Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 October	22 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denzelian

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

Extremely non-notable fictional creature. Even among other non-notable D&D creatures, this one pretty much takes the cake, as searches bring up virtually nothing. Even its presence in official D&D material is limited to an extremely scant handful of sources. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game guide cruft, fails WP:GNG. Might have voted !keep if it were more closely related to Denzel Washington, which is what I thought this article was going to be about when it showed up in my watchlist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Tagged it per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure Speedy Deletion applies in this case, it's not a real animal, but it's definitely non-notable in the extreme, as much as "Goblin #5" from a random JRPG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Based on what I've seen in recent debates, and having stayed away from them, this is as clear a case of deletion-worthy and badly missing WP:GNG as I have seen in the past two months. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the same random, non-notable cruft is going to be added there, then that's making a good argument to delete any and all lists of D&D creatures. From what I can tell, most people agree that there should only be creatures with actual notability there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific. Because we are not a game guide, and no independent sources, fails WP:GNG Rollidan (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Complete Keep Consensus determined by the WP:GEOLAND policy. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ijegun

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

this page should be deleted because I don’t think it is notable enough or not needed for inclusion in Wikipedia Sdusty (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous sources found via Google search, just needs a lot of work. Jdcomix (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND Mahveotm (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple online search before nomination would have found many good sources about this place. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A10, as a recently created article about globalization that is not a plausible redirect and contains no mergeable content. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Making of A Global World

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

Doesn't appear to describe anything in particular, just a rambling collection of opinions not backed up by sources. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The URL in the ref fails (just goes to the home page) but it looks like a link to a class, and the article really does read like class notes. I wouldn't even know where to start finding sources since the subject is so vague. Schazjmd (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - Where to even begin? I don't believe there are any speedy deletion criteria that apply (feel free to let me know if I'm wrong), but there are so many things wrong with this article that it should just be put out of its misery. Jdcomix (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe WP:CSD#A10? In the sense that we already have articles about world history, this adds nothing new, and it isn't a plausible redirect. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Robinson (entrepreneur)

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete a non-notable HR businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content with him as the main subject is too thin to support notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill businessperson who does not meet notability. JSFarman (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per improvements by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hookset

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

WP:DICDEF, completely untouched since 2006. Prod declined without comment. Search for sources finds only places advertising hooksets, or uses of the word "hookset" that have nothing to do with fishing. Google even asks me if I meant "hooksett" instead. I'm not doubting that these do exist, but as it stands this is just a dicdef and unlikely to expand beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to misrepresent the nature of the topic. A hookset is not something that you buy; it's a technique used at a critical point in angling – when the fish takes the bait, you pull or lash the line to ensure that the hook is set in the fish's mouth; otherwise it will just release the bait and escape. Now, as angling is one of the most popular particpation sports, you'd expect this to be covered in detail in sources and so it proves. For example, see this book, which has a chapter on the topic. So, the nomination's claim that there's nothing to be found is false. The claim that this is a dictionary definition is likewise false. The article is nothing like a dictionary definition and the policy WP:DICDEF goes to some length to explain the key differences,
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

So, the relevant policy here is not WP:DICDEF. Instead, the applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER;WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I don't even see the word "hookset" anywhere in the source you linked. The first 10+ sources I found on Google Books all relate to a mathematical term, not a fishing one. After that, I see sources using the word, but not explaining what it actually is. It's possible for a word to see extensive use but not have any purpose as a Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source starts by using the phrase "setting the hook" which is given in the article's lead as a synonym. In the source's second paragraph, it starts "A successful hook set starts when you tie your fly ...". WP:DICDEF starts by explaining that " In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". In other words, if there is some variation in spelling or phrasing of a title, we still cover the topic under a single heading, based on its meaning. When you look for sources, you have to take such variations into account. But, there are, in any case, plenty of angling sources which use the word hookset spelt as we have it in the title. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there are "plenty of sources", where are they? I see this all the time: people say "keep, there are sources" but make zero attempt to prove it. So far you've found one, which is a start (although I still don't think it conveys notability). Do you have anything else? Because the fact that Google keeps autocorrecting it to "hooksett" suggests that it's not a particularly common term. WP:BURDEN is your call now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1≠0. I haven't fished for many years and so everything I'm telling you about the topic comes from what I've read in the numerous sources which I have browsed. I listed that particular source because it has a separate headed chapter about the topic which is visible in preview. Even then, the nominator was unable to grasp that it covered the topic. The nominator has a long history of failing to find sources and then expecting others to do the work required by WP:BEFORE:
The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.

Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working to improve this. I saw the template you placed on the talk page, and clicked several of the links. As I said, the GBooks link gave me several results that have nothing to do with fishing, and even asked "did you mean 'hooksett'?" Regular Google gives me several things called hookset (and again asks me if I meant "Hooksett" instead), including "Hookset Automotive", "Hookset Marine", etc., along with a bunch of fishing forums which are not reliable sources. I did do a WP:BEFORE before prodding, which included Google, GNews, and GBooks, and found nothing. I'll say it again: what else have you found that I haven't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here are a couple from a quick (30 second) gsearch (no i didn't check whether they are wikiuseable just showing that the term is used for a type of fishing technique), "Fly Fishing Strategies — Plan for the Hookset", "The surest way of achieving the maximum hook-setting and barb burying power is to ensure that at the time the rod is swung back for the 'strike' everything in the system is tight to the hook. ..." - discussed about halfway down the page, so it looks like a regular term that will appear in fishing books? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps move to Hook set as that seems to be the more common way of spelling when I searched for sources. Books on fishing devote quite a bit to techniques for setting the hook. [1], [2], and [3] are some of them. - Whpq (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Those sources use the term, but don't define it or imbue any sense of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. WP:BEFORE was not followed. Passes WP:SIGCOV. A page move to hook set is probably wise.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 per WP:SNOW. The level of grasping at straws trying to find something that would qualify as a source tells me that there are no independent reliable sources to cite, so I'm going to cut this off here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yxngxr1

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find a single reliable source that covers this topic. Sources in the article include Soundcloud, YouTube, and Instagram. – bradv🍁 20:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails MUSICBIO and GNG. Number of plays on streaming services and/or number of followers on social media does not help here. Only comprehensive coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources constitutes notability in a Wikipedia context. Waggie (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an atrocious article created by someone who shows no respect for WP:RS, WP:N, or the very idea of collaborative editing. Whether something distributed by Empire Distribution is notable to begin with is a huge question mark, and in this case it's not even verified. The Empire website sells his t-shirts, and I doubt that's a factor in WP:NBAND. Delete this: there are zero reliable sources. Even for hip-hop, where there are a ton of lousy websites just re-sharing videos and songs, this is exceptional. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to support WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. This person could merit an article one day but not now. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally CSDed this article under A7 due to the complete lack of reliable sourcing, pretty clear WP:PROMO that does little more than serve as a free webhost for links to the artist's SounCloud account. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in here are relevant and credible because they come from the musician's personal social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Der under Smurf: That makes them self-published sources, which are of limited reliability in articles. It is implicit that when the nominator mentioned sources, they were referring to sources that are independent of the subject of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Der under Smurf, that's not how this works. Articles must be based on what reliable sources say about the subject, and the information in the article must be verifiable. Articles that do not meet our standards for inclusion, such as this one, are deleted. – bradv🍁 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that could be self publiched soucres but wouldent autobiographies be considered as self-published sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC) and what did you do with my Childhood Dreams page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der under Smurf (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are "your pages", they are entries into an encyclopedia. Autobiographies and interviews can be used as reliable sources for content in articles but don't count towards WP:GNG. This is not a place to promotion or to write fanpages. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero third-party reliable sources to support WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If for exampel Ariana Grande annouced the releace of a new album and she annouced it on her social media and hypothetically speaking no news, media outlet or some realabel source would pick that up. Would an Wikipedia editer be alowed to use the Instagrame or Twitter post or any of her social media to use as a source?--Der under Smurf (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the media does pick that stuff up and we would use an actual source instead of social media and Ariana Grande's notability is already established, which Yxngxr1's is not. Again, the biggest part is WP:GNG, and the fact that not a single reliable source on Yxngxr1 is pretty damning. GPL93 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Why would we do that? Sure, we might accept that, but why? We should deal in facts, not announcements. And your guy is no Ariane Grande. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing him to Ariana Grande, but hypothetically speaking if no meida outlet wrote an article about it, would social media be accepted as a source?--Der under Smurf (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Btw, is spotify a reliable source? Mean for the number of plays on a song or to quote somebody's spotify bio.--Der under Smurf (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it with the hypotheticals, we don't live in a world where media doesn't cover the music industry. Spotify is a self-published source so its not reliable. Also note that being famous and notability are not the same thing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is Genius_(website) a soucre that I can use on wikipedia.--Der under Smurf (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC) And you haven't answered my question, hypothetically speaking if no meida outlet wrote an article about it, would social media be accepted as a source?--Der under Smurf (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Depending on the result for the AFD of the target page, the redirect could be deleted anyway, but pointing it there for now in the absence of any clear evidence that Urmahlullu is a related topic. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wemic

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

Another non-notable fictional D&D creature. Searching for sources brings up nothing but official D&D related books and publications, outside of a few false positives for things that happen to have the same name but have no relation to the creature (such as West Michigan being abbreviated as "WeMic"). Rorshacma (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my lack of proper formatting for this kind of discussion. I strongly disagree that this article should be deleted. It is rather the case that this article should be expanded and perhaps renamed. Look, for example, at independent pages for centaurs and minotaurs. These are hybrid fantastical beasts with their own pages. The wemic should have the same. FIRST, this is not a D&D exclusive beast. It features in Ancient Assyrian mythology, known as "urmahlullu" and mentioned here on Hybrid beasts in folklore. Known as a "sagittary" it appears in medieval times on the coat of arms of Stephen, King of England. And in Shakespeare, "The dreadful Sagittary / Appals our numbers." -- Troilus and Cressida. And not uncommonly drawn as a "grotesquerie" in the margins of medieval prayer books. The central problem is what to call it. Urmahlullu? Sagittary? Lion-centaur? Or the modern name, Wemic? Other modern names are portmanteaus including liontaur, felitaur, and cattaur. I would be happy to expand and document the current wemic article, but I admit in the past I was daunted by the D&D orientation of this article. Cayzle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cayzle:I created an article at Urmahlullu for you to expand - in the mythological sense. I am not sure whether redirecting wemic to it is a good idea though, they seem to have nothing in common beyond mere similarity of appearance, and it might be WP:SYNTH if it cannot be proven they were inspired by the urmahlullu._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Urmahlullu may very well be notable, and might merit creation of a page there. However it is clear to me that the "wemic" is not notable. It's a minor D&D monster and doesn't need a page on Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, during my searches for sources before creating this AFD, I did note that the concept of lion-human centaurs appear in other contexts, such as mythology. However, as the D&D incarnation of it is not notable, and the name "Wemic" appears to have been invented by TSR, I did not feel that the information here merited being preserved or redirected elsewhere. If I am incorrect about the name, and it does have an origin beyond D&D, I would not be opposed to redirecting this to the newly created Urmahlullu page, (nice work, by the way!). But there would need to be some sources actually demonstrating the connection between the two. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. The existence of possible real world inspiration has nothing to do with this topic in particular. TTN (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per GNG; those D&D sourcebooks and whatnot do not add anything to notability. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhlaq Qureshi

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

Fails WP:GNG. See this RfC regarding SSG. Never scored a century or taken a fifer. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, not sufficient to establish notability. Störm (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are we being so inconsistent about these? Are these seriously our new criteria? Scored a century or taken a five-for? Are we just adding them as we come across them, and if so how are we coming across them? At random? How is it taking this long to find these names given that they are all in the same places and we appear to be offended by all of them to the same degree? if we are upset over one cricketer we need to decide which other cricketers we are upset about before adding them at random as we come across them. Perhaps by searching through Category:Italian cricketers or the like. Once again I can't help but feel victimized. Bobo . 19:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192, first of all, you did what was best for cricket project and everyone should be thankful to you. You should remain satisfied what you have done. Now, coming towards criteria. For me, rule of thumb is if someone scores a century or takes a fifer or appeared in decent amount of matches then it is possible that he/she would satisfy WP:GNG. Otherwise, no publication will feature or interview a cricketer who appeared in a single domestic cricket match. Actually, it is completely impossible so clearly fails WP:GNG. Coverage in secondary reliable sources is necessary, otherwise, it encourages Wikipedia:Kittens. Störm (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happens I'm not. I'm disgusted and starting to wonder whether there's some kind of vendetta against me. What was the point? Please let me request again - can we decide which cricketers in given categories we find offensive and perhaps bundle-AfD them rather than selecting them at random? Bobo . 19:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check, the century or fifer criteria stated have never been used as an indicator of notability in the past Spike 'em (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine how much our project genuinely would be decimated if these were the defining criteria! ;) Bobo . 20:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my part of research for the bio. After the RfC, article has to meet WP:GNG. I just suggested my rule of thumb, and it is not binding. Störm (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have brought these suggested rules of thumb to WP:CRIC before randomly deciding to apply them to any cricketer out of the blue? Bobo . 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple. Every article should pass WP:GNG to be notable. Störm (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question, nor was it the original point you were making. If you're saying the SNG are insufficient in your personal opinion, could you have suggested your own personally-decided SNG criteria - as you have listed above - and take them to the appropriate place? "Never taken a century or a five-for" is... odd as an SNG. Bobo . 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to point out for the zillionth time, GNG is of no use when N directly contradicts it. Bobo . 07:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played at the highest domestic cricket in Pakistan, before an ICC Trophy career with Italy - combine the two the subject easily passes. StickyWicket (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - forgive me for making a second comment for the sake of making a suggestion, then I'm done. Störm, if you wish to suggest a change to CRIN inclusion criteria so that a cricketer can only be added to Wikipedia if he has scored a century or taken a five-for, please feel free to do so. You know where and how. Perhaps if you could single-handedly convince us to change the boundaries we've been working at for the last 15 years, then the concept that an individual, as is so often quoted, "barely passes" a guideline(?!) can be implemented. Bobo . 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for the record, Keep. Has played first-class cricket. Bobo . 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played first-class cricket in Pakistan, and may well also pass WP:GNG for his prominence in Italian cricket. Johnlp (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. He has played four matches at top level in Pakistan so he passes the sport-specific criteria. The GNG aspect is debatable but I would nevertheless keep the article because the nomination is flawed by reference to non-existent criteria, as pointed out above by Bobo192. This makes the nomination invalid and I think the case should be closed for that reason. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. Let's not even enter the realms of "non-existent criteria". Those who wish to move the goalposts have had enough time and opportunity to do so and keep falling disappointingly short... I know there are Wikipedia articles on non-English Wikipedias of cricketers who meet CRIN who have had their articles deleted from en.wiki (don't ask me which ones, I've lost interest...), I wonder if these Wikipediae have to deal with these "criteria"... Bobo . 11:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria #1 at WP:NCRICKET.@Störm:Your statement that every article must meet WP:GNG is a complete failure to understand why we have subject specific guidelines in the first place. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Seems clear there is sufficient coverage for this prestigious award now the nominees have been officially announced. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ballon d'Or

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

This article contains nothing but idle speculation based on opinion pieces. The article should be created when the details of the award nominees and ceremony are announced, not before. – Pee Jay 19:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 19:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The details of award nominees have since been announced although the article is yet to be updated. SuspiciousStew03 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC) SuspiciousStew03 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above, the 2019 nominees have been announced - per [4]. R96Skinner (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:CRYSTAL at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Winner will be decided by the end of year and the list of nominees have already been announced. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Like most have said in the chat, the 2019 nominees have already been announced and unless something dramatic happens I don't see it being cancelled. HawkAussie (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 17:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney Acres, Texas

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

Not notable, I think a merger with the article on Andrews, Texas may be best for this stub. As this census-designated place has the same zip code as Andrews and is at the southern border of the county. Pahiy (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With more than 800 people living there, it would pass WP:NPLACE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a populated place recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau, this passes WP:GEOLAND. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GEOLAND, i think, and further seems likely to have some local history. If it were to be merged, the merger target probably would not be the town Andrews, Texas, to its north, whose article would pprobably not naturally mention this at all. It could more plausibly merged to Andrews County, Texas which has a section mentioning its small communities, ghost towns, this CDP. --Doncram (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND easily. Smartyllama (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as brought out by above editors, anyway can someone close this as nominator wants this merged which should have been discussed on talkpage in line with WP:MERGE not here at afd..... sigh. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some work, but passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 02:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a census-designated place is a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning towards Procedural keep because this AfD was too close to the last one. However, there are legitimate concerns about WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NFICTION, and I recommend editors to discuss how to present and improve the given information to avoid another AfD in the future. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

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

I am renominating at AfD because I believe that the rationale for the last AfD was poor (just a generic "fails GNG") and created much confusion. A more complete rationale is needed for this article.

