have you added any of those 76 sources to the article? Its edit history says not. Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not my area of interest. I am just asking if you followed WP:BEFORE. That's a valid question since you chose to nominate the article.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the purpose of the question "Have you added any of those 76 sources to the article?" was. If the sources exist to pass GNG there is no requirement to add them to the article before keeping. If the questioner feels they need to be added, that falls under WP:SOFIXIT but is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not my area of interest and I am not interested in editing this article, but here are some peer reviewed journal sources and academic symposium records that discuss positive environmentalism (in multiple disciplines, including philosophy, theology, history, and science) from my university library. It is an internal database so I can not provide urls, but I am sure other academic search engines online have the same articles:

1. "A rewilding agenda for Europe: creating a network of experimental reserves"; Jepson, Paul; Ecography, February 2016, Vol.39(2), pp.n/a-n/a
2. "Conservative Social Christianity, the Law, and Personal Morality: Wilbur F. Crafts in Washington"; Foster, Gaines M; Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, 2002, Vol.71(4), pp.799-819
3. "SYMPOSIUM ON THE SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLAGE OF EUCLID v. AMBLER REALTY CO.: Euclid's Historical Imagery"; Richard H. Chused; Case W. Res., Vol.51 pp.597-749, 2001
4. '"Unnatural unions": picturesque travel, sexual politics, and working-class representation in "A Night Under Ground" and "Life in the Iron-Mills"'; Silver, Andrew; Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers, 2003, Vol.20(1-2), p.94(24)
5. "Beyond Hull House: New Interpretations of the Settlement Movement in America"; Spratt, Margaret; Journal of Urban History, September 1997, Vol.23(6), pp.770-776
6. "Exploring conservation discourses in the Galapagos Islands: A case study of the Galapagos giant tortoises"; Benitez-Capistros, Francisco ; Hugé, Jean ; Dahdouh-Guebas, Farid ; Koedam, Nico, Ambio, Oct 2016, Vol.45(6), pp.706-724
7. "From Hygeia To the Garden City: Bodies, Houses, and the Rediscovery of the Slum in Manchester, 1875—1910"; Platt, Harold L; Journal of Urban History, July 2007, Vol.33(5), pp.756-772
8. "WIRELESS LOCALISM: BEYOND THE SHROUD OF OBJECTIVITY IN FEDERAL SPECTRUM ADMINISTRATION"; Olivier Sylvain; Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev., Vol.20 pp.121-523, 2013

Hope this will help move this discussion forward.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I also found this: Book review: The Politics of Crowd: An Alternative History of Sociology; Bertilsson, Margareta; Journal of Classical Sociology, November 2015, Vol.15(4), pp.450-456 which reviews a book which covers positive environmentalism in an in-depth way according to the review. There appears to be plenty of sources to make a good article.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - is there another name for this movement? This has the whiff of an "anti-life"/"anti-choice" kind of moniker. Also, I'm not acquainted with this topic, but bright green environmentalism sounds pretty similar to this topic. Daß Wölf 20:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep albeit, the article in present form completely misrepresents the term. Texts from the late 1970s onwards use "positive environmentalism" to describe movements that sought to mitigate the effects of industrialisation in the 19th Century in urban environments and promote socially positive behaviour (eg building of parks as a means to discourage anti-vice activities). A Google NGRAM search provides multiple instances over the last 40 off years of usage of the term. Also note there is a specific entry for the topic in the WP:TERTIARY source Urban Geography: A Critical Introduction pp.214-216.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that a WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen has met notability for this subject. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Birchard

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Paul Birchard
• Articles for deletion/Paul Birchard (2nd nomination)

Paul Birchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subject is a minor and entirely unknown actor. Subject has never had "significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

First link to the NYTimes.com is broken and goes nowhere. In the second source, his name is mentioned along with the rest of the play ensemble in a very short review from 2010. The third source is an obituary of an obscure lecturer. Finally, the fourth source is a link to a profile of his son. Taken together, there is nothing notable about this collection of citations.

A search of the subject's name on IMDB returns numerous Paul Birchards – one would be hard-pressed to know which of these corresponds to the Paul Birchard listed here.

A search of the article subject's name on Google primarily reveals URLs to the subject's personal homepage.

Article subject seems to have a well-known son by the name of Hudson Mohawke, but this does not entitle subject to having a Wikipedia page. I note that Mohawke's Wikipedia page has a line about Paul Birchard being his father and links to Birchard's Wikipedia page. This is circuitous.