The article should be removed because it clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It functions as a pure directory of monsters, without putting them in context at all. Most if not all monsters on the list are not blue links. In that respect it is similar to the other lists that were removed for the same reason.

It can also be said to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE as there seems to be no other purpose than to inform players of what monsters exist in the game. A casual reader will not gain much from this list, and will only see a lengthy list of monsters - in fact one of the longest on Wikipedia.

If there is an issue with this information being lost, it should be transwikied. That is not an argument that would mandate it to remain on Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a re-listing, it is a re-nomination of an article that failed to get a proper consensus to delete and was nominated less than a month ago. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to use that wording. It is a renomination because I believe the previous AfD was faulty which caused it to reach no consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel like this probably won't last with such a quick renomination, but might as well weigh in on it again. This is WP:GAMEGUIDE material unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. It's an overly in-depth collection of trivial items that benefits nobody but hardcore fans. If this and the other articles are considered an important resource by fans, then they should be temporarily undeleted and transwikied to Fandom and any other wiki where they'd be at home. I'd also recommend pinging everyone from the previous AfD to avoid assertions of bad faith. TTN (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all contributors from AFD #2 that have not already responded: User:Not a very active user, User:CAPTAIN RAJU, User:Casliber, User:Rockphed, User:Dream Focus, User:Piotrus, User:Freeknowledgecreator, User:Polyamorph, User:4meter4, User:Black Kite, User:Drmies, User:Lowercaserho, User:CaptainEek, User:Vulcan's Forge, User:KingofGangsters, User:Sandstein, User:Wm335td, User:Daranios, User:AugusteBlanqui, User:RL0919; will leave a note for the IP user on their talk page since they will not see a ping. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the quick renomination is probably not going to result in a different outcome, as the same editors are very likely going to weigh in with the same comments as the version that just closed. That said, I will reiterate my points in that prior discussion, which largely fall in line with this new nomination. The list falls somewhere between a list of table of contents and a pure WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is virtually nothing discussing this particular grouping as a whole, causing it to fail WP:LISTN. The two non-primary sources being used here are being used to support one statement, that monsters are "an important element" to the game. That is not sufficient coverage for the subject matter. While I don't have access to the German book, looking up the Ashgate Encyclopedia shows me that the entry regarding the game does not specifically talk about 2nd Edition monsters at all. It is a brief overview of the concept of monsters in the game in general, which is a great source for a single article on the actual notable D&D monsters, which has been proposed several times in the AFDs for the other lists, but does nothing to establish any sort of independent notability for the specific concept of "AD&D 2nd Edition Monsters" that would allow it to have the notability needed for a stand alone list. Rorshacma (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the huge amount of D&D monsters deleted from WP, I don't think any of the nn monsters should be redirected anywhere on WP. ミラ P 21:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. If you'd like to change the outcome of the previous discussion, deletion review is here. There's a longstanding consensus that you aren't allowed to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED says that you SHOULDN'T argue that the article should be kept solely based on the fact that it was recently relisted unless it's a frivolous nom (it clearly isn't)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We know. It is just an essay. However it describes the feelings editors have when they debate the merits of an article for 25 days, and then when it mercifully closes you renominate it a few hours after the AfD closes/ Nice work (sarcasm). Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again – My view remains unchanged from the AFD from the last few weeks, that I agree with the Keep responses from the previous AFD, but failing that I suggest a merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which is where the 1st edition monster list was redirected after its AFD. Also, just because OTHERAFDsEXIST on similar topics, the results of those discussions do not proscribe the results of other discussions, and each should be weighed on its own merits. Even if this is not retained as a separate article, there is some content that could be useable elsewhere, such as that from "The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters". BOZ (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You can not renominate an article for deletion the same day it closed because you didn't get the result you wanted. This is ridiculous. The previous one was started on 27 September 2019 and closed today. That's 25 days it was had, no need to drag it out more so. Dream Focus 23:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My views are unchanged, though this may be a good opportunity to point at a few "keep" arguments from the last AfD. We heard it was a valid list article because of the blue links, but it was pointed out (by DreamFocus) that the articles that the list links to which have been nominated for deletion have not stood up against those nominations. A quick look at the article shows that the number of blue links (that actually point at articles) isn't overwhelming either. Someone linked "bat" and other regular animals, and some of the blue links are just redirects...in one case at least to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Arguments like "This information is notable and valuable to the player base of the game. D&D is a major cultural touchstone..." aren't valid arguments here. There was some talk about something being mentioned in Lexikon der Zauberwelten, a book that seems to be completely unavailable, whose title generates 286 Google hits, a book that doesn't seem to be cited in any other book, and according to WorldCat is held by only six libraries. Plus, one single page from that book is cited: there is no way in which one page can support an article of this length.
There can be two valid reasons that I see for keeping this: it is a valid list article with plenty of strong blue links, or its content is reliably sourced with secondary sources. Neither of these are valid here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that since the last nomination there are 11 articles it linked to which had their links removed after those articles were deleted. Links to articles such as Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons) and Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons) still link to articles about the creatures in the Dungeon & Dragons games. How many other valid links are left? Is there a bot that counts them? Dream Focus 23:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTAGAIN is an essay on AfD fatigue, however it is not policy. You certainly can nominate the article over and over. However it can be frustrating and WP:DISRUPTIVE to see that the renomination was made hours after the last AfD closed. Note to nominator: a deletion review is the proper avenue if you disagree with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the last AfD. You may get a new local consensus but it is unlikely. My opinion and !vote is that this is a valid list article. I am not into D&D however I see this as a list defined by monsters that have been published in official D&D books. The nomination begins to feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT when editors are forced to spend time on an item that they have literally just concluded hours ago. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just used Firefox Find command to see how many links were to articles with (Dungeons & Dragons) in the link, and the answer is 108. So that qualifies as a valid list article. Dream Focus 23:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, thanks for your diligence. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you can list them, so we can start culling. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That number is a bit off, though, as it seems to be counting all links, such as the listings of books, and not just the actual entries on the list. Just counting manually, I came up with about 87 actual entries that are blue linked, or about 84 if you take out the ones that are linked to articles on actual real life animals. Of those, 13 of them just redirect to another list of monsters at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, in which most of them are not, and should not be, listed. And several of the blue links here actually just link back to this same list. And, in all honesty, the vast majority of the remaining 65-70 blue linked articles will very likely be put up for AFD in the coming weeks, with little chance of being kept. Rorshacma (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. So does your tool count Oread (Dungeons & Dragons), which is in fact a redirect to Fey (Dungeons & Dragons), where that content is "verified" by links to manuals. Anyway, does it count this once or twice? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) Cleric (Dungeons & Dragons) Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons) Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons) Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons) Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons) all link to their own articles. I'm not wasting time looking through all of that. Just click Edit Source on the article and then CTRL F to get the find thing open, and enter in (Dungeons & Dragons) to see some results. And some monsters such as Bulette have their own articles without (Dungeons & Dragons) in their name. Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical beasts has 57 entries and Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures has 159. A lot of these articles exist. So I assume more of the blue links here link to valid articles. Dream Focus 00:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If one is going to put forth that this list is necessary to catalog D&D monsters, then it would also be fair to ask how many you truly think are notable enough to even have articles? 10? 20? 30? 50? The current scope of articles is being culled by the day, so it's not really fair to use current numbers. If this were withdrawn and the number of links on this list reduced to the size covered in Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons or slightly larger, would you still argue the same way in a fourth AfD? TTN (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just saying an article should be kept because there are other articles it could list is being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate. One has to look at the big picture of how many of those would survive AfD. The answer is very few, certainly not enough for a list of this narrow a scope. Or in other words, "I (or someone else) made as many articles as possible, so they are notable due to their sheer volume" is not an argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per User:Dream Focus. Jdcomix (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the individual monsters do not have to be notable as it is a well-defined and limited list. It is a breakout from the main article due to size issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I leave the question of the advisability or otherwise of this renomination to others. Since we are here, my opinion on the matter at hand remains unchanged, namely that monsters from this one specific edition of D&D are not regularly discussed as a set in any context other than as a game guide or directory. That said, I also would not object to a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which was raised as a possible compromise position. Lowercaserho (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is far beyond a gaming guide. It is a valuable list article of canonical content from Dungeons and Dragons. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I don't find the objections of others to this renomination to be fair. The renomination was made in good faith and for good reasons. Further, I find the argument for the need to split off this list for content forking purposes ill advised. This kind of content doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. It's fan-cruft and un-encyclopedic with no real world notability. Further, I'm not so sure such lists would pass WP:COPYVIO since they seem to be too closely based on the source material.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major feature of a major game. Do we need articles on each creature? Probably not. But there's nothing wrong with a list of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. I am seriously concerned that many of the "keep" votes have not properly addressed the fact that this list is entirely generated from the source material and that its basically a substitute for the works in question. To me this is too closely similar to the actual game guide (which is itself a list) and could be viewed as copyright infringement. Where are the secondary and tertiary sources, and how does this article differentiate itself from the actual source material? These are serious legal questions that need answering.4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (albeit without prejudice against a merge to Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons, I just think there isn't anything worth merging). As I said in one of the sundry discussions on these lists, the article is a table of contents of books written by TSR. Except the two aforementioned sources (that establish that monsters are an important part of D&D), which are not specific to an edition, all the sources are primary in nature. If this was a list of every D&D monster from 2nd edition that was discussed as a monster from second edition in WP:42 sources, it would be a valid list. If it was supported by sources that talked about the monsters in 2nd edition D&D as a group (even one that talked about how monster design changed over the course of the edition), I could see having a list. However, there are no (reliable) sources that do that, or at least none that anyone has put forward or that I can find. I am sure that if we looked we could find self-published dissertations and oral histories about how monster design changed over the history of D&D by the hundreds (in fact, I just found 2 in a simple google search), but I don't think we will find reliable, independent, secondary, significant sources. Rockphed (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments from the last discussion still hold for me. This list was a compromise, a number of deletion discussions decided that individual monsters were not notable in themselves, but should be collected/redirected here, not deleted entirely. These decisions should count for something. It is useful resource and has been for the last ten years. It is a major subject within the game.

The Ashgate Encyclopedia does mention the 2nd edition, if briefly.

The list now gives at least some context specifically for 2nd edition (granted, mostly based on primary sources, but not exclusively so). Several of the deletion votes seem to suggest that a list for all the editions would be preferable. I would be fine with that, if that would indeed be wanted, but the reason to have lists for different editions in the first place was length, understandably.

The Ashgate Encyclopedia also says that monsters in the game were drawn form a wide variety of sources. In the discussion about how many blue links there are, mostly those about articles of "Monster x (Dungeons & Dragons)" were taken into account. I think this list could be a very nice overview about the real-world/mythical/fictional subjects the game draws on, collecting "X in popular culture" sections from the mentioned humble bat to the legendary dragon. Those links are mostly black at the moment, ofted because there was a now deleted "Monster x (Dungeons & Dragons)". If we add these links I believe we will be way beyond the discussed "10? 20? 30? 50?" or "65-70". Daranios (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification. Editors may want to read/participate in the conversation at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Is this list a copyright violation?.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the actually notable monsters to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, though there are not probably many. Not a very active user (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Right. <cracks knuckles> I'd say Procedural Close As Keep, but User:S Marshall has already said that quite succinctly above. Stop. Deletion Review is thataway. So let's look at the renomination point by point:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This argument seems to hinge on this being a simple listing (point 7) without context. Context has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published. It also provides a timeline of the game over 9 years, which I suggest provides an inherent "context" to the growth and establishment of the game over time.
This also seems to rely upon the idea that most of the creatures listed are not bluelinked - which as has been pointed out numerous times before, is the whole point of the list article, to reduce the number of other articles, and associated deletion discussions for them, about monsters from the game which are not themselves inherently notable. Deleting a list article which exists to keep other articles out of the encyclopedia because they aren't themselves notable seems counter-productive (and smacks of something else, which I'll get to in a moment.)
WP:GAMEGUIDE. This one keeps right on coming back. None of the points associated with WP:GAMEGUIDE apply. The closest is point #3, video games, and that doesn't come close. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game.
"a casual reader will not gain much from this list". That's nice, but irrelevant. As was repeatedly pointed out in the previous two discussions, casual readers aren't using this page. People researching the history of the game are, and if you want to start stripping material out of the encyclopedia that people are actually using, you might want to start thinking about the whole point of having an online encyclopedia that anyone can access in the first place.
"one of the longest on wikipedia". If someone can point me to a WP policy which says that articles should not exceed X bytes in length, I'd love to see it. Next.
"If there is an issue with this information being lost, it should be transwikied". Ah. Now we come to the crux of the matter. This boils down to "it shouldn't be here, move it somewhere else". As it happens, there is a policy for this: it's called WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that isn't a valid reason for deletion either.
someone else above brought up WP:COPYVIO as an argument for deletion. That doesn't work either, because as has also been stated before, lists of factual information can't be copyrighted. It has actually been discussed in the context of the D&D monster list articles before, but, in an instance of biting irony, I can't point you directly at the discussion, because, of course, it took place on the talk page of another monster list article which has already been deleted. [SELF EDIT: Found it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_1st_edition_monsters&oldid=919825211, and also Feist v. Rural.]