Do we propose that the parents of all notable musicians should have their own Wikipedia pages?

Finally, I note that there are over 9 million actors and crew members listed on IMDB. I fail to see how appearing on this database meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.Nonmerci33 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see too much coverage and content is not well referenced, which means the creator may be associated to the person. Should someone improve the article, keep only the referenced content and find more coverage, perhaps it can be reconsidered. His 2019 Role as Ernest Hemingway, might get him some additional coverage in the future. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. The NY Times article does not mention Birchard, and a search of the NY Times archive does not retrieve anything. The other sources do not give very significant coverage of Birchard. It appears that his acting roles have been minor characters. The football song seems to be the only really interesting thing, and it was just one song that does not appear to have been a top Billboard 100 song. As noted above, it is not even clear if all this information applies to a single Paul Birchard, or perhaps more than one. It has not been demonstrated that this person is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The sourcing is not adequate enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment There is definitely more sourcing that can be added, from the British Newspaper Archive for example, and more productions which he has appeared in, in some of which he had lead roles. Many Wikipedia articles about actors seem to have been created based on what is in IMDB. That does not mean that IMDB is the only source - and it's clearly not a complete source, when it covers only screen appearances, not stage performances. It seems to have been a quick way to create articles (this one was created in 2006), and is not a reflection on the notability or otherwise of the subjects. I will try to find the time to add more sources and info to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:RebeccaGreen, you are such a good researcher. I wish you would use your skills to expand the articles of really notable stage actors instead of documenting the workaday careers of non-notable actors.You could start with people who have won Oliver awards in the West End and Tony Awards on Broadway. Just a suggestion. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ssilvers, thank you for the compliment! However, I don't know that the actors I research are non-notable, until I research more. In the case of this person, I see TV, radio and cinema listings in newspapers from the 1990s and 2000s saying "Stars John Cusack and Paul Birchard" [8]; "Judi Dench, Susan Porrett, Susannah Morley, Paul Birchard, Sylvia Barter, Bill Nighy" [9]; "With Giles Havergal and Paul Birchard" [10]. Of course, not all of the actors appearing in productions with definitely notable actors like Judi Dench, Bill Nighy and John Cusack will be notable themselves - but perhaps they will meet WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions, and therefore merit a Wikipedia article, allowing others who come across their names in listings like the above to find out who they are/were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I have added more sources and information, about him and about his career. I believe the evidence shows that he does meet WP:NACTOR. There are more digitised newspapers I can look through, so I may be able to find more reviews - and I have yet to look for sources for all the info that was already in the article (films, computer games, football song, etc). I will keep adding more, but perhaps Expertwikiguy and Ssilvers would like to consider his career as shown now. No, he may not be a "really notable actor" who has won awards, but he has had significant roles in notable productions, and garnered good reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep RebeccaGreen did work on the article and it is now a keep per WP:SNG. He meets WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in notable productions, and garnered reviews. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like an example of WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep is is a case of WP:HEY thanks to Rebecca. Wm335td (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - I can see why deletion was proposed, but the recent improvements to the article indicate notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - per recent improvements since nom. Passes WP:GNG per work and reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The Lead section mentions the role of "Bud", which is not even mentioned in the plot summary of "Sweet Bird of Youth" -- a bit part. Ross is a supporting role in The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?, which production was played at a regional theatre in Edinburgh. Chuck is from a non-notable play. I remain in the Delete column. Rebecca did a good job writing an article about a work-a-day actor. It is a pity that she does not focus her efforts upon important actor bios -- Here is a list of musical theatre stubs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's your prerogative, Ssilvers. I do not read "significant roles" as "starring roles", as I think if it meant that, it would say so. Supporting roles can also be significant. The Wikipedia article about Sweet Bird of Youth only names three characters. Bud is one of the main male character's "old friends [who] call his bluff and see him for what he has become", and he helps with the (implied/actual) castration of Chance at the end. (By the way, I don't think the inhabitants of Edinburgh, the capital city of a country, would appreciate being called "regional".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Edinbugh is not a major theatre market, except for the Edinburgh International Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The only really major theatre markets are West End and Broadway (and long-running UK and US national tours). Everything else is regional, or local, if you prefer, or "off-something", including Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, off-Broadway and all other theatre markets. I agree that a supporting role "can be" significant, but it is not necessarily significant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SILS gastric banding

SILS gastric banding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a single purpose account, this ref bombed article is carefully constructed to create the impression of authoritativeness when in fact only a few of the sources provided refer to the procedure that is the topic of the article. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - whatever the merits of the current sourcing, a search for "Single-incision laparoscopic surgery" "gastric banding" "systematic review" returns several systematic review articles (the gold standard for WP:MEDRS) comparing SILS with other surgical approaches to bariatric surgery. Liu et al 2015 compares SILS and conventional laparoscopy for adjustable gastric banding. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550728913003900 Moreno-Sanz 2015] compares SIL and conventional bariatric surgery, which includes gastric banding as one approach (another is gastric bypass). Ahmed and Patel 2011 systematically review the literature on SILS in abdominal surgery more widely, gastric banding being one kind: they filtered 698 articles down to 102 that they analysed in detail. Kang et al 2018 review Single-Port Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Bariatric Treatments, gastric banding being one of "the most commonly performed surgical therapies" in the field. This says that the approach is notable and has been reliably evaluated repeatedly over several years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the article is seriously in need of updating; much of it was written by User:Obesitysurgeons (a username that would instantly get blocked today) back in 2009 before the review articles were written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This is a well sourced relevant article. Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Autumn of Protests

2019 Autumn of Protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per my comment on its talk page - many of the protests are unconnected; the article tries to connect them, when it would serve more accurately (no OR or SYNTH) as merely a 'List of protests in October 2019' Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Per my own comment on talk page many of the protests are connected; and I have various sources proving that notion. The UN even agrees that these protests are connected in some form (I'll link that source). Please take your time to read the following sources, which explain how and why they're connected: If you need more sources, I can get you more sources. Foxterria (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We can break those down. Take the most reliable, the BBC, which says 'they're unconnected but some have common themes'. It then connects protests in Latin America by one theme, protests in the Middle East by another theme, Hong Kong and Catalunya by another, and then throws in Extinction Rebellion. This isn't saying they're all related. Or by your count, the climate protests should be included. The Reuters article did exactly the same and the UN connects them even less, saying all the protests are different but are evidence that people around the world have decided to stand up for their desire to be heard. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The BBC also says 'While thousands of miles apart, protests have begun for similar reasons in several countries, and some have taken inspiration from each other on how to organise and advance their goals.', like you said, we can break them down. There are again several sources relating them with one another. This isn't just a series of protests omnipresent in Latin America, it's quite a global phenomenon of political tension and anti-government notion that have flared up at the same time. Foxterria (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to add, the BBC connects Latin America and the Middle East hand in hand. Foxterria (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I borrow a quote from you there: some have taken inspiration from each other - not that they have all taken inspiration. As I said, similar reasons in some areas, but not the entire world, so it's inappropriate to link the entire world's protests. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It connects Latin America and the Middle East in a passing reference to previous protests. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What? The BBC itself connects these various protests throughout the entire article except the climate change ones, which is why the page '2019 Autumn of Protests' doesn't include climate change because it's irrelevant. The parts of the article on political freedom, corruption, income inequality and inequality links all the protests altogether except the climate change protests. Can you read the article please? I believe you haven't even read it completely in order to make that argument. Foxterria (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the article. I feel you might be willfully or accidentally misinterpreting it. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel I might need to expand on this. The articles all say pretty much one thing: there's a growing protesting sentiment around the world. Some of these attribute it to Hong Kong being in the news. But for the protests to be related, what is ultimately being protested against has to be connected, beyond themes like 'inequality' that everyone is generally angry about. With Latin America, there's a specific regional economic background and unease radiating from Venezuela that's kicked them all off. Even though Catalunya and Hong Kong are in quite similar situations, their protests obviously have ties that are much too local to be related (and are too historic to really count here). So, to see the articles as connecting all the protests into a global movement is an inaccurate reading. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As a separate comment, I link a draft I made for 2019 Latin America democracy protests; here the sources refer to the protests as a Latin American wave and have experts discuss the geopolitical background that caused protests to happen in this place at this time. I feel this serves as a comparative and an example of how some of the global protests are connected, but at regional levels; Latin America has a long interconnected political and economic history and a shared protest culture that defies being tied too closely to protests elsewhere. Kingsif (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The title is inappropriate for events which span both northern and southern hemispheres, as Autumn occurs at different times of year in the hemispheres.-gadfium 02:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I searched for a WP:COMMONNAME for all these protests, to no avail so far. Leaning towards delete. An article in Washington Post says the circumstances vary from place to place, "but over the past few years, we have seen the rise of populism and nationalism around the world — and with it have come short-sighted policies that are stunting long-term growth". The article could be recreated if a common name emerges, similar to Autumn of Nations or Arab Spring. Brandmeister^talk 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As Zhou En Lai (周恩来) responded when asked his thoughts about the French revolution: WP:TOOSOON. Problems also with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and no real evidence it exists as a phenomenon. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or Disambiguatify - Several notable events, but not enough coverage of this term or of their interconnectedness in general. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per above, --SalmanZ (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Keith Barish