Now, I apologize if this comes across as a tad tetchy. Maybe it's the head cold I'm suffering through, or the multiple doses of cough medicine I've had today. Or maybe I'm in the mood to pick a fight, just gettin' warmed up, and ready to tell some punk kids to get off my lawn. Either way, I've had enough. My only further contribution to this discussion right now is to recommend a megalodon-sized WP:TROUT for the nominator for re-nominating this 4 hours and 15 minutes after the previous one closed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GAMEGUIDE definitely applies unless you want to be literal to the wording in that only video games are subject to that, which is silly. This definitely falls under "gameplay weapons, items, or concepts." TTN (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LENGTH does cover article size and put restrictions on it, though I just wanted to demonstrate how unnecessarily large and database-like the article is that it was even recognized outside of Wikipedia for it.

The page should not be written for game fans researching that game. That's what you call fancruft. It should be written in a way a casual reader can understand, rather than a no-context list of monsters. Such is true for almost every article on Wikipedia, besides extremely technical scientific concepts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the "Lists" section of WP:LENGTH seems to support the format of this list: It is fine for a list to be long if it cannot be summarized. Splitting should be considered, but only if there is a "natural" way. Splitting has been discussed and rejected, and I don't think those sceptical about the list now will be happier with the existance of several lists only to fulfill the 200 kB recommendation. Daranios (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm someone who grew up with D&D and their wild dice. I still have the original Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set in my game cabinet. That being said, there should be a single "list of..." which should cover the major characters which don't rate their own article, and the major secondary characters as well. There is no reason to have a list of every character in the series, it would be like if there was a list of The Honeymooners characters which included Tony Amico.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd say another apt comparison would be if, say, someone created a list that was List of Final Fantasy VII Monsters, which was nothing but a massive listing of every single enemy that appeared in the game. I don't think anyone questions that Final Fantasy VII is one of the most notable video game RPGs of all time, but likewise I don't think anyone would question that a list like that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. This list is essentially exactly that, only for a specific version of a tabletop RPG rather than a videogame RPG. Arguments that this list is for fans or people researching D&D, without actual sources or policy based arguments to back it up, are nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments.Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just now seeing this and it must be frustrating to those wanting to keep this that the article has been renominated so quickly, but here we are. This unfortunately fails WP:LISTN. It appears to be sourced almost completely to primary sources or database entries with possibly some WP:OR thrown in and I think WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GAMEGUIDE applies. SportingFlyer T·C 13:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources, although secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia, there is no outright prohibition on primary sources. Indeed, with list articles you'll find that many if not most rely on primary sources. For example, this one and this one and many others. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secunding AugusteBlanqui. Also compare the phrasing in WP:LISTN: " The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and in WP:LSC: "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Daranios (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, while primary sources can occasionally be used, an article reliant entirely on primary sources fails our notability guidelines. The difference between this article and the articles you've linked is that if someone wanted to, they could source the entirety of those articles using secondary sources. I haven't seen anything here which convinces me this information has been presented in secondary, independent sources, whereas a list of Oscar winners could be compiled from newspapers all over the world. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a multitude of list articles where IP restrictions affect the availability of secondary sources. The policy quote that Daranios quoted addresses your concerns it seems. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: No, my concerns stand. I have not seen a single secondary source which would lend notability to this list, meaning the content as it stands is not encyclopedic, and I have never heard of "IP restrictions" having an impact on sourcing. WP:LSC is about the notability of items in the list - we are discussing the notablity of the list article, which has not yet been established. SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The notability of the list derives from Dungeons & Dragons for which there are thousands of secondary sources. WP:LISTN explains this as Daranios so helpfully provided. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but just because the primary topic is notable does not mean that every list relating to the primary topic is also notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does have secondary sources, even though they are very few. They refer to the group of items, which are, as the guidelines say, the important thing in this regard. So I think it is natural and no grounds for deletion that the bulk of the list is based on primary sources. Daranios (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are secondary, please? They all look to me like they're not independent, and the one which looks like it is possibly secondary (Ashgate) only spends a couple pages on it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgate Encyclopedia... and Lexikon der Zauberwelten are independent secondary source for the whole topic, Heroic Worlds is an independent secondary source for some context. The article from Dragon magazine 154 and the articles on the Wizards of the Coast homepage, "History of TSR" and "Monster Mythology" are secondary but affiliated sources. More secondary sources could be found for a few individual creatures, but I think that's not a major point, right? What has the page count of any secondary source to do with anything? Daranios (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Worlds seems to be a list of essays from game creators. Affiliated sources unfortunately don't lend notability. Ashgate Encyclopaedia and Lexikon der Zauberwelten aren't used for the list items but rather to reference the article's prose. I still don't see this passing WP:GNG, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't have the whole picture about Heroic Worlds, but if this is correct, the essays you mention are there in addition to the encyclopedic content.

More importantly, WP:LISTN says that secondary sources are exactly not needed for the listed items, but for the items as a group (as I have alreay quoted above). The prose section you mentioned is the section that does talk about the items as group. Daranios (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much do the sources talk about monsters in 2nd edition D&D as opposed to monsters in D&D as a whole? Lexikon der Zauberwelten was used as a source for the same phrase in at least 2 (and possibly all) of the "monsters in D&D edition" lists. How significant is the coverage in the two other sources? Is the section used as a source one of the essays, or encyclopedic content? Rockphed (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashgate Encyclopedia first talks about the importance monsters in D&D in general and the goes through publications from Original D&D to 2nd edition to emphasize their importance in each edition. Lexikon der Zauberwelten has one article for both editions of AD&D, first mentioning 1st edition then going on to 2nd edition settings and monsters as a characteristic part therein.

To repeat a point I mentioned above: Is there actually anyone who would prefer if we had an even longer list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons monsters including 1st and 2nd edition (or even a list of Dungeons & Dragons monsters for all editions)? That's kind of what the doubts about 2nd edition monsters being distinguishable from D&D monsters in general would suggest. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they have no secondary sources to speak of, or are only mentioned in passing on top-10 lists and the like, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia, period, even as part of a list. There is Wikia/Fandom/etc. for that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the rationale put forth by Vulcan's Forge. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This recent book^[1], which is independent (but under license to it can use D&D IP) and significant, devotes significant space to 2nd edition D&D monsters. For example, the text notes (page 223) a significant change from 1st edition was the elimination of demons and devils in response to the moral panic of the 1980s. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would consider that book to be "independent". Its listed as an official D&D product on the main Dungeons and Dragons site. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like very much a primary sourced, "official" text to me. The fact that it's marked with the series's logo shows that much._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Speed Press is owned by Random House. However, like most D&D publications the IP has to be licensed from Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. So it is an 'officially license' product. But so are most D&D publications outside of the Open Gaming License or else the art, monsters, could not be used. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep and a trout to the nom for immediately renominating, rather than going through the proper deletion review process. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (Person with no assertion of significence).

Thisha

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

No indication of notability. According to this mostly-untouched-since-2007 article, the subject released one debut album and one single. No indication either of these charted at any point or won any awards, etc. The article is also unsourced, which isn't surprising, since there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage about the subject in any news outlets. Article was created the same year the debut album dropped, which kind of has the aroma of advertising/promotion to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero sourcing found, almost A7 worthy for lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it with A7, I'm with you. Jdcomix (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Introduction

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM. No indication that it charted anywhere, no indication that it won any awards, etc. I can't find any write-ups about the album at Google News. The article was created the same year this album was released, which kind of has the aroma of advertising. I don't think that moving the content to the Thisha article would be helpful, as I plan to nom that for deletion as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any substantive coverage from third-party, reliable sources (or really any sources at all). Since this album was released in Austria, there may a language barrier at play here so I would be more than happy to change my vote if sources can be located. However, I have some serious doubts about (particularly given the recent deletion of the artist's main page). Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: now that the artist's article has been deleted, this probably qualifies for speedy deletion under A9. Either way, there seems to be absolutely nothing in the way of sources, reliable or otherwise. Aoba47, I don't think language is going to be an issue here, as the album was recorded in English, and it shouldn't be a reason for it not to turn up in searches even if it was in German. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! I agree that this seems to qualify for speedy deletion under A9. Aoba47 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Jets

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Existing references rely entirely on information provided in announcements or by the company execs. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage as per WP:ORG - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RateMyProfessors.com

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw It has been pointed out that this topic concerns the website and meets WP:WEB. Nomination withdrawn. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iphone Game Creator

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete WP:ADV, the IGN reference isn't even about this company. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Royal Canadian Air Farce. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, from Canmore

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

This is also pure WP:FANCRUFT WP:JUNK, I’m not sure if this could be merged the article of the actor who played him on Royal Canadian Air Farce as an alternative option of this fancruf or if it is not an option. Pahiy (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Canadian Air Farce. ミラ P 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:FANCRUFT.Knox490 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air Farce. This was a good faith creation in 2006, when our inclusion rules were a lot looser than they are today — but our rules and standards have been tightened up a lot in the intervening 13 years, and "we always need a standalone article about every fictional character who ever appeared in any TV series at all" is exactly one of the crufty things we tightened up our rules to clamp down on in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly Strong keep, As a Canadian-focused fictional character, reliable, independent sources will be much less prevalent than for fictional characters of U.S. TV series, so I think we need to be more liberal here. This is a very notable fictional Air Farce character, possibly one of the most notable in the 90s and 00s. I'd support a merge of the existing prose into Air Farce without prejudice to splitting it off in the future if the Air Farce article becomes too long. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has real media (boy howdy does it ever), so there's no need for us to create any special Canadian-specific exemptions from our reliable sourcing requirements just because we have a smaller population than the United States. The idea that we should waive our sourcing rules because they disadvantage certain topics is one we sometimes see in relation to the third world, not in relation to G7 countries with well-established media landscapes. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, @Bearcat:, though I still think the character is worthy of a mention (in a few sentences or so) within the Air Farce article as he was certainly a noteworthy character worthy of mention in the TV series. So, call it a selective merge and redirect to Royal Canadian Air Farce maybe?Doug Mehus (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's already mentioned there, and redirect is exactly what I voted for. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Canadian Air Farce. There is no significant coverage to establish notability for a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal Canadian Air Farce as other editors believe he was an important part of the show. Otherwise I'd just kill it. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Urkel

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

This is pure WP:FANCRUFT & WP:JUNK as this is not the Family Matters Wikia/Fandom page. But, I think some of the information mentioned in cultural impact section could be salvaged for the main article about Family Matters. Pahiy (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear notability indicated by such sources as African Americans on Television: Race-ing for Ratings page 163, Historical Dictionary of African American Television page 157, and others. The article lacks references, but WP:NOTCLEANUP and it can be fixed into a solid article with some effort._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick look shows plenty of reliable sources discussing the character and his cultural impact. Aside from the books mentioned by ZXCVBNM above, there are also a number of scholarly articles that spend some time discussing him as well. And while the amount of information varies in them, its enough to show that the character has enough independent notability to have an article separate from the series' main article. This could definitely use a lot of work to make it less plot summary and more sourced information, but it passes the notability requirements. Rorshacma (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the quintessential example of a non-white "nerd" character in popular media [5]. Some of the current article is rather Wikia-like, particularly the "Relationships" subsection, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I got rid of the relationships section at the AFD suggestion. ミラ P 21:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known in WP:POPCULTURE and supported by WP:RSs that WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs the usual improvements to remove pop culture cruft, but this isn't anywhere near a state of deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. While doing a very brief search on Google Scholar, I noticed some articles that analyzed this character's role as a black nerd. There seem to be plenty of sources on the character, but the article is not in the best shape for sure. However, it is need of cleanup and expansion and neither of these are AfD issues. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will freely admit that I didn't actually read the listed sources in the article, but, based on their titles alone, they are significant and seem to be in reliable sources. I couldn't read the NYT piece before they threw a pay-wall in my face, but the little I got looked like a source of use. Much as it warms the cockles of my heart to see articles on insignificant trivia consigned to the bitbin of the internet, this character was noticed and discussed by reliable sources. Oh that even a tenth of the fictional characters currently on wikipedia had even a tenth the source support he seems to. I haven't looked at the article very hard, so it might need some WP:NUKEIT, but I suspect that such drastic measures aren't needed. Rockphed (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dear @Pahiy: Many of your AfD nominations are good, but this particular nomination is extremely unlikely to succeed. I do agree, though, that the article could definitely use some cleanup. Are you interested in withdrawing your deletion nomination? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I don't think many articles on fictional characters pass WP:GNG, this one clearly does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera Motors

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

Says the company was founded in 2019 but most of the information concerns a defunct company called Accelerated Composited. Likewise all the references are not for this company but the previous company. Notability is not inherited. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomintation On reflection, the best course of action is to remove the new lede and revert the article to an earlier version. The older company of the same name appears to meet the criteria for notability. The new company looks like it is trying to make it look like it is a continuation of the old company since it has the same founders and using the same name but the previous company was liquidated and the intellectual property was purchased by a Chinese company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that an article does not resist. Since this college is not mentioned in any of the proposed targets, I did not create a redirect. However, this does not preclude adding reliably sourced information to one of the pages (probably Gulbarga or Edu in Karnataka) and creating a redirect in the future. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noble College of Pharmacy

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect to Karnataka per policy. The nominator should know about these things at WP:NPP..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hey Kudpung, frankly that suggestion makes no sense. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Can you point to the *policy* that says it must be redirected? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, please don't take my words out of context. There is no policy that says 'must'. If users are competent to list articles for deletion, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to know their policies and guidelines especially if they have been granted WP:NPR and read WP:NPP.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, hang on, you've !voted to Blank and Redirect "per policy". Frankly I am still none the wiser after your response. I'll ask again - can you point to where in policy it states this topic should be blanked and redirected. Notability isn't even borderline for this topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless @Kudpung: can show me which policy recommends redirecting? Reading WP:POFR I can't see anything that would save this WP:PLUG with no WP:SIGCOV - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666 and HighKing: I am absolutely not attached to this article in any way and I don't really care what happens to it, but I am attached to our policies. Like AfC is not an article clean up clinic, neither is it a school for voters. If users are competent to list or comment at articles for deletion, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to know their policies and guidelines. No policy says this article must or should be redirected. Read WP:DELETION and then please discuss elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete a private, for-profit pharmacy diploma college (in india, diploma in pharmacy is of 2 years, and degree is of 4 years). If the college was older, I would have agreed with Kudpung, and would have voted for redirect to Gulbarga of Karnataka state. But as the college was established in 2019, it is too young. (The only term starts around Aug-Sept.) As this (for-profit) college fails WP:GNG, and WP:ORG, it should be deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Karnataka.@Kudpung: This is a better target for a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. College was established just this year, and there are no secondary sources out there. I don't see how a redirect to either Karnataka or Gulbarga or Education in Karnataka is appropriate. Those articles don't mention this college, and indeed they wouldn't as they all have a very broad scope. SD0001 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Even a redirect lends some (albeit limited) credibility to this school, WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is "keep" on the strength of the arguments, in which GNG is compellingly demonstrated to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Boys

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, doesn't even have an entry on RottenTomatoes. Also, I was unable to find any significant coverage online that shows any lasting notability. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any third party coverage. May not meet WP:NFILM. Kaotoshi (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the third party coverage cited in the article? Couldn't you find that? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any third party coverage, the article still lacks enough sources for a separate article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaotoshi (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic may or may not have enough sources for a separate article, but it is pretty obviously untrue that there is no third party coverage, because such coverage is cited right there in the article, and was well before you made your first comment, including an 18-page peer-reviewed academic paper about this topic. Let's base our comments on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In case it is useful, the program quotes Terry George saying " 'I had phone sex with Jacko,' that's what the press wrote." Createangelos (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Createangelos: Why should that quote justify to delete the article? --S I 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is and was more coverage, like [6],[7] and newspaper articles from 2005 that are not on the internet nowadays. --S I 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the articles you mention are from reliable sources, these sources just do not prove in-depth coverage or lasting impact. They pretty much mention the documentary in passing so it does not meet the expectation for WP:GNG and WP:V thus Delete. I might add that the documentary was only taking advantage of the 2005 circus around Jackson at that time and fed into the hands of tabloid rumor and innuendo. There is no lasting impact, coverage, or citing material from this documentary. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal only mentioning it "in passing"? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal. In fact, this journal is much larger than 18 pages and was about fare more topics than this tabloid frenzied documentary. Furthermore, you didn't cite the academic article correctly. The first sentence of the article says, "Michael Jackson's Boys is a 2005 British TV documentary about the unusual way how Michael Jackson for most of his adult life had surrounded himself with teenage boys." This is faundmentally wrong. Finally, one academic article simply isn't enough to keep a WP article, it never has been.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the journal has other articles in it - it would be ludicrous to claim otherwise, or that that fact invalidates this article - but this 18-page article is all about Michael Jackson's Boys. Right in the publicly-available abstract linked by the DOI it says, "this paper focuses on the British television documentary, Michael Jackson's Boys". If you feel that the wording of our article doesn't follow the source accurately then edit it, but don't pretend that this source doesn't exist or only has a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered a freely available copy of this journal article here (I previously accessed a subscription copy through my university library). You can see for yourself that it is 18 pages long and completely focussed on this documentary. How about using it to improve our article rather than claiming that it does not exist? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 4 references: First reference is incorrectly cited and is sourced from, at best, a tabloid. It’s not credible. The second one is a 18 page journal supplied by you. Reference three is only mentioning the sensationalistic documentary in passing. Finally, the fourth reference is just a repeat of the same academic article. Also, according to the source itself, it’s only assumptions being made. Susan Hidalgo and Robert G. Weiner of Texas Tech University assume that the film uses “hearsay, insinuations, and assumptions" and effects and music for creating "a sense of danger and fear.” is does not correlate with this article at all. Hidalgo and Weiner are suppliers for various academic articles. They're just summarizing what Epstein argued. Overall, I’m not in favor of keeping this article by using only the second reference. This, even STILL, does not meet expectation for WP:GNG and does not have enough potential to have a seperate article. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are finally assuming good faith and recognizing that that one source is genuine. If you had done so earlier then it might have been possible to have a proper discussion here rather than have me arguing against a brick wall. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in the article do not show significant coverage in independent RS, so it fails WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This page cites 2 sources (+ 2 AFD sources), but none of them have received reliable in-depth coverage. Most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE news reporting about sexual allegations against Jackson. Israell (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal not "significant coverage in independent RS"? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the peer reviewed journal article, New York Times piece and book sources already in the article show that WP:GNG is clearly passed and the delete votes are not policy grounded but based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 4 references: First reference is incorrectly cited and is sourced from, at best, a tabloid. It’s not credible. The second one is a 18 page journal supplied by you. Reference three is only mentioning the sensationalistic documentary in passing. Finally, the fourth reference is just a repeat of the same academic article. Also, according to the source itself, it’s only assumptions being made. Susan Hidalgo and Robert G. Weiner of Texas Tech University assume that the film uses “hearsay, insinuations, and assumptions" and effects and music for creating "a sense of danger and fear.” is does not correlate with this article at all. Hidalgo and Weiner are suppliers for various academic articles. They're just summarizing what Epstein argued. Overall, I’m not in favor of keeping this article by using only the second reference. This, even STILL, does not meet expectation for WP:GNG and does not have enough potential to have a seperate article. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it aired on national television, as I seem to understand WP:NTV, and has an academic article about it. It could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete it. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 and ChrisWar666. Easily passes WP:TVSHOW. The article already surpassed the number of citations needed to meet WP:SIGCOV before it was nominated. The nominator clearly has a poor understanding of policy.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, there's sources from when its broadcasting was going on--which one would expect for a Michael Jackson release--but everything is in context to that sole event. Beyond that, the doccumentary doesn't have stand alone notability and is appropriately covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deconstruct that. You claim that "there's sources from when its broadcasting was going on", but only one of the four sources cited in the article meets that description. You then say that this was a "Michael Jackson release", but this documentary gives a very different viewpoint from Michael Jackson's, so that's also far from the truth. Then "everything is in context to that sole event". I find it difficult to be sure of what you are trying to say here, but it seems most likely that you are saying that all of the sources for this article about a documentary are about that documentary, which is evidence in favour of keeping rather than deleting. You finish by saying that "the documentary doesn't have stand alone notability", which is simply a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE argument, and that it is "appropriately covered elsewhere on Wikipedia", which demands the question, "where?". It seems that you are arguing against the conclusions of this documentary rather than the existence of an article about it, which, if you were to develop it on the basis of reliable sources, would probably end up being quite close to your views. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Jachike Odoemenam

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

Fails WP:GNG and no sign of significance. Andrew Base (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotion but there's nothing worthy of promotion. Google returns nothing. Not notable. Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total vanity page. The article creator's userpage, User:Vjoofficial, indicates its an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 there is no claim to significance let alone anything that points to notability for inclusion. Fails WP:NBIO McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominated it under A7 and it was declined, so we're just gonna have to go through the normal process.

Delete - Made a CSD request under A7 but it was declined, so I'm just going to vote delete for the same reason that I nominated it for CSD. Jdcomix (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined (by me), not quite an A7: "Founder and CEO" is a claim of significance. But notability is not established, nor seems likely, so Delete here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see Knowledgekid87's point but I don't see how to address it within the AFD process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powerlink (Transformers)

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

Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced fancruft, already covered and formatted better at https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Powerlinx --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is deleted then some context should be applied to Transformers (comics) where "powerlinking" is linked. The concern is that otherwise a "clarify" tag might be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per nom. No reliable source. Barca (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dicdef, of a fictional term no less. Total cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers technology

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

Collection of non-notable, in-universe minutia better suited to Fandom. TTN (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure fancruft, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a whole lot of completely unsourced, in-universe plot information. As the information here is almost comprised entirely of what appears to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, there is nothing here worth preserving or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See WP:MOSFICT. Jdcomix (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOSFICT, no possible redirect target available. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers (toy line). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micromasters

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (toy line) where there are multiple mentions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Knowledgekid87. No independent notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

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. Based on my reading of this discussion, it seems like the key concern of the "get rid of this article" camp is that some of the sources are questionable, that the topic of this article is already covered in other articles and that combining the several topics that make it up makes this original research (the cite to WP:INDISCRIMINATE when read in context is also a NOR issue. Some people have cited WP:SYNTH which also points to the same direction) or a WP:POVFORK or perhaps promoting a fringe position. The key counterargumens are that the topic is too broad to be covered elsewhere without overwhelming these articles with undue weight, that the concerns about the sourcing are not actually problems and that there is actually an unifying topic - a criminal inquiry - behind these which is notable. There has also been a more broad question about the scope of Wikipedia and about whether some of the edits here constitute POV pushing, with an ancillary discussion about whether the article topic can be called a conspiracy theory when it's backed by an official government investigation. Going by headcount there are 11+1 keeps (I take that JzG advocates "keep") and 10+1 deletes (the +1 being the nominator). I note that the AFD is titled "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory" but the article is at "Russia investigation origins counter-narrative", which is a little mysterious and has triggered some complaints about the article rename, plus there is a somewhat unclear reference to Durham inquiry.

On balance, it seems like the key question here is whether the topic is one unified thing or a synthesis of several unrelated ones. From my reading of the discussion it seems like some people are seeing an unified topic and others a combination of unrelated things, perhaps the most recent arguments in favour of keep (the existence of a well-reported criminal inquiry) are convincing seeing as nobody has risen to rebut their claims of notability. Perhaps part of the problem is that the article is only partially finished; I can certainly see why an incomplete article on a non-original research topic might look like original research, and the name changes might also create confusion. The NPOV/POVFORK concerns are a little less clear; the arguments are not terribly clear (or more precisely, too much focused on editors rather than content) and the NPOV question appears to be split. Suh considerations often require detailed source/due weight analysis; a spinoff article is not in and of itself a WP:POVFORK going by the text of that guideline.

This is pretty close to a keep consensus in light of the unrebutted late keep arguments, but there is enough uncertainty (mainly due to the title/article topic question) about the WP:OR question that I'll play it safe and deem it a "no consensus". The page title should probably be discussed in a move discussion but that can happen outside of the AFD process. As a sidenote, posting political tirades in an AFD doesn't help anyone and finishing off with "though their ranting makes my point" isn't a good idea either; if concerns about someone being a POV pusher exist WP:AE or WP:ANI would be the places to go to. Also, blank keep arguments are not really helpful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russia investigation origins counter-narrative

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

The Vanity Fair article, one of the only cited sources that call this a conspiracy theory, is filled with loaded language and honestly shouldn't have been cited in the first place. Not only that, the CrowdStrike section is redundant to Trump-Ukraine scandal#CrowdStrike, and the next two sections are redundant to Trump-Ukraine scandal#Communications with other governments (they actually provide less information than the section in the Ukraine article). As a whole, this article seems like a redundant content fork, and thus, I'm nominating it for deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument presented for deletion is an argument for renaming, not deletion. The "oranges" investigation is a scandal of its own and there is more detail available on this than can be covered in any of the current articles (e.g. list of conspiracy theories, William Barr without undue weight. It is very possible that the abuse of the DoJ to undermine the facts of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election could form one of the upcoming articles of impeachment, and in any case the topic is clearly notable as per its coverage in numerous reliable independent sources. The claim that the language is loaded is not due to any fault with the topic, it is due to the general outrage among the reality-based media over this abuse of Federal office (and is in any case a matter of WP:SOFIXIT. If you can find reliable (i.e. non-Fox) sources saying that this is a legitimate investigation launched in good faith, feel free to propose them. Guy (help!) 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that I presented is that the article is substantially redundant to the Trump-Ukraine scandal article, which is an argument for deletion rather than renaming. The point you made about undue weight isn't applicable here because the information on the main article is more than sufficient. In response to your last point, I'm not arguing that we should include sources claiming the investigation was in good faith (because there aren't any), I just said that the Vanity Fair article was too loaded. Jdcomix (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not redundant - they have quite a limited overlap. The Ukraine shakedown is based on two conspiracy theories (that Ukraine interfered with, the 2016 election, rather than Russia, and "but her emails"), whereas this is based on the Spygate, deep state and "dodgy dossier" conspiracy theories, and has spawned a separate and distinct politically-motivated DoJ investigation. Guy (help!) 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure there is a clearly defined particular "thing" that the article is about. It seems to meander hither and yon among a number of topics. I mean, the Barr investigation may be independently notable. The IG investigation might be too. Those might be founded originally on theories that there was some conspiracy, but it's not clear that there is really "a theory" other than the accusation that there is "some conspiracy". It looks like fully half or more of the article is about Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory. All the stuff about CrowdStrike, Papadopoulos, Downer, Mifsud, Hillary Clinton's emails...all that stuff is over there in that other article about a different subject. If we remove all that stuff, well, I've read through the article repeatedly and I couldn't really tell you what this theory is supposed to be, all the details are about that other theory that apparently isn't this one. GMG ^talk 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually exactly what I was thinking when I nominated the article for deletion. It almost seems like the article is just a collection of bad things that Trump did which are vaguely related to Russia, and some of the material isn't really related at all. If the article is about the conspiracy theory about the origins of the Russia investigation (I assume we're discussing the Mueller investigation, correct?), then why is the article explaining that William Barr was contacting foreign governments related to the UKRAINE scandal? This sort of relates to the Ukraine conspiracy theory article that the creator of this article recently created, which was also nominated for deletion for many of the same issues I raised here. Do we really need two separate articles explaining what CrowdStrike is? If anything's UNDUE, the creation of two articles for something that has been thoroughly discredited seems to fit perfectly with the definition of undue weight. I also think that Bill Barr contacting foreign governments is thoroughly and sufficiently explained on Trump-Ukraine scandal#Communications with other governments, as I mentioned in the nomination. If there are a higher number of sources and more solid sources calling this a conspiracy theory, and there's more meat to the conspiracy itself, then I might reconsider this nomination. As it stands, though, I think that both articles are extremely redundant. Jdcomix (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's half-finished. There were sections about the "oranges" conspiracy theory in numerous places, and this is very obviously a significant part of Trump's alternate reality - a large amount of time and money has been spent flying Bill Bar around the globe in pursuit of it. Guy (help!) 21:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't fill my life with any more Trump related news than is absolutely necessary. But with most conspiracy theories, we wind up with some intricately woven narrative about exactly who was conspiring how and to do what. I'm not sure there is a whole lot here that couldn't fit into an all-caps late-night tweet. While WITCH HUNT! might be, in fact, an allegation of a conspiracy, it's a bit more of a "conspiracy hypothesis" more than a theory. That requires...you know...sustained thought on a single subject for more that 280 characters at a time. I'm not totally sure that even Barr knows what it is he is looking for, other than literally anything the exonerates the president and implicates his political enemies. GMG ^talk 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/TNT. This is a vague and rambling article that does not define the so-called theory or justify itself as a separate article, with everything covered elsewhere. Furthermore to call it a conspiracy theory is a fantasy - there are deliberately constructed lies by the administration designed to obscure and tear down the truth. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just noticed that the article was renamed to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. However, one of the new sources for the new name is completely unrelated to the article subject, although the CNN video is pretty solid. If the issues that I mentioned above are addressed and there are more sources that are as solid as this one, yet the article is still deleted, I'm completely in favor of blowing it up and starting from scratch to make the article more concise. Jdcomix (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see other editors comments above) Wiki is not a mouthpiece or spin-zone for "alternative narratives" or conspiracy theories. You can't just put a bunch of citations together and invent a subject - see WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia that's doing this. The Attorney-General has appointed a group headed by Durham to pursue this. They have (unsuccessfully) pressed foreign governments to provide supporting data. They are interviewing past and rpesent FBI and CIA agents about it. There are currently around 40 sources, most of which are specifically and primarily about this subject. They include the Financial Times, New York Times and Washington Post. Guy (help!) 10:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content is used out of context from their citations to propagate WP:SYNTH. Alternative narrative is just a nice way of saying unsubstantiated Bullshit. DN (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darknipples, I agree that it's unsubstantiated bullshit, but it's notable unsubstantiated bullshit, promoted by the president, Sean Hannity and other conservative talking heads, and the DoJ has been coerced into promoting it, leading to, among other things, specific repudiation in a public statement by the Italian premier. That's kind of hard to ignore. Guy (help!) 14:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure this is anything other then a fork from the main article that really adds anything.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of conspiratorial commentary on the subject in right-wing outlets, which merits coverage here along with critical secondary sources; and there are articles that cover related subjects, like Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory and Spygate (conspiracy theory). The main problem of the article, and the reason it seems "unfocused" to some, is because it jumps Barr's 2019 investigation without giving enough of a background on Mueller's. If the article starts where Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) left off then it'll all make sense. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere, Thanks, I am doing that now. Guy (help!) 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do have Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. This page seem to address a subject more general than Spygate (conspiracy theory). I think it would be best to continue development of this page and see how it will be improved, instead of just deleting it at this stage. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is raising any question about whether Trump has given voice to a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories. That's fairly well documented. But I also don't know that anyone has been able to really demarcate exactly what this one is supposed to be. I think the transition from conspiracy theory to "counter-narrative" is even less helpful. Good luck making a COMMONNAME argument that that is the most widely used title in reliable sources. That's just blanket license to dump a bunch of tangentially related stuff into a pile a call it an article. GMG ^talk 21:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way to address this situation would be to create an "umbrella page" Conspiracy theories by Donald Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an obvious WP:POV WP:FORK - Strip it down to reliable due sources and incorporate it back into the key article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I agree with users JzG, François Robere, and My very best wishes, the article needs work as a new article would. So in that regard I also agree with elements of GreenMeansGo. It may be a difficult article to write, to which Jdcomix and Reywas92 allude, due to Trump's tendency for nonsensical rambling thus this topic usually part of a greater topic in RSs. X1\ (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mid-discussion name change So absurd. They're digging up a constant stream of lies and you just call that a "counter-narrative"? An "alternative narrative"??? The bothsidesism is strong with this one, even worse than using "conspiracy theory". Just move it back to Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory if you have to but not this fork. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess. No one has really even attempted to address my initial concerns and try to explain exactly what the subject of the article is supposed to be. The move to "counter-narrative" does exactly the opposite, and just makes it fairly blatantly just a dumping ground for anything too FRINGE or POV to have any place is the main articles. If the "counter-narrative" is too far outside the mainstream to be covered in the main articles (and I'm not even entirely sure how many main articles we're talking about in total), then it's probably more news reporting than it is encyclopedic. To egregiously link to the same thing twice in a row, we don't have any obligation to cover things just because sources which are not an encyclopedia do so and definitely not when we can't even figure out what it is we're trying to cover. If we're moving content here specifically because it's too POV and in too much intricate detail to be appropriate for the main article, well, then that's just the definition of a POVFORK isn't it? No prejudice at all against recreating some type of article if we figure out what the subject is, but draft space is the place to collect miscellaneous content in case it eventually coalesces into a definite topic that is definitely notable. GMG ^talk 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is pretty clear: the "oranges" counter-narrative, that Bill Barr is spinning and John Durham is investigating. The real-world version is that multiple foreign intelligence communities reported attempts by Russie to influence the US election and collaborate with the Trump campaign in doing so, as documented by Mueller and presumably also subject to the counter-intelligence investigations Mueller ruled out of scope. The alternate narrative is the deep-state conspiracy where Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr, Brennan and the rest colluded to gin up an investigation into the most innocent and transparent candidate in US history in order to stop him draining the swamp. Guy (help!) 08:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But where is "the counter narrative" treated as a single coherent thing other than here? In the first sentence, we're supposed to be talking about "a conspiracy theory", but the sources don't seem to be talking about a single overarching theory; they talk about conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories including that about Misfud (covered elsewhere), a conspiracy theory about Clinton's emails and Ukraine (covered elsewhere), and conspiracy theories. In comparison, there are as many conspiracy theories about George Soros as you have time for. But we don't lump them under The George Soros counter narrative and treat them as a single coherent thing because they're not; they're a smattering of independent theories, mixed with "something someone said one day", some isolated news, and some online trolls.