Keith Barish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of notability. None of the references I looked at were actually about him TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The subject Co-founded Planet Hollywood according to Newsweek, in addition he was a movie producer for major big-budget Hollywood movies like The Fugitive. The article has many passing mention references and we need more in depth references, but that does not diminish the notability of the subject. I will work on finding these additional refs if I have time. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The subject has been the primary topic in news articles such as Deseret News, Orlando Sentinel, The New York Times and The Washington Post. That makes it qualify per WP:BASIC. The article also qualifies per WP:FILMMAKER since he produced such films as Sophie’s Choice and The Fugitive. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above that show that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A Need for Hope

A Need for Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can find no critical reviews or other reliable media coverage for this book. The article is probably promotional and was created by the author or someone mimicking his name. All that can be found are the typical retail listings. (And while it's not relevant here, the uniformly raving "customer" reviews at Amazon are suspicious too.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. ProQuest is pretty good for book reviews and gives me no hits for this. Haukur (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I searched and found exactly 22 Ghits, of which the Goodreads page was a passing mention and the other 21 were unreliable. Sadly, lots of good YA novels fail to get the attention they deserve, but Wikipedia is not the place to publicize a new book. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not Delete. Google has a knowledge panel for the book - usually knowledge panels are reserved for notable subjects. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.107.242 (talk) 14:03, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

• Google hits are not seen as something that can establish notability per this guideline. As far as the knowledge panel goes, this is created by bringing up information about the source. So for example, if there's information about the book in say, places like Goodreads or WorldCat, Google's Knowledge Graph would pull upon those sources to bring up an applicable panel. It's not in itself a sign of notability, just a sign that there are enough links (reliable or not) that give information about the book. If it's listed on many sale sites or places like Goodreads, those will typically be enough to bring up a knowledge panel. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• 'Delete. I did a search and there's just nothing out there. Unfortunately independently published works typically don't gain coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable, however there's not really anything that Wikipedia can do about that. My recommendations for indie authors typically revolves around just reaching out to people for reviews - not just media outlets like newspapers but also review blogs. Almost all review blogs will be seen as non-reliable sources, however getting a good word of mouth can lead to gaining coverage in the places that are seen as reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural keep - AfD is not the place for this copyright discussion. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

100 Women (BBC)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC)
• Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC) (2nd nomination)

100 Women (BBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is great information but it is also a model project and we need to have copyright in order. As described at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list? this content is covered by copyright and seems ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The most particular reason for deletion is conflict with Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. We should sort this - it is a model project for others to emulate, and it would be an error to leave this if we do not have copyright license to publish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, the nominator is confused as to what this is an article about. 100 Women is a TV program that aired on the BBC, so the sole question that would be relevant here is whether that program is notable, on which no question has been raised. Whether it happens to be a copyvio to list the 100 women featured in each series (and I doubt that) is not a question for this forum, as we would not delete the entire article to remedy that. The nominator points to a discussion on that issue from three years ago that did not reach a conclusion or consensus that there was a copyvio issue. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep There is no copyright in facts. The fact is that these are the 100 names selected as each year's "BBC 100 Women". If we had copied the descriptions word-for-word from the BBC site there might be a question about the copyright, but we have not (eg in 2019 Jasmin Akter: we say "Rohingya refugee and cricketer", BBC said "UK-Bangladesh cricketer"). And, as postdlf says, the question is not whether the article should be deleted (it's undoubtedly a notable TV series), but whether some of the content of the article should be deleted as copyright, so this should not be at AfD. PamD 17:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually UK copyright law, and others, recognise "compilation rights", and many lists are not allowed on WP. But this is not really an Afd issue, but to argue over at the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The Afd rationale is flawed. This is article is about a BBC program, so is notable. If there was any copyright content within it, it would been removed long ago. I suggest close this as Snow Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The TV programme itself meets our notability criteria. However, publishing the full list of 100 names each year appears to be a copyright issue, and this has been discussed on the article talkpage, although that seems to have fizzled out almost three years ago. Perhaps that discussion could be revived. Edwardx (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Snowball keep - AfD is not the place to hash out copyright issues. There's no dispute about the notability of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Tilda Del Toro