Now that the article has been completely rewritten and moved, if we fork off the content about the Durham inquiry, which is probably an independently notable (coherent) thing as I said above, what we're left with is the first section, which is mostly a smattering of independent conspiracy theories and a little this or that, which in isolation, don't rise to the level of fully fledged theories. If we want an article about "the counter narrative", then we need sources about "the counter narrative", and not pieces of "it" in isolation, only compiled on Wikipedia. If we want to compile of list of more or less related but independent things, then we should be making a list and not an article. GMG ^talk 10:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, which I think I have addressed in the article now. There are several reports of Barr's attempts to coerce Australia, the UK and Italy over Mifsud and other related matters, which discuss the counter narrative. The existence of a counter-narrative is also explicitly addressed by several sources linked in the article (e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/12/why-is-barr-investigating-origins-of-russia-probe.cnn). The article was somewhat disjointed at the outset as it was taken from numerous somewhat inconsistent sections in different articles, as per the original edit summary. It is clear fomr the sources that the right has congealed around a certain view of the "oranges" that allows them to rationalise away the very damning findings of the Mueller report, after the Barr letter was shown to be bogus. Its importance seems incontrovertible, given Barr's high profile personal involvement in trying to establish the bizarre Mifsud conspiracy theory and the existence of the Durham inquiry which is identified by sources as being predicated on the counter-narrative being valid.

Soros conspiracy theories can be covered in the Soros article, as far as I can see, but this is creeping into so many areas - the Ukraine shakedown, Joseph Mifsud, Bill Barr, the Mueller report itself, the impeachment discussion - that the detail will either be inconsistent or insufficient if it's not documented as a separate article, IMO. And yes the theory is somewhat incoherent, but that is a reflection of the people promoting it. The core elements seem clear: Spygate, deep state, Steele dossier, and now adding the second layer of detail where the deep state supposedly suborned Australia, the UK and Italy to set up Mifsud as a strawman to trigger surveillance of Carter Page (never mind the fact that he'd been surveilled before, for similar reasons). Guy (help!) 11:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the CNN sources is as far as I can tell, the first source brought up here that deals with this as a whole, as "a counter narrative". The question then is whether there are sufficient sources that do so to write an article with. GMG ^talk 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, See above - per Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Guy (help!) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to something else without the "counter-narrative". The article notablity is fine though, I am not an American but I assume the people of U.S. would really want to know why the Democrats wasted millions of dollars for a total hoax. As far as I know there is an investigation or a proposal for an investigation going on. Also we should not call it a conspiracy theory just because Democrats don't like it. We should maintain NPOV and common sense.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several US sources call it a conspiracy theory, but counter-narrative is fine and also supported by sources. It's not a question of whether Democrats like it, the problem is that Trump does not like the reality based timeline of the investigation and is trying to use the power of the presidency and the loudness of his bully pulpit to replace reality with "alternative facts". Guy (help!) 15:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs by saying something that none of the sources individually state, whether it's Trump's supposed bully pulpit or if Democrats like it. Hence the nomination. Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes what RS say about conspiracy theories/disinformation like this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. There are lots of things that are within the sum total of human knowledge that are outside the scope of Wikipedia. The question is precisely whether reliable sources describe this as "a conspiracy theory", or as a disjointed selection of allegations, rants, theories and late-night tweets. Simply claiming that they do doesn't actually help us progress this discussion very much. GMG ^talk 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. We don't cover things made up in school one day. But we do cover things made up by the President in order to deflect attention away from the damning Mueller report, and in support of which he has dispatched the United States Attorney General to badger US allies to support a conspiracy contradicted by huge numbers of reliable sources, when such things made up by the President re covered in detail in dozens of sources which are in the article. There are at least three conspiracy theories being pushed around the "oranges" ("deep state", "spygate", Steele), and a large ongoing investigation. Deleting this article just mandates that the same content has to go somewhere else, and it’s not clear where - this content comes from half a dozen articles where it's been covered in varying depth and with varying degrees of sourcing-from-Fox-News. Sufficient depth to cover the details of the alternatives promoted by Hannity et. al. would be seriously WP:UNDUE in the (already large) article on the Mueller investigation. It is much simpler to maintain this article than the many sections elsewhere, and much easier for people on both sides of the political spectrum to ensure that it is neutral, and therefore the multiple other articles don't see-saw competing POvs.

I recognise that Wikipedia policy was never designed to cover a situation where the President of the United States promotes fantastical nonsense. But that's the world we live in. Guy (help!) 20:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a measure of importance, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs. GMG ^talk 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, At Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative I have listed a dozen sources that explicitly call this a counter narrative, which is a tiny proportion of the sources that cover it. Guy (help!) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Counter-narrative is description we don't need it in the title, and this description is not a neutral point of view as it is disputed. I suggest Durham inquiry (as Darouet said) or "Review into the origins of the Russia investigation"--SharabSalam (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, On the contrary. The origins of the Mueller inquiry are documented in the article on that. This is about the interwoven set of conspiracies around deep state / dodgy dossier / spygate and Mifsud - the conservative counter-narrative, and, as a secondary matter at this point, the politically motivated investigation being run by Barr. That might become more significant, especially if it becomes a focus of the impeachment inquiry as an abuse of power, but right now it's definitely secondary. Trump wants to undermine the findings of Mueller, Trump and his allies push an alternate narrative, documented for over two years in the sources cited, Trump then pushes Barr to set the DoJ on it. If the recent comments from the New York Bar lead to anything then that might become the major topic, but I don't think it is yet. Guy (help!) 14:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I'm afraid I will need additional time to review these. I've only had time to leave comments here or there on-wiki, and not for extended periods of uninterrupted reading. GMG ^talk 18:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, sure, but if the question is notability, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that there's a notable topic here. The assertion of POVfork seems baseless to me, as it came from numerous places where the same or similar material was represented inconsistently. I think anything else can be fixed by editing. Guy (help!) 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This conspiracy theory deserves its own article to avoid undue coverage in the main article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork with little extra value added. Rather disappointing over all. PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork? Guy (help!) 19:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think perhaps you need a break for anything Trump related. Hell what is with you calling Trump "oranges" everywhere? You are quickly losing any credibility here and starting to look like your average POV pusher. PackMecEng (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?? Hardly. Your personal attack on Guy is way off base. Anyone who disagrees with what Guy is saying on these topics is the one who loses credibility and looks more like a Trump supporter, RS be damned, and at Wikipedia one cannot support both RS and Trump at the same time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is a place to discuss the article, not a place to post personal political tirades. GMG ^talk 22:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though their ranting makes my point. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, Neutrality does not lie in the average between what the right wing media says and what the mainstream media says. There's a very clear counterfactual narrative being promoted. Media from the centre-right to the liberal fringes all discuss this. The right wing media instead promotes the counter-narrative (with a few honourable exceptions like Shep Smith, who, you will note, is suddenly no longer part of the right wing media). Of course I employ humour when referring to "I hope they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation" - if one does not laugh then one must surely cry. That is irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that numerous sources are covering, in detail, the attempts by the Trump administration and right-wing media to create a counter-narrative in respect of the origins of the Mueller probe. Sue, Breitbart will tell you it's The Truth™, but Wikippedia does not accept equivalence between Breitbart and the Washington Post, when it comes to factual commentary. Guy (help!) 11:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, what wrongs? The only wrong I am righting is that the counter-narrative was not coherently documented on Wikipedia. Given its prominence, with large numbers of sources discussing it, that is a rather glaring omission. Guy (help!) 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the policy on it Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political. It has become clear you are trying to spread your version of the Truth™ and see some weird threat to world freedom or some such nonsense that you need to expose. That is not what Wikipedia is for. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, What? I am not documenting my "version of the truth", I am doing the precise opposite: documenting the alternative facts that are being pushed by the conservative media, because there was no one article where this was coherently discussed. It's clearly notable: it was the entire A segment of Maddow last night, and the Italian Prime Minister has had to make a public statement repudiating elements of the narrative. It's a POVFORK only in as much as the conservative media are trying to establish a POVFORK of reality. All this is established from multiple wholly reliable mainstream sources, including the dry-as-dust Financial Times. Quibbles about tone, or even title, are a matter for editing. The fact that this is a notable topic, possibly to the point it might form its own article of impeachment, is hardly disputable, given the weight of sources. Guy (help!) 13:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You are basically saying I'm here to correct alternative facts and right wing propaganda because Rachel Maddow said so. Do you see the problem with that? PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, No, I am here to document a counter-narrative that is sufficiently significant that it formed the A segment of a national news commentary show. You'll note I do not cite Maddow in the article, for the same reason I don't cite Tucker Carlson. There are dozens of sources there, establishing that this is a false narrative being pressed by the right. Fact-based right wing voices like George Will, Max Boot, George Conway, also echo the mainstream press. Guy (help!) 17:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article on the Durham inquiry, obviously — as regards the rest of the article, this should be reworked into sections of the "Durham inquiry" article or be removed. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The "Durham inquiry" uses this conspiracy theory has part of a cover-up, so they are two different things, one falsely pretending to be a serious inquiry. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the Redirect more specific. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after I understood what this article is about, I think it should be removed. It is POVSPLIT. There is a serious review of the origins of the Russia investigation. This article seems to show that the whole inquiry is a counter-narrative conspiracy theory, therefore it is not a NPOV and things have changed since the media was promoting this as a conspiracy theory, this is now a formal inquiry into a real allegation. We can't call it a conspiracy theory!. See also Google hits for the article title 8 results while "review of the origins of the Russia investigation" is more than 8K results which indicates that the review is the main article while this article is a POVSPLIT and gives undue weight to a certain POV and certain period of time when the media called it a conspiracy theory or a counter-narrative. They are now calling it "review into the origins of the Russian investigation" and the narrative is now an allegation.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam, that's not actually true. The origins of the Russia investigation are as documented in the relevant article: multiple reports to the CIA from foreign intelligence organisations, followed by FBI investigation of US individuals leading to the convictions we've seen - Manafort and the rest. The alternative narrative being promoted in the right wing media was documented incompletely, sporadically and inconsistently across several articles, so I gathered that here. While it is undoubtedly true that conservatives absolutely reject the idea that this narrative is false, we don't cover it in the main articles because it is false. So this is the only way we can cover it properly. Guy (help!) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads more like a conspiracy page support than anything. Way to POV based and biased fork. ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soibangla (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: - votes without rationale count for nothing. starship .paint (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint I disagree. soibangla (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete due to most of the issues previously pointed out.Garp21 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not clear what POVFORK this article is of. It is definitely notable, just look at the sources cited. Perhaps the article needs a rename, but that's not worth a deletion. starship .paint (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a POV fork of a lot of articles on the subject. Take a look at the history to see where much of the content was copied from. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you call it, it's a notable topic which cannot be given its due weight in those other articles. Therefore it has a right to its own existence.