Tilda Del Toro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has lots of sources but they are not good for GNG, interviews, routine announcements, imdb. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Jobbing actor with zero coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I think it is a case WP:TOOSOON. She learning film-making but what work is there is mostly shorts. She was noticed in Cannes though so its only a matter of time before another article appears. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List of people involved with Babylon 5

List of people involved with Babylon 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages :

• List of people involved with Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This duplicates information that is already present in the bodies and infoboxes of Babylon 5 and Crusade (TV series), and their Lists of episodes. IMDB is a better place for this kind of list-y presentation. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete both - While both of these TV shows are themselves notable, it is not clear that the sets of people involved in the production of each are themselves notable. Following WP:LISTN, I can't see that either of these have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources; neither article provides such a source and I have been unable to find one myself.

Edit - So sorry, I forgot to sign this yesterday. WJ94 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN. This is IMDb's job. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both- I like Babylon 5 but this is pure listcruft. I agree with Clarityfiend that we should not be duplicating IMDb. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Emperor Blackgate

Emperor Blackgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What makes this fictional character notable? I can't see any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Just more comic-cruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Same as above. Seems to just be WP:Fancruft, and only appeared in about 10 issues. MacDoesWiki (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Let this page stay. He is one of the breakout characters for The New 52. I originally called him Emperor Penguin (comics) before @Darkknight2149: redirected it to his current name and added what he could to the page. If it is not kept, where else can his information be redirected? The List of Batman family enemies page? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Line

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line
• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (3rd nomination)

Battle of the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fictional event failing WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Quite well referenced, but it's pretty much PRIMARY all mentions in passing. Could be redirected to Earth-Minbari War but that is not going to outlast it much, perhaps Babylon 5: In the Beginning movie might be a valid target...? In either case, this is not notable enough to be more than a redirect, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Extreme fictional minutia. Fails GNG and title is fairly vague._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe merge the sourced real-world material to Jeffrey Sinclair where it's relevant for real-world context. I agree that Earth–Minbari War as the most suitable redirection target would not survive AfD either. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. The reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oberyn Martell

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Oberyn Martell
• Articles for deletion/Oberyn Martell (2nd nomination)

Oberyn Martell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A minor GoT character who appeared in few episodes. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Mentions limited to fictional character biography/episode summaries/etc. There is an interview with the actor [12] and the actor even got some awards, but those are indications of the ACTOR's notability, not the CHARACTER's. WP:NOTINHERITED - let's not confuse recognition for the actor with that for the (very minor) character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The topic already has plenty of sources and so the nomination is yet another WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Games of Thrones is the modern equivalent of Shakespeare's plays, there is plenty more critical commentary out there. As usual, the nominator has not done the due diligence required by WP:BEFORE as one can immediately find coverage like the following. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  The character of Oberyn Martell, for example, begs for a reading as an attack on Western bigotry, homophobia, and racism. Oberyn's depiction encapsulates a variety of fears, compounded and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness. ... In Dorne, the tolerance of homosexuality, and polygamy in the series is present by the depiction of Oberyn Martell ... Oberyn Martell is the son of the Prince of Dorne, has eight daughters by five different wives, and ...

• Weak Keep This character actually does have a large amount of online news articles about him, making him seem notable to me, though the article definitely needs to be less in-universe perspective._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the character was a major one in the series, and there is SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sandeep JL

Sandeep JL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable individual, lacking reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that is required to meet WP:GNG and I see nothing that shows he meets the notability criteria for martial artists, actors, or any other occupation. It also appears likely the article has COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete nothing of note about this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Jackson

Cameron Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: None of the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. #1 is a (very NSFW) porn magazine which lists Mr. Jackson's purported vital statistics. #2 is a promotional interview on a porn site in which Mr. Jackson makes unduly self-serving remarks. The other three are listings of Mr. Jackson's industry awards: these don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only a handful of passing mentions. Cheers, gnu57 07:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO the porn actor is a WP:MILL actor. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Zero notability here.--Darwinek (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete another one of our unneeded glut of run of the mill pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bret Wolfe