It's a proper summary-style spin-off article, also known as a WP:Content fork. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some updates [8]; Durham's probe is now a criminal investigation. We cant characterize it as a counter-narrative or conspiracy theory --SharabSalam (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? RS still describe it as a conspiracy theory and cover-up to protect Trump. That it's now a criminal investigation doesn't change that at all, and there are plenty of sources which are now having fun with the obvious implications of calling the Durham probe a "criminal investigation". They are obviously implying that it is being run by or for criminals, since cover-ups are indeed typically criminal acts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, Not all reliable sources agree with that and things has changed since the liberal anti-Trump media like the CNN and others described what Trump was saying as a counter-narrative conspiracy theory. Now there is a formal official investigation and evidences about what Trump said. Wikipedia should remain neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Careful reading of the NYT story and others today suggest a tiny leak of a criminal investigation being opened without any hint of a predicate could indicate motives that remain unclear and thus do not yet negate the purpose of this article. Having observed the modus operandi of both Trump and Barr, there are good reasons for skepticism about what is actually happening. It could be a cynical tactic to divert attention from Trump's troubles by turbocharging rampant speculation by him and his allies (like Hannity) to energize his demoralized base. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And lookee here, the DOJ leak has enabled a member of the GOP Senate leadership to engage in wild speculation:

What if, just what if, the Obama administration, including the leadership of the Justice Department and FBI unlawfully coordinated with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to "go after" an opposing presidential campaign?

soibangla (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, the existence of an "investigation into the investigators", IOW the Justice Dept investigating itself, doesn't change a thing. The Democrats did not waste millions of dollars for a total hoax. The Special Counsel Investigation actually ended with a large profit. The investigation was justified and not a hoax.

Let's examine this:

The Facts:

The Russians interfered in the 2016 investigation to help Trump. This was confirmed by European intelligence communities, American intelligence communities, Special Counsel investigation, and Justice Department investigations. Only unreliable sources doubt that.
Trump and his campaign welcomed that help because they believed they could benefit from the help offered by the enemy of America. Therefore they cooperated with that offered help. They never reported it to the FBI as they should. They held secret meetings all over Europe which were surveilled in 2015 and 2016 by EIGHT foreign intelligence agencies, which became so alarmed by the conversations that they alerted the CIA and FBI that the Trump campaign was scheming with the Russians to rig the election in various ways. Only after the Papadopoulos revelations. It was this revelation which started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016. There was nothing improper about the start of the investigation. The Trump campaign has only itself to blame for what happened. They were caught with their pants down, hands in the cookie jar, and they lied about it. Those are the facts. THAT is the correct narrative.

The Cover-up:

The counter-narrative is an attempt to deny the above. It uses an improper investigation by the Justice Dept to support a conspiracy theory which falsely posits that the Justice Department, CIA, and FBI were misused by the Obama administration to harm Trump's chances. They deny that the Russians interfered. They deny that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russians and accepted that help. They deny that they were caught doing improper things. They deny the evidence.
The current investigations are a cover-up that is contrary to the facts, and the Trump administration is trying to get their base to accept the counter-narrative as fact. By sowing doubt about the origins of the Special Counsel investigation, they hope to undermine the Mueller Report's findings that there was massive Russian interference in the election, and that the Trump campaign willingly accepted that help. The Report also found lots of obstruction of justice. Trump wants people to ignore the evidence already found.
Only Fox News talk show hosts and other unreliable sources doubt the findings of the European intelligence communities, American intelligence communities, Special Counsel investigation, and Justice Department investigations.

What should editors do?

At Wikipedia, we do not use unreliable sources or believe counterfactual narratives supported only by those unreliable sources. If an editor believes the counter-narrative and the sources which back it, and if they can't resist the urge to advocate those views, I suggest they find somewhere else to write about it and discuss it, because here that would be original research, forbidden advocacy of fringe positions, and dependence on unreliable sources. We don't allow that here. They should start their own blog.

Editors are welcome to hold any political views they wish, but if they are counterfactual and dependent on unreliable sources, then they must not advocate them here. If they don't engage in such forbidden advocacy, they are more than welcome to edit here, but it would be best that they stay away from the AP2 subject area. Then again, there are actually some Trump supporters here who can edit in this area without advocating Trump's views and conspiracy theories, and without insinuating that the narratives found in reliable sources might be wrong. They do not cast doubt on RS, so they are a benefit here. Their presence does not create disruption.

This is all about how we handle RS and have the competence to vet them, and the only reason politics is involved in this discussion is because Trump considers all RS to be fake news. Some editors adopt that attitude, and that makes them incompetent to edit in this area. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, what RS dispute this narrative? That is ultimately how we decide such matters. Please provide the sources which you feel say we're wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theory" is obviously the democrats view of Trump allegations. Just one side of the conflict. Most of what we call reliable sources are supporters of democrats and anti-Trump. For example, do you honestly think the CNN, MSMBC is covering Trump fairly? in a recent article in the Guardian it says "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the justice department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and at the top it says "critics say department is being used to chase conspiracy theories" that means the view that this is a conspiracy theory is the view of critics. Similar thing in Reuters, it says "Democrats and some former law enforcement officials have accused Barr, the top U.S. law enforcement official, of using the power of the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories"

The lede paragraph in the article: "The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative or Russia counter-narrative is a right-wing alternative narrative,[2](CNN video source for the word "alternative narrative")[3](unrelated source that says that right-wings view the Russian investigation as a witch hunt) sometimes identified as a conspiracy theory,[1](Reuters source which says Democrats and some former law enforcement officials describe it as such yet there is no mentioning of who describes it as a conspiracy theory) concerning the origins of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."

Notice that the article name was "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory" although this is not the neutral point of view but the point of view of democrats. Also in the lede paragraph it was saying "concerning the 'oranges'" instead of origins, somehow making a joke of how Trump mispronounced the word "origins".

This is how this article should be. First of all, the subject of the article should be about the investigation that is going on and it might have a {{current}} tag. Then we can have a section about the narrative and provide all different POVs either how the democrats see the allegations, how conservatives are promoted it etc etc. This is how it normally should be. Right now we have a criticism of the allegations in the lead section and in the title!! and only one third of the article is about the investigation.

The title is another story. There are only 9 results for the title in all of Google search engine all are in wikipedia! and 32 results for "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory". We cant collect sources and create a subject for an article. I have talked about this in here. I propose that the article title and the subject change to "Review the origins of the Russia investigation" (9,960 results) or "Review into the origins of the Russia investigation" (4,900 results). See! this is what should the subject of the article be about.

--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, The issue here is that every single mainstream source is critical of the counter-narrative and the political motives behind the Durham investigation. The only ones that accept it at face value are unreliable: Epoch Times, Fox News talking heads and the like. Guy (help!) 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are describing how RS describe this counterfactual narrative. We must not describe it the way that unreliable sources do, although we mention it. Wikipedia does not engage in false equivalence. When someone says the moon landings are a hoax, we do not present both POV as equal. We present how RS cover it, and they uniformly document that the moon landings happened and that the counter-narrative is counterfactual and false. The false narrative carries little weight and is given less coverage than the facts. That's how we are supposed to deal with this conspiracy theory. It is false and a cover-up.

"Remember this: Mueller uncovered a vast Russian conspiracy that pulled off something the Watergate burglars never could. Russians or their allies successfully stole information from Democratic Party officials that was used to bolster conspiracy theories that eventually cost the Democratic nominee the election. Mueller also discovered that Trump knew about this conspiracy, encouraged it publicly, and attempted to get involved but apparently failed —probably because the Russians concluded he was unreliable, and involving him was more trouble than it was worth. Mueller also discovered that Trump conducted a lengthy campaign to cover up the Russian conspiracy, resulting in a list of 10 incidents that, if Trump were not protected by his office, could result in federal charges of obstruction of justice.

"Just because the Mueller investigation is over doesn't mean Trump's efforts to cover up for Vladimir Putin's campaign against democracy have ended. On the contrary, the obstruction of justice campaign has expanded. Now, under the guidance of Barr, it's being run by the Department of Justice itself."[9]

BullRangifer (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for collecting indiscriminate information (wp:indiscriminate) or material that seems to support a topic, but doesn't. Many sources are needed that say this is a counternarrative and these are the elements that support it, of which there aren't. I'm concerned that this topic is based on wp:synthesis of sources to invent a topic that only has been explicitly mentioned in passing in a few of the sources. Not enough coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Fails GNG. I concede that the sources cover various theories and other actions that seem irrational. But this is not explicit significant coverage of the topic, per GNG and WP:N. And has been noted above, this article consists of material collected from other articles, where the topic is not "counter narrative." This shows even more so the wp:synthesis involved and the wp:or nature of this article. Additionally, Wikipedia is not in the business of righting great wrongs (per wp:rightgreatwrongs) nor is it a wp:soapbox---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These events are now the subject of a major criminal inquiry at a national level. It's inconceivable that such events that are currently generating so much news coverage are not notable. As has already been said, people are just voting "delete" because they don't like the title of the article. The title could potentially be changed, but that isn’t a reason to delete the article.Worldlywise (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldlywise, "These events are now the subject of a major criminal inquiry at a national level." That's why there needs to be a wikipedia page covering the legitimate investigation. I'm of the impression that this counter narrative page is holding up opening a new topic, such as "Durham investigation into the Trump-Russia probe origins" or similar title. I have concerns that the counter narrative page may have actually been started for that purpose. --Garp21 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF. You are welcome to start such an article if you can find RS on the subject which don't point out the dubious nature of the so-called "investigation". Unfortunately for such an endeavor is the fact that most sources which don't point out the deceptive nature of the inquiry are unreliable or blacklisted sources. They push the counterfactual/counter-narrative as legitimate. But hey, go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not a citizen or resident of any of the involved countries, and I don't have any particular interest in the issue, but this 'conspiracy theory' or 'counter-narrative' has arrived here via the mainstream media as a component of the Trump's impeachment process. Change whatever you think should be changed, but its international notability is far beyond doubt. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is obviously notable, and I don't see any of the reasons for deletion substantive enough to delete the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Highly notable. A large variety of reliable sources are presented. It may be that some discussion about naming and emphasis needs to occur in terms of keeping things NPOV, but that's almost always an issue about any politically charged issue. Difficulty of neutrality is not a reason for deletion. And the other reasons for deletion are uncompelling. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL

AfDs for this article:

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

I still say this is an arbitrary list. Playing in the NHL is a significant distinction. Playing PRECISELY ONE game in the NHL is arbitrary. This list is horrendously fluid; people are continually being added for playing their 1st game and removed for playing their 2nd. Arbitrary list gotta go. p b p 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. p b p 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this was previously nominated for deletion before, by the same editor, with the result as keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous discussion illustrated why this is a notable grouping of players. Significant external sources maintain lists of these players, including HockeyDB and the Hockey Hall of Fame. The list is well-maintained and well-sourced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous discussion lays out quite well why this is a notable topic. The list is kept up to date and sourced. Not at all arbitrary as it is specifically one game. It is a stat that even the Hockey Hall of Fame tracks and is the subject of news articles fequently. Like last time this appears to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Originally when I created this article, I had put a point that it has to be 5 years from last game to present, to avoid, as pbp mentions, players continually being added and removed. I still feel it is an important list that groups a very specific group of people. Making it to the "show" is a great achievement, even if it's only for one game. Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the excellent rationale of Tavix. The list is relevant and useful to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading both the first and this one, I am a firm believer that this is notable because with certain hockey resources have this type of resource as one of their pages which might this page eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind everybody that "This is notable" doesn't refute my original deletion rationale, which is based on WP:NOT. Let me also point out how unusual this list is for Wikipedia. Compare 300 save club...the list includes everybody who has 300 OR MORE saves. You gain notability by playing a game in the NHL; you don't lose notability for playing a second game. p b p 13:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was arbitrary, people have pointed out how it is not arbitrary. One game is a very defined point. Like a one hit wonder (ie Lists of one-hit wonders). You don't lose notability by playing two games, but you might be more notable for only playing one compared to playing two. Lists are about the group as a whole, not the individual items on the list, so much so that there is no requirement that items on a given list have to be notable enough to have their own article just the subject of the list itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject passes WP:LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list meets our criteria for inclusion; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would stop making the claim that I only nominated this because I didn't like it. I nominated this because it flies in the face of how the scope of Wikipedia lists are almost always defined. p b p 22:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't. I linked to one such list above. I can link you to many many more. This is a very normal type of list. -DJSasso (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend explained better than I could in the last AfD why precisely one game has particular significance and linked to a number of list articles that focus on precisely one event. And that is backed up in this case by reliable sources that also maintain lists of one game, but not two games or other amounts. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. In fact, playing a game for the NHL passes WP:NHOCKEY. ミラ P 00:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so does playing two, 537, or any other number of games. The issue I have with this list is that it's limited to playing EXACTLY one game, which is no more notable than playing any other positive number of games. p b p 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, poor horse. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the lists above, there is at least one book that focuses on the topic, which further demonstrates notability. I'll also note that perhaps it would be better served to update after the conclusion of each season (to avoid constant changes), the fact it is seemingly kept updated on a regular basis is impressive. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the list is arbitrary but it must be prone to some arbitrary upkeep, as when a player makes his second appearance. That isn't enough of a reason to delete it, though, because by definition it passes WP:NHOCKEY. My main reason for keeping it is that it would and should provide a very useful method, right across the whole of sports coverage, of acknowledging single appearance performers who lack the necessary GNG for a dedicated article. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audition Room

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

A lone review over Hindustan Times and trivial mention over a PR spam (vide this) at Zee News.