Bret Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: None of the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. I looked for new ones and found only two interviews. (I haven't listened to the podcast one.) I don't believe Mr. Wolfe's industry awards count towards anything either, now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. His roles in non-pornographic films and plays (listed in his resume) do not appear significant. Cheers, gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Independent reliable sources appear to have nothing to say about this person, especially nothing to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. Even in the later phases of PORNBIO, it would have been a stretch for him to pass the "well-known and significant" test. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer. It is time to get rid of the glut of articles on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cecilia Harvey

Cecilia Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor, lacks in-depth news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources for her research into queen bee syndrome, but they are all based around interviews (which don't count toward notability). My question is, does the extent to which they're based around interviews overwhelmingly count them as only an interview and not count toward notability, or does the independent prose interspersed with the interview material count them toward notability? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment "Undisclosed paid editor"? On what basis? No-one has suggested it on the editor's talk page, or asked whether they have a WP:COI. It's not a phrase to be thrown around lightly. Yes, it's this editor's only contribution, they worked on it in their sandbox and then copied that into a new article, but that doesn't prove they are paid editor. Ask them about COI first? And leave them a welcoming template: WP:AGF. PamD 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

PamD, I am not sure if I am smart enough. But it is 1,000% paid editing from a big sock farm. It was a proper planned perfect execution, the biggest hint I got with the photo, a private, nice high quality photo uploaded on commons from flickr. So first, a new flickr account created in October 2019, Photo was uploaded on flickr on 15 Oct, uploaded on commons on 17 Oct, page editing started on sandbox from 10 Oct, made over 10 edits, got auto confirmed account and moved to mainspace on 21 October with no errors. Who can do this without knowing everything about Wikipedia, a new editor or someone who is super-expert in it? If you want MER-C can elaborate it even better, who is best among all admins in this. Meeanaya (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources Pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEXIST.--Wakowako (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wakowako, can you please share 3-4 in-depth news articles about her that you are talking about? Just check that the news articles you share are not just mere mentions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, as they can represent "the world at large" taking notice of a person. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment hello Meeanaya, fyi, i haven't shared articles. But those references clearly counts WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent reliable sources thus deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. --Wakowako (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If she is notable for anything then it appears to me that it is only for her research into queen bee syndrome, which has numerous articles from reliable sources. However the degree to which those articles are interviews, or focus on her paper rather than on her, makes this difficult for me to judge her notability based on sourcing. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New Capitol Cinemas

New Capitol Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable company. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I can find a considerable amount of ... let's call it light coverage (better than passing mentions, but not really dedicated to the topic) of this company in the context of historical examinations of Botswana's film industry (for example, a paragraph or so in Parsons, Neil (2014). "False Dawns over the Kalahari?: Botswana Film Production in Historical Perspective". In Ukadike, Nwachukwu Frank (ed.). Critical Approaches to African Cinema Discourse. Lexington Books. pp. 135–154. ISBN 978-0-7391-8093-8.). If this were an American or British movie theater chain, and that's the best I could do, I'd be right with you advocating for deletion. But African cinema (and African media, more broadly) is under-represented in online sources; that I can find what I can find suggests that local media would likely have more in-depth coverage. Yeah, yeah, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, I know. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep, as per Squeamish Ossifrage. Meeanaya (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Locathah

Locathah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to DnD list of creatures listed above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely insignificant fictional creature which has received no coverage in secondary sources. A merge would just shift the problem somewhere else and not actually fix it, so I don't think this article should be merged. Not a very active user (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Not at all notable fictional creature._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Felix Pfeifle

Felix Pfeifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, there are simply no in-depth sources covering the subject, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says or wants to say themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. If coverage on reliable sources are missing then it is not eligible to have an article.Kakaey (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability. I have searched and found very little, though this may count for something. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete total failure of notability as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. SoWhy 09:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Mary Scheer

Mary Scheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article uses Internet Movie Database as a primary source. If deletion is not an option, I want to see solid evidence this article meets WP:NACTOR or even possibly WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh from there. Pahiy (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep A prime cast member on MADTV for several years and a longtime career in children's television and voice acting easily clinches WP:N, and there's no cause for TNT here to be found. Just because it uses IMDb as a source is hardly cause to delete the article at all. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as above easily passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR will look for sources later but so should the nominator as per WP:BEFORE imv Atlantic306 (talk)
• Keep per Nate. I've just added another source to the article. feminist (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Controls (song)