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NBOOKS by a few many miles; see this GNews search string. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:BKCRIT. GSS ^💬 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK, and being about the "casting process and auditioning techniques from the point of view of an Indian casting director" is too narrow a category to indicate a credible claim to encyclopedic significance. More in-depth coverage is needed. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yip. Very poor. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ology (website)

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

Short lived site. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reached over 4.4 million users over 4 years - is that not a notable number? I don't know. How many million should it have reached? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It being defunct/short-lived isn't really a reason to delete, nor is it having had 4.4 million users a reason to keep. The only relevant question is whether it meets WP:GNG. Based on a review of the article's sources (one press release and a couple primary sources), and some web searches, I would say it does not. Which is kind of a shame, given that it has >50 mainspace links (mostly from articles on TV episodes talking about reviews written on the website). But there just isn't any WP:SIGCOV that we can use to write a verifiable article that's more than a directory entry. Colin M (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Delta

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable, unreferenced local. Naraht (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as last time—no enduring coverage with which to write an encyclopedia article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 14:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be good to get more input on this. Please note that the article in the previous AFD appears to be about a different organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This student group appears to have drawn little attention.Strandvue (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fametracker

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

Website without any references or real claim to notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP Refs search and a Google books search provide many sources that establish notability and can expand the article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South East and Central Europe PR Organisation

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

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG, it doesn't cite any source, apparently created by SPA for promotion. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles only source is non-independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence that this is a notable PR corp. is lacking.Strandvue (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Liberty

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

Of the sources cited, only [10] and [11] are even close to being independent and reliable. They still only provide brief coverage and are of dubious reliability. My own searches have not produced better sources so WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE do not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable make up artist with sources easily found. Someone should expand the stub, not delete it. Wm335td (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: sources easily found such as? SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I can find are some combination of not-independent, not-reliable, and not-significant. Rockphed (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the article sources included Reddit, Twitter, a makeup company event announcement... and so on. I have removed them. The Bustle is two sentences. Show me SIGCOV quality sources and I might be convinced, but for now it is delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and @ThatMontrealIP:. A makeup artist? That's not likely notable irrespective of any coverage. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redraftify and split. Pretty clear consensus that the article is not yet ready for mainspace as it's questionable that circumcision and female genital mutilation should have been combined in the same topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

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

The article has been separated into two entirely separate sections, which destroys the apparent purpose of the article. Separate articles already exist about each of the two separated sections (see and Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and Prevalence of circumcision). The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues. If the article itself does not consider the phenomena together, it appears to have no value. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep and reorganize per nominator's excellent reasoning.~T P W 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree With suggestion to separate into two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redraftify. This was moved prematurely from draftspace and should be deleted or moved back. Comparing the figures on one page seeks to draw a false equivalence between FGM and circumcision, which is original research. In addition, I oppose hosting any "list" article (as part of this list or separately) on the legality and prevalence of FGM, which are complex issues. We already have Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. There are four types of FGM and multiple sub-types. For most countries, there are no nationally representative figures, and there are several countries in which some types are banned but not others, or it is banned outside hospital only, or banned only for minors. Each country would have to be individually sourced and kept updated, which would be a lot of work, and the author of this list has shown no interest in doing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redraftify. "The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues" – Indeed. Unfortunately, in the absence of reliable sources which study potential correlations, the article is riddled with original research. The nominator has it wrong on one count: it's not a matter of whether the article has value or not; it's simply a matter of whether the topic has sufficient reliable sources studying it for us to make an article. While these are being sought, the article should not be mainspace because of the concerns that Sarah indicates. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or TNT. Inappropriate to conflate circumcision and FSM. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two lists, each with a prominent link to the Prevalence of... prose articles. I considered the possibility of merging it with the relate Prevalence of... articles, but I don't see any easy way to make that happen. The "whole world" table doesn't fit comfortably with the continent-by-continent article. However, if someone else thinks that would be a good idea, then I'm okay with it, too. As a side note, I don't really see any policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging). I can see ways to improve the table, especially by adding a "Notes" section that allows some detailed explanations or links to more detailed explanations, but that's just a matter of improving the page, and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you don't see WP:No original research as a policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging)? Or do you believe that all of the figures in the article were accurately taken directly from sources without any extrapolation by the editor who added them? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split and draftying both articles until sufficiently salient research is available. It is critically important that sources are right, and it is the correct research that being used. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and split, per above. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and split, per above. 4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per the above comments and split per @Reywas92: as I don't think the recent merge of circumcision and female genital mutilation was helpful. There are legitimate reasons, religious, hygienic, and the like, for the former whereas I can't think of any legitimate reasons for the latter. In short, as Reywas92 says, the two should not be confused.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As apparently nobody wants to pursue deletion further and the topic appears to meet inclusion criteria even if it is poorly written. A merger would need a separate discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttichathan

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

This article used to be pretty lengthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&oldid=908880868), but most of its constituent material seemed to be "a complete fabrication", so it was rewritten as a stub from scratch by User:Þjarkur. The problem is, in my opinion, this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Not only is it a one-paragraph stub, but all three of its sentences (yes, there are only three) are copied directly from an existing public domain source, namely:

Iyer, L. K. Ananthakrishna (1925). Lectures On Ethnography. pp. 197–198.

Þjarkur says that "that is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, we reflect what sources have said", but he is referring to paraphrasing existing sources, not copying them directly. An article containing no original content is not suitable for this website. I'd PROD this again if possible, but site rules say I can't. Thoughts?

(Here is the page history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&action=history) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have many similar articles on mythological characters, demons, etc. They are often stubs because while the folklore about them may be extensive, there is little said about them in reliable sources. Some systems of folk belief may only ever have been studied once or twice by anthropologists so the sourcing will always be limited, but that's not a reason from excluding properly-referenced entries from the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: You see, the problem isn't so much of a notability issue (i.e. I'm not requesting for it to be deleted just because it is not notable enough for Wikipedia). I also don't think this article belongs because all of its content is copied directly from an existing source. Even so, if you still don't think that it should be deleted as I do, I am not opposed to some sort of compromise, such as a merge. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article is extended-confirmed protection, due to Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts. The protection was applied to the article before it was rewritten; perhaps the disruptive editing has something to do with the aforementioned fabrications? (@Uncle G, Deepfriedokra, MrOllie, and Arjayay: Please inform me on the full story of this; I'm not sure.) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say exactly because the disruptive editors weren't very communicative (or skilled in English), but it seems that there were some representatives (or maybe just followers) of a few different area temples who were edit warring about the details of the folklore, particularly about whose temple was the oldest around. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Is this what certain editors and warnings mean when they say "conflict of interest"? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to merge this article into a larger list of characters in Malabar folk religion, but that article does not currently exist. There's nothing wrong with having stub articles, this one is short but informative. There's also nothing wrong with directly copying content from public domain sources, we do it all the time and we're here to assemble an encyclopedia rather than to practise our college essay writing skills. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added new entry for Requested Articles: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Other_specific_religions. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A survey of sources, such as seen in the search links above indicates that the topic is notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT – which states clearly that brief starts on a topic are welcome. See also WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: By keep, do you actually mean "keep", or are you fine with "a choice between 'keep' or 'merge'", like what Þjarkur has suggested above?^{[clarification needed]} 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge targets that people are talking about above don't exist and so are moot. The main issue here is deletion. Once we have settled that, future expansion of this and related topics is a matter of ordinary editing. AfD is not cleanup nor an article writing service. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Pinged here. Don't recall why it is protected. I see a lot pf protection requests, and I don't recall them all. It must have been impressive, 'cause I don't like extended confirmed, and I especially don't like it for this length of time. Now as to the deletion. If memory serves, we can quote heavily from a source if it is suitably licensed and attributed. If not suitably attributed it could be a copyvio, but that is remediable by proper attribution. (There's a template of some sort for this.) Depending on the source, it could argue for keep if it is an encyclopedia (for instance) or book or major work. Also, the size of an article is never an argument for deletion 'cause it may be expandable. Or it may the subject has been covered sufficiently. I would be reluctant to nominate for deletion in case there is a good version buried I the history that we can revert to. Having said all of that, no opinion on keep vs delete-- Deep fried okra 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There seems to be more similarly-named articles to "Kuttichathan" than I originally thought there would be. As such, I have created Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kuttichaathan (disambiguation). 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Is the equivalent Malayalam article ([12]) a fabrication as well? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a fabrication, but it's an article about Chathans (a group of several hundred demons) and not about Kuttichathan (who is a Chathan). Like with most subjects in mythology, they are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, they just need good sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Thanks for explaining. Now, do we currently have an article on English Wikipedia about the Chathans? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. But that's not a problem for this discussion as Kuttichathan is independantly notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Are we continuing discussion over whether to delete this article or not, or have we all agreed to keep it? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 11:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Joe Weise

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely over the top promotion of non notable musician. Claimed charts are not goodcharts, award minor, Releases are on a small vanity label Blues Breaking Records, not Tower Records. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Page is bombarded with a LOT of sources but most are primary, listings, non reliable. Environmental Art of Gerry Joe Weise is self published, not a RS. Pure PR from a pair of tag teaming SPAs. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By a quick count, 25 of the 198 sources presented in the article are refrenced to Vimeo. Many are offline. Picking thru whether he's notable will take a lot of work. If by chance any keep !voter wanders by, if you could present WP:THREE for me, that'd be much appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on ChrisWar666's vote below, I decided to ignore the massive number of sources in the article and just do my own, fairly broad WP:BEFORE search, which came up with precious little. No news articles whatsoever apart from a medium post. Will be willing to reconsider my vote if anyone comes forward with WP:THREE. Guess I should bold my delete vote. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this might have a different problem. The article was pretty much created by two WP:SPAs (who marked almost every single edit as minor) with contributions from IPs, the last AfD had a new account pop up to save the article. He -may- be notable, but that article needs a massive cleanup and sourcing. Having been in 'active' since 1976, he should have -lots- of news or delete. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources of note in a search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Shum

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

No sign showing this activist's notability to warranty a Wikipedia article. Sources are equally not reliable. First is an instagram source coupled with links a firm profile. I will leave it here for the community to gauge his notability 10MB (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb and Instagram are not reliable sources, does not satisfy WP:GNG for my mind. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in the article itself or in google searches indicates that it gets close to meeting WP:GNG. noq (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source from CNN added for more verification. What other sources would you need to keep this page from being deleted? ^[2] LSJU94305 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)LSJU94305[reply]

Delete Per Noq and being interviewed in one episode of an insignificant CNN documentary series does not qualify for notability. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - USoA is an Emmy Award winning television show entering its fifth season. Genuinely curious, how does that make it an insignificant series? If sources are currently not acceptable, how can you change a page back into a draft so it doesn't get completely deleted? I've been writing about notable members from the community and would like to continue to add to articles as more arise. LSJU94305 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) LSJU94305[reply]

Comment In his case, remove the sources such as IMDb and Instagram. CNN documentary series may pass as a credible source tough.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guests interviewed on episodes of a TV show, no matter how notable, do not become notable. Nor do people mentioned as sources for a postion in one article in a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supercult

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I found one Baltimore Sun article with sigcov [13] and a few passing mentions on gbooks, but not enough to pass GNG. (The Wired article isn't in-depth coverage of Supercult [14]; I couldn't find the Associated Content one.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Defunct and not notable. My search for sources yielded exactly the same results as gnu57. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one piece of significant coverage; no multiple items split across multiple reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Madness ^Darkness 23:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huang De-hui

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

Seems to be just another worker blamed for an accident. No other evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not temporary. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BLP1E connected with the 2018 Yilan train derailment, where Huang is not mentioned. Based on the number of sources currently in the article, his influence on the event is not very large. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AFD was mistakenly created. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penshootoutbox2

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

Old unused fork of deleted Template:Penshootoutbox Wikisaurus (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Safsaf

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

Despite passing with his four subs in Ligue 2, I could only seem to find match reports that mention him in the match results with the only real evidence for this player being an interview that he did with footmercato [15] that might give some hope that passes WP:GNG but other than that, probably good to put this up for nomination. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and the subject is currently playing last played on 16 October 2019.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Career ongoing with an NFOOTY pass, as noted. Ligue 2 apps plus a stint in Morocco's Botola Pro, which is listed at WP:FPL, per [16]; the, on Wikipedia's terms anyway, 'unreliable' Transfermarkt claim 12apps. That will need extra verifying, though any test of GNG will too due to the language barrier with Arabic. As for GNG in regards to a more familiar language, I found this [17] (I'm aware some editors don't like interviews) plus the aforementioned [18] - could be more out there. R96Skinner (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL and likely passes WP:GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Is! Ralph Carney

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

Article about a "forthcoming" documentary that shows no sign of being made. The subject is notable, but the film-maker is not. Furthermore, the website about the documentary does not appear to have been updated since 2009. Viennese Waltz 07:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then move This Is! Ralph Carney (album) here. As of Carney's death in 2017, the documentary was still "in the works for years".[19] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmade film without much coverage in reliable or unreliable sources, for example no entry at IMDb, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Russell

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

The page revolves around "Everett Suffrage Club" and not for Ella Russell, no in-depth reliable references were found for her to establish the notability. Meeanaya (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of sources in the article to show notability. She wasn't just known for being the president of a suffrage group, but was known for running for office and her outspoken support of women's suffrage which received country-wide attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Disagree with nominator that the article is more about the club than Ella herself. She is definitely the main focus, and the sources backing it all up are solid. Kenmelken (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Megalibrarygirl, I am seeing the sources already in the article. Jooojay (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fairness to the nominator, I have substantially rewritten this article and added sources - at the time of nomination, there were only 3 sources relevant to the subject (and one about mayors of her town a hundred years later). The point is, though, that they WP:NEXIST - many on a subscription site, but some freely accessible. The 3 relevant sources that were already in the article are all from the 2000s, which surely suggests that someone who is noted for her actions of 100 previously is actually notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for state senate are not notable. She fails any reasonable politician notability test. We can easily find sources on all politicians, but not all politicians are notable, and so there is no reason to have an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well documented article on historic person.Strandvue (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, historically notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is properly and fully sourced. It is a useful start point for any research of the suffragette movement or of this suffragette in particular. This sort of article is what WP needs - a useful source of information. The suffragette movement itself is notable, and this is an important part of it, worthy of an independent biography due to the amount of material here, and the contribution she made to the movement. Storye book (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Akkiraju

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

I cannot find any reliable in-depth WP:RS for him, which makes his notability very clearly questionable. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources are provided, have received significant coverage, simply googling her name leads to lots of coverage of her work, definitely pass WP:BASIC WP:BIO--Wakowako (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see significant coverage of reliable sources already here in the article, passes WP:GNG. Jooojay (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator didn't even read the article. She is a female academic that clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. PK650 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Pages with sources even close to this shouldn't be nominated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject clearly passes criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO by any number of different reliable sources mentioned here and on the page, and easily found by searching. Unless I'm misunderstanding this person's job and educational background, which I believe is as an engineer and a manager of engineers, then I actually don't agree that WP:PROF should be expected to apply to them -- and this only makes it much more notable that the subject also clearly passes Criterion 1 of academic notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She is a researcher at a research laboratory, which makes a reasonable fit for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually did misunderstand what an IBM Fellow is. Thanks - Astrophobe (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IBM Fellow is I think the equivalent of WP:PROF#C3 or maybe #C5 (although not technically the same as either) and I think her citation record is good enough for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I have counted correctly she gets a GS h-index of 32, which is enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable both as an academic and as a contributor to IBM developments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable from sources, and remind nominator to read an article carefully before nominating for deletion - to refer to her as "him" shows that they are nominating too fast and carelessly. PamD 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems like there are good arguments on both the delete and the keep side whether we are discussing WP:GNG-based notability or WP:PROF-based notability, and neither side clearly prevails over the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Frome