Controls (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

You Carry a Sickness / Park Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What Are You Gonna Do with Yourself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Three articles about songs by the same artist, none of which have any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS or any strong reliable source coverage about them. None of these songs did anything special to establish them as notable, such as charting or winning music awards -- and the references here are not about the songs as songs, but merely namecheck their existence in the process of being fundamentally about the entire albums they come from. This is not how you make a song notable enough to have its own standalone article separately from being mentioned in the album's article: songs are not automatically entitled to have standalone articles just because they exist, but must have an actual notability claim and reliable source coverage that singles the songs out for dedicated attention. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails NSONGs and GNG. One article has four sources, which may be enough for GNG, but the sources are really covering the album Strange Prison which already covers the two songs. That article may itself be a candidate for merging. No useful info in these to merge, totally implausible redirects. These song articles and the album article are really just bits from Astral Swans and are (pretty much) a walled garden. Strange Prison for example is linked from these three songs, Astral Swans, another album by Astral, 2018 in Canadian music and the producer's article. Controls is linked from Strange prison, Astral Swan, and the producer. Maybe Leave an entry at the Control dab linking to Astral Swans. Hydromania (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments of WP:NEXIST are valid and not to be discarded lightly for subjects released before most sources were available online but even if there was no sufficient coverage to support a full article, nominator failed to explain why a merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks (to be discussed at WP:Proposed mergers if necessary) is not a valid option (WP:ATD). Regards SoWhy 09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Faiths and Pantheons

Faiths and Pantheons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification since 2016, and the Reception and Reviews sections have been empty since 2012. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I removed the reception section as an unnecessary section/hurdle. I added one review of the book. I will update as time permits. D&D related AfDs are popping up daily. I find this notable and it is a service to our readers that it remains. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightburst or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Odds are good that there are additional sources for this in the print periodicals for the industry, as almost all significant sourcebooks were reviewed by at least several of the titles. Not all of that material is online or easily searchable. I'm working on compiling it right now, actually. I get that there's a lot of stuff in the D&D topic space that probably does need to go, but in general, the area suffers from having had articles created relatively early on, but no one willing to do the heavy lifting to bring them up to modern project policy compliance. If I'm wrong, well, when I get to 3.5 sourcebooks on my cleanup crusade, I'll be the first one merging or redirecting it somewhere better. But that doesn't make deletion helpful right now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The only thing that's been added since the AfD was started was a non-RS review and a link to the game's company product page. If you can provide some places where it may have been reviewed offline that would be significantly helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• In a world where I could conjure copies of anything at will to check for sources? My first three places to look for this one would probably be Pyramid, KoDT Magazine, and Game Trade Monthly. The time period around this title's release (3rd edition D&D, pre-3.5, in general...) admittedly makes sourcing more challenging. There's a gap in easily-accessible sources after the first wave of tabletop periodicals folded or shifted focus (with a solid candidate for the end date of that period being the 1998 death of Shadis), but before reliable internet reporting and more modern titles like the UK-published Tabletop Gaming (beginning in 2006). Worst case, a redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks would be helpful to preserve at least the skeleton of content in history, should further source reviews be more productive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• And as a followup, other places I'd like to look are Games Review (although I'm not sure that was still in-print in time for this release), the German Mephisto (although they didn't do as much D&D coverage as other RPGs), and the French Casus Belli. Random RPG product reviews sometimes show up in broader gaming magazines or wargaming magazines, too, so there's a huge universe to check. I know, I know, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a good argument to make. It's just frustrating, because I'm trying to claw back against the tide of over a decade of, effectively, deferred maintenance in this topic space, and there's an awful lot that needs done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This page suggests there may have been one review and another one in a German magazine?: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/45578/faiths-and-pantheons BOZ (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The German one there is Anduin, which began as more or less a fanzine, but continued for a very long time, such that, when it finally closed, it might very well have been the longest-running German gaming magazine. We can have joyous debates, I'm sure, about whether it should be considered a reliable source (my take: the first series, probably not; later issues, likely okay with caution). Naturally, Anduin is now defunct and its archives offline, but I should be able to check on this one all the same [EDIT: And I have a copy of that now, it's a page-and-a-half review of the book, which makes my poor German skills cry]. I'm not at all familiar with that other source, so give me a little bit on it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Added review content from Anduin and the e-magazine Fictional Reality (which, please note, is unrelated to the current Fictional Reality website; sadly, I don't have publicly linkable archives for either of these). I suspect that there are other sources. This book got several foreign-language releases, and I'd bet a shiny quarter that there's a French review out there somewhere, probably either in Casus Belli or JDR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Vernon P. Ziolkowski

Vernon P. Ziolkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The claim of "substantial impact" (NACADEMIC #1) is made in footnote 7. I have access to the Cohen source and the two Drews sources, none of which claim "substantial impact" but simply cite his dissertation as primary source material, and our own article on Isidore of Seville only cites him as bibliographic, primary source material. It seems his only publication is his dissertation. He seems to fail the "Average professor" test for classicists or even the more narrow "medieval spanish latinists". Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Abstain. I have made some minor edits to this article, and have it watchlisted, but would likely not have created it myself and am abstaining because he was one of my teachers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: Thanks for your comment and I can appreciate the conflict. It's clear from the article that Ziolkowski was well regarded in the community. I already dislike making AFD nominations, and it's even less fun when it's articles that document something important to a local community. Who knows, maybe someone has access to a few local papers that did substantial coverage of him that could satisfy GNG. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete earning a real doctorate is not a sign of notability, and that is basically the strongest claim to fame we have here. Being a high school Latin teacher is even less of a claim, short of actually indepth coverage of his teaching (which is a rare thing for anyone).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Just some guy.Dreamwoven (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Transformers: Generations

Transformers: Generations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable article, simply treated as a catalogue of toys. TTN (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• How many of these have their own articles still? Is there a bot that counts how many links an article has that aren't redirects? If enough valid links remain, then this can simply be renamed List of Transformer Generation characters. Lists of Transformers characters shows a lot of list exist. Can a single list be made listing all of them with columns listing what toy line, cartoon series, etc, they were in? Dream Focus 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOTCATALOG. It is not a list of characters per se, but a list of toys that happens to link to the characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is simply a catalogue of toys; providing lists of released toys sorted by class/line/movie/whatever should be Hasbro's job, not Wikipedia's. Checking the sources in the article, it's obvious that TFW2005 is a fansite and OAFE is a blog. Those make 20/25 links. Then there's Hasbro (not independent) and more blogs - none of this counts towards notability. I could not find better sources to cover the topic so I'd say it fails GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Mix.com

Mix.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing how this can possibly pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable website/platform failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. None of the sources in the article come close to WP:GNG requirements. Some are primary, some are tiny mention, some are just directory/stat entries. None of the content is attributable to secondary sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - As above, none of the sources in the article are sufficient for GNG - the only ones which give any serious discussion of the website are written by one of its founders. My own research turned up this and this (along with a few blog results). The first looks like it might be a reliable source and it does discuss the website in reasonable detail; the latter is not much more than a news release. A few more sources like the first one I linked would be sufficient but all I can find is that one. This may well become notable in the future, but it isn't yet. WJ94 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That "article" looks like typical churnalism: absolutely no content that cannot be gotten from press releases or website's info pages. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not prima facie notable unless there is sourcing showing otherwise, and as such a list of local politicians in a specific locality are also not presumed notable. In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find any instances of significant coverage of the membership of Sopore Municipal Council either. Did consider speedy deletion via WP:A7 but AFD seemed the more certain way of going. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 30 October 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 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Sopore is not a very large city and does not automatically need a its own article for the council. Merge to that article if you wish. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 31 October 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 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Municipal Council Sopore. ミラP 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as it falls short of WP:GNG Kb03 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is a city of under 120,000 - a small town by standards of that country, the second-largest in the world. It does not seem to be a town of regional importance, nor a state capital. It would make a terrible precedent and consensus is unlikely to change soon. A smerger would not be out of the question. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Foarp Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not notable without WP:BASIC or an WP:SNG pass. Wm335td (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

2017 FK Trakai season

2017 FK Trakai season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak delete There's no reason why we can't have this article, but it's functionally unsourced (only one source which links to the federation) and as such violates WP:NOTSTATS. No objection to draftifying/etc SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources besides club websites, and has no other evidence of notability. Not opposed to draftifying it, however. Silence | ^Speak./_Find. 14:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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