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

Lacks in-depth WP:RS for her work, it seems to WP:TOOSOON, she has joined Google just 11 months back. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An h-index of only 14 is not yet enough in a super-hot topic WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Many of the entries in her GS profile are patents, which I normally wouldn't count as scholarship. Without those it drops to 9. On the other hand, 8 of the 9 have over 100 citations each... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft~~. The page was created only today, and it looks like it needs more work. She's a 2007 Ph.D., with relatively few papers, but the citations on those few are high enough that she might meet WP:NPROF (or might not). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Frome joined Google a second time only 11 months ago, but prior to that she was at Google for almost 8 years. I added a note here to clarify the information.Jooojay (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC based on the citations of her research. A check of her Google Scholar profile show numerous papers with over a hundred citations. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like just another person with a doctorate. I really don't care for the Google Scholar search results and their cryptic titles; they are not the reason people like Einstein are famous. This person does not seem to have had any impact. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she does not meet a plain reading of the first academic notability criteria. Her level of citiations considering the state of the field she is in is not enough to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (move to draft). I agree with Russ on this. More WP:RS than I expected which mention, or in some cases discuss her. I wouldn't be in any rush to toss this just yet. — Ched (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several considerations. Nominator appears to be a bit confused, as they also nominated a biography I created on a female academic thinking it was a man. This person was employed by Google for over 8 years in total, not 11 months as stated, but that's beside the point. Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC, and has media coverage on top of that. I find comments such as "Looks like just another person with a doctorate" deeply insulting and chauvinistic. She has had a direct impact over technologies such as street view (being directly responsible for its blurring of plates and faces), and this is backed by both her published work (highly cited) and coverage in the press. As part of the WiR WikiProject and its monthly underrepresented women intitatives I have created several articles about notable women in STEM and other areas. I have faced considerable pushback by obviously male editors with an agenda, and Wikipedia should be truly ashamed of itself. If these women had been male their biographies would most likely not be put into question, and least of all with such wanton and careless arguments. As for draftification, what good would that do? If not in mainspace nobody will work on it and it will fall into oblivion. The sources are out there and the article is in more than decent shape! Why fix something that isn't broken? PK650 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, well sourced and notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The citation counts are suggestive of notability via WP:PROF#C1, but (because it's a high-citation field, the papers have many authors, and the citations drop off so quickly after the top 10) not conclusive, as XXan's opinion above already hints. So I'd like other evidence of notability as well, to confirm that suggestion. The evidence we have in the article is: an in-depth profile in TechTalks and an in-depth interview in Kaptur, both of which appear to be reliable and independent. Churnalistic press-release-like stories in TechCrunch and Bizwomen (or maybe San Francisco Business Times?) about Clarifai hiring her, about which I have doubts both about the depth of coverage and the independence. And a story in the New York Times that I can't read because I'm too annoyed at the Times' political hackery to sign up for the free subscription that I could get from my employer, but that seems likely from its first few lines merely to name-drop her as one of 25 signers of an open letter. Not included in the article are this story about her featured talk at a women's conference and several reliable-looking but non-in-depth international sources reporting her assignment to a new Google lab in Accra. I think the TechTalks and Kaptur sources are the strongest, and they make a weak case for WP:GNG, but the case is there. So she has a borderline case for two notability criteria, and I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these articles make the case for passing WP:GNG. The TechTalks article is substantive, while the NVidia blog post include three paragraphs about the subject (but is primarily about the conference, not the subject's talk). The interview in Kaptur would not normally add to the notability of the subject. Of the three publishers listed here, only NVidia has its own Wikipedia page, raising a question about the reliability and reach of the articles listed in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Obviously notable, not so much as an academic but as someone who has had a measurable impact on an importãnt technological development.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article has gotten some improvements from folks over the past week (though it could use more). David Eppstein has a good point that her weak cases through both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF should be taken together to form a stronger case. In short, the combination of academic and general sources make it look like her work has had a substantial impact on computer vision. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorta Eppstein except that am not convinced. ∯WBG^converse 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No worse than borderline wiki-notability by either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Together, they carry the article over the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zack Werner. The content is available under the redirect for anyone desirous of merging it. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haymaker (band)

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

Zero reliable sourcing found. Of the sources given, only the Winnipeg Free Press seems to have any substance. The rest are just passing mentions in the context of Zack Werner, whose own notability is at least somewhat higher than the band's. The only other source is CTV, an archive of which shows it was just a promo fluff piece for Canadian Idol. The only single and album didn't chart; the album redirects to the band; and their only content was never noticed by any critics. "Zack Werner" "Haymaker" turns up nothing on Google News, newspapers.com, or americanradiohistory.com. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously AFD'd (by me!) in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haymaker (country rock band) with result of "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zack Werner. Coverage appears to be mainly mentions of the band in articles about Zack Werner ([20], [21]), so a merge there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Zack Werner. The only notability claim in evidence here is that one member of the band went on to become a judge on a reality show — which makes it fine to briefly mention the band in his BLP, but is not in and of itself a reason why the band would qualify for its own separate article if they didn't accomplish anything that would get them over NMUSIC as a band: even the fact that he was a judge on a reality show had a lot more to do with his success as a record producer and label president than it ever did with this band per se. And for that very reason, I don't see a credible reason why it would be necessary to retain this article's entire edit history behind a redirect — we should just delete this and then create a redirect if desired, rather than just converting this to a redirect but leaving the edit history intact. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Zack Werner and improve that article. If there's no news or charting positions, it's unlikely to be notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Zack Werner.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Language Institute

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chinese Language Institute (2nd nomination)

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

Media coverage that was noted in the first AFD is about the founders, nothing significant about the school. It is yet another unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for small companies to promote their businesses,WP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD for this article → Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Chinese_Language_Institute Iamchinahand (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously promotion for the high-street-style language cram school. Sources are either dead, repeat the same information, local news only, or student newspapers with low circulation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some minor coverage focusing more on individuals rather on business. Fails WP:NCORP. Generic and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It is not notable, looks promotional. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per the other discussion. If we have two redundant copies of the same article, they don't need to be put up for two separate deletion discussions just because they were technically located at different titles — the first discussion is sufficient grounds. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Hashemzehi (Director)

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

Same article had created on October 7, 2019 under Mostafa Hashemzehi (born 1989) by the same creator which since had been deleted in AfD recently (20 Oct 2019) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Hashemzehi (born 1989). (1) Being a son of a politician doesnt automatic grant notability as WP:NOTINHERITED. (2) as a politic consultant and not being a elected politician in major role doesnt pass WP:NPOL. (3) Having play only one role in one film, fails WP:NACTOR. (4) Books/marketing document does not pass WP:NAUTHOR and being a director of a company and not support by SIGCOV of independent, reliable source fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. General consensus is that the mentions are largely passing and do not represent significant coverage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny El-Hage

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

Doesn't satisfy notability guidelines per WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Nehme1499 (talk) Danny El-Hage nationality

Clearly a case of bias. Also Check history of article Danny El-Hage edits. Nehme1499 tried editing the article to make the Player look as if he is solely lebanese ignoring his Polish origins. When that failed he proceeded to draftifying the article. When that was reversed he proceeded to listing the article for deletion. Nehme1499’s are in 90% about Lebanese Player’s. Danny El-Hage is the only Lebanese goalkeeper playing currently in a European first tier, also he is probably first Polish to play for an Armenian Premier League team.Amsport12345 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also check edit history for Lori FC last edit. Nehme1499 edited the player’s Danny El-Hage nationality in current squad from Polish to Lebanese. No for bias, thank you. Amsport12345 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? What are you talking about? My edits' intention were exactly to clarify the player's nationality situation. As can be seen in these edits (1, 2), I have removed the ambiguous "Polish-Lebanese", which is a formula NOT accepted in the lede of a footballer (see this discussion at WP:FOOTY), in favor of a more structured explanation regarding his nationality situation. I have proceeded to move the article to the draft space because I have noticed that the player does not comply with WP:NFOOTY, as he has neither played for a senior national team nor for a team in a professional league (neither the Lebanese first division, the Swedish fourth division nor the Armenian first division are fully professional). As I didn't want to full-out delete the article I preferred to move it to the draftspace to conserve it in case he where to satisfy the notability guidelines in the future. However, my move was reverted as, in the case of a notability issue, the correct solution is to go through AfD. Finally, I edited Danny El-Hage's flagicon from Polish to Lebanese at Lori FC as he has played for Lebanon internationally at youth level. If we really want to be talking about bias, we should be looking at Amsport12345 who's 20 or so edits are all exclusively about the player in question. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Player is notable as per Wikipedia notability (sports) basic criteria Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria.

He has been subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources that can be found in the Article references both in Arabic and English Language.

Being the only Lebanese Professional Goalkeeper in a first tier European League is of huge relevance as well.

My edits for the page were all referenced and aimed to update the article with current information. Amsport12345 (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giant Snowman the article doesn’t fail WP:GNG Amsport12345 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Search in google provides sources for WP:GNG both Arabic and English,[22],[23],[24],[25],[26]. Also references provide sources for WP:SPORTBASIC notability. As well as ongoing career in first tier European league. Was in squad for senior men’s national team for Fifa international friendly according to soccerway. Only Lebanese Goalkeeper to be currently playing in first Tier European League. Amsport12345 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Playing" (he still hasn't made his debut) for a first-tier European league isn't enough, if said league is not fully professional. Even being called up for the NT isn't enough: the player has to actually play a match for them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are supporting arguments, but as I mentioned above, sources make the Player notable as per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Amsport12345 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 18 refernces largely in Arabic in the Arabic Wiki article here may scrape through WP:GNG will go through it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article in Arabic isn’t updated. More recent sources in arabic here,[27],[28],[29]. Amsport12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also here [30],[31]. Amsport12345 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take some time to inspect the sources if they assert notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. The sources posted here and in the article all appear to be trivial mentions; not in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG. – Levivich 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – five articles written just about the player talking about his career and all of his football career stations, and many more details about him are not trivial mentions as well as all other mentions in references.[32],[33],[34],[35],[36]. Amsport12345 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the sources in Arabic Amsport12345 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This AfD is a mess. He technically fails WP:NFOOTY, and I am basing my delete !vote off that - players who fail NFOOTY are likely non-notable. He's played, per Soccerway, eight Lebanese Premier League matches. None of the sources in Latin script come close to passing WP:GNG, and the Arabic articles are either match reports or don't appear to load properly? I am not a firm delete because I am not able to assess the quality of the sources in Arabic script, and I kindly ask the closer to take this bias into consideration when closing the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am basing my vote due to the fact that the player has not played in a professional league with appearances in Lebanon and the Sweden 4th tier which isn't eligible via the WP:NFOOTY standards. The references also seem enough to be routine which confirms my vote as a delete. HawkAussie (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article certainly fails WP:NFOOTY because of the professional league requirement. While it has a tentative claim to WP:GNG, I think it falls short of significant coverage but that could be remedied if the Arabic sources were translated. Having said that, it would seem from the narrative that those sources are not offering much above routine. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with just a tad of withdraw ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew V. Corry

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

Simply being an ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability - see WP:DIPLOMAT. As per WP:ANYBIO the individual requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The first reference is merely a record of his birth and death and the second reference is a summary of his diplomatic career. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I wish to withdraw this nomination as sufficient secondary sources have now been provided which satisifies WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said when I deleted the prod, there are plenty of articles about Ambassadors where the only information in the article was about their Ambassadorship, including one of the gentlemen he replaced. So, based on your argument, you should go through every ambassador article from every country where that is the only thing discussed and then have them deleted. Should take you a while.

Besides, in my edit summary I mentioned it might be a nice thing to give an article marked with a stub more than approximately 24 hours for editors to expand the article. Since I figured you were going to be quick to nominate this for AfD, I delayed taking my medication and eating for the first time in more than 24 hours to fill in some of his career history. You have an issue with the citation? Fix it. Wiki is a collaborative effort. I’ve never cited a reference from Google Books before. If you think it can be done better, than feel free to change it to the way you would like to see it presented. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Arguing just because other similar articles exist is not sufficient grounds for retaining the article. Most of the other articles you point to have have provided significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources & the individuals are notable for reasons other than being an ambassador. I'd strongly suggest that you just focus on the article at hand. It is not my responsibility to go through every ambassador article from every country and I don't intend to do so.

Secondly, the reason I placed the PROD notice was to enable you seven days in which to improve the article. By deleting the PROD notice without making any improvements the only alternative, as per your own suggestion was to take the article to an AfD - which I have done.

Thirdly it is not my responsibility to fix the citations that you have provided. I actually tried to check the source but am unable to locate which Department of State newsletter you are relying upon. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added 3 more sources. To find digital sources about a subject who was born in 1904 is not easy as it was pre internet era. I believe there are more paper sources out there besides what were added. 11:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - thoroughly sourced and clearly passes WP:GNG. Thank you Postcard Cathy for taking the time to improve the article. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hutong School

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

Yet another unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Reviews/awards from local newspapers do not constitute in-depth coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for small companies to promote their businesses,WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another spammy article of a language school of no significance. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously promotion for the high-street-style language cram school. Sources are mainly the school's own site, language travel sites, or sites of limited importance. Nothing which confers notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Raisa Räisänen

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

does not meet Crimeand OneEvent--no apparently lasting significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Police are still, after 20 years, investigating leads and this has frequently been mentioned in national news. --Arla (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep continuous in-depth coverage in national press for 20 years. Sources out there are well above WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in Finnish Wikipedia lists thirty sources. All of the sources (except Find a Grave) are major Finnish newspapers and news sites, and are not just trivial mentions, so the subject of the page meets WP:SIGCOV. Not a very active user (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of continous in depth coverage. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rescue Me characters

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

WP:FANCRUFT pure and simple. Unsourced since 2011, not an iota of out-of-universe context. Lists of characters are not always needed to gain a better encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and Rescue Me (American TV series) gives sufficient coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dexter's Laboratory characters as proof that an article can exist just fine without a character sheet. We are not TV Tropes. If any of this information somehow does need to be salvaged, then it can be merged into the parent article or just WP:TNT and start over. Because as it stands, all the article is doing is turning into some big Katamari Damacy blob of ever-growing fanwank. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rescue Me (American TV series)#Cast and characters, which does cover the sufficient contents. ミラ P 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no inherent need for a character lists. This is an overly bloated mess. The main article and episode lists should be able to handle all necessary context. TTN (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Communist Party

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

No evidence of notability. No citations to show the party even exists. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Communist Party of New Zealand as a plausible search term. No evidence that a group of this exact name ever existed.-gadfium 08:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems interchangeable with Communist Party of New Zealand [37]. I can find nothing notable for the referenced 2020 election party and would put that in the “Not Yet” category. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Redirect as per Dushan Jugum NealeFamily (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Witwer, Michael (October 2018). Dungeons & Dragons art & arcana : a visual history. Newman, Kyle, 1976-, Peterson, Jonathan, 1960-, Witwer, Sam, 1977-, Manganiello, Joe,, TSR, Inc. California. ISBN 9780399580949. OCLC 1033548473.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/29/usoa-408-ron-1.cnn

[1] Witwer, Michael (October 2018). Dungeons & Dragons art & arcana : a visual history. Newman, Kyle, 1976-, Peterson, Jonathan, 1960-, Witwer, Sam, 1977-, Manganiello, Joe,, TSR, Inc. California. ISBN 9780399580949. OCLC 1033548473.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/29/usoa-408-ron-1.cnn

[1]

[2]