Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 September	14 September >

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. Tone 08:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zords[edit]

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

Extensive list of in-universe items unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. There is nothing here that would make a general reader's experience better. Each series' robots can easily be summarized in the main articles. References are entirely primary from what I can see. As it's all in-universe, I see no information worth merging. The concept of a "Zord" could potentially be notable, but I see nothing in this article that would be worthwhile to salvage in making a general article on the topic. TTN (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- sprawling, badly sourced fancruft written in an in-universe style. I'm not seeing any useful content that could be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 06:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the ones for planets and races, this list meets WP:LISTN due to being "discussed as a group or set by [these] independent reliable sources" [1] [2] [3] [4]. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Reyk. Killer Chihuahua 18:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope, calling up a bunch of top-10 lists isn't going to make this notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Which is why I had to do a second WP:BEFORE and selectively unearth these out of dozens: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. And I wasn't even done yet. Of course, I'll let you do your WP:BEFORE on "zord" and "megazord" FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant mentions" in reliable sources. Articles with small factoids or ones that merely mention the topic don't qualify. That is just a WP:REFBOMB with many insignificant sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[10] is about and discusses the Dragon Zord of MMPR.
[11] is about the cast's reactions on whether or not the then-upcoming Power Rangers film would have the zords - out-of-universe info.
[12] is about PR actor Austin St. John and the film's director Dean Israelite's out-of-universe discussion about the Zords in the 2017 movie, no joke about the Chia Pets part. Yeah, the last two are related to the movie so if this is deleted, I'll put the sources there. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. article does not have much for the reader.15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)
Keep, as stated before it meets the Wikipedia requirements. Also has plenty of primary and secondary citation sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs)
Delete as fancruft. Almost entirely sourced to powerrangers.com, which appears to be a non-WP:RS fan site. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 21 September 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gustáv Murín[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NWRITER. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll.... As the article notes, there's a Czech version of his page that's a lot longer; here is the Google translation. It does appear that he has a large body of work. WP:NWRITER is a very tough standard, but if he meets the WP:GNG I'd have to tend to think that he ought to be in, with that extensive a body of work. I can't exactly tell if he does meet the GNG.

On the one hand, the guy is apparently notable in Slovakia. On the other hand, that's equivilant to saying "this guy is notable in Bangor, Maine" or something, since Slovakia has fewer people (and less money also) than say Wisconsin, and additionally is not part of the Anglosphere, which, since this is the English Wikipedia, it'd be reasonable to hold that non-English-Language writers need a bit more notability to be covered here. On the other other hand, it is just harder for a Slovak to meet the WP:GNG in sources I can find and read online in English...

My inclination would be to keep the article since it provides a link to the Czech article which English speakers can Google-translate if they like, and this would be a better experience for the reader searching on his name than just getting basically a 404 Not Found. Herostratus (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should just be replaced by a redirect or softlink to the Czech wiki article? (I don't know if this is actually possible.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cannot see any grounds for the assertion that is not a notable writer. President of the Slovak PEN is notable also. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that and some references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I'd like to withdraw this. In retrospect, I don't believe I did the proper WP:BEFORE due diligence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 17 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Institute[edit]

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

Seems like a WP:ADMASK. The links are either to YouTube videos, their own website, or pure PR puff pieces. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources in the article establish notability. My own search turns up some press releases but that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:32, 20 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Coughlin[edit]

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

An extremely promotional article on a subject that likely does not meet GNG. Sourcing is largely Youtube, and article is largely a description of his activities and statements on Youtube. A search does not find adequate RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who wrote the article about Seamus Coughlin. I am not him and it is not promotional in any way. I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia. It mostly mentions his YouTube because that's what he does for a living and is what he is famous for, so obviously that's going to be the primary focus. It does not meet the grounds for deletion.Cc330162 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is a breakdown of the current article sourcing, including multiple uses to support a claim:

55 times: youtube.com
5 times: foundation for economic education (fee.org)
3 times: Lyons Township High School (lths.net)
once: seamuscoughlin.com, Vimeo.com and libertarianrepublic.com ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I brought this one to the attention of WP:COIN when I ran across it while new page patrolling. It seems highly promotional and I also failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Even if it did meet GNG, likely WP:TNT would apply. Highly likely conflict of interest, possibly paid editing sock puppetry as well as the new editor who submitted this seems to be very experienced and therefore not editing under their first account. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I'm sorry that you think my article is promotional, but I promise you it's not. The reason why I cited YouTube so much is because Seamus Coughlin is not that well known and that's where most of the information about him can be found. If I didn't source YouTube at all there would be almost no verifiable information about him and the article wouldn't be credible. I do not have any relationship with him, and I don't think he even know's there's an article about him. I'm just a fan of his who felt like there should be a Wikipedia article about him. That's it. There's no conflict of interest or promotion going on here. If you read the article you'll see it is completely objective. I don't contribute to Wikipedia often. I am a child and this is my first article. I worked very hard on it on my own time and I'm proud of it. It clearly does not meet the grounds for deletion. All of the claims made against me, including me being Seamus Coughlin or being payed off by him to write the article, are completely false. Please don't delete it. It would be weeks of hard work and research completely wasted. Cc330162 (talk)

Discussion of how GNG and RS work

We go by notability standard described at WP:GNG. That is largely based on finding enough WP:RS to establish notability. Unfortunately intentions are not a part of this. When you say If I didn't source YouTube at all there would be almost no verifiable information about him and the article wouldn't be credible, you are summing up the problem: there aren't really any independent sources. If you write future articles, I would suggest running them through the WP:AFC system rather than publishing them yourself, as they would have pointed this out much earlier on. By the way, the article was very well-written. Its major problem is the lack or reliable, independent, in-depth sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. Because the source is from YouTube, that automatically makes it unreliable? The reason YouTube was cited so much is because of the Political Views section of the article, and because he's a political commentator on YouTube, wouldn't the best place to find sources for that be there? If I cited, like, an article or something by someone else describing his political views, that wouldn't be reliable because they could potentially be strawmanning or misrepresenting him. Seamus Coughlin is the only person who can accurately explain the political views of Seamus Coughlin. He also did many interviews on YouTube where he talked about his career and early childhood , so I sourced those. I don't quite see the problem here. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia contributor so maybe you could explain.Cc330162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reply here once more and ask you again to read WP:RS. We generally don't accept article subjects as sources for their own articles; everything needs to be sourced independently, as described in WP:RS. Anyone can publish on Youtube, which makes it a bad source: if we take Youtube as a reliable source, anyone could publish a Wikipedia article based on things they had just published on Youtube. ...something by someone else describing his political views is actually exactly what we want, published by a reliable publisher (not Youtube). That is how the whole encyclopedia has been written. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject looks to be a WP:NARTIST failure. Noting that the article's sourcing is by-and-large WP:PRIMARY or tangential, and this poses an issue as coverage must be reliable, in-depth, and intellectually independent from the subject to confer notability on said subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This mostly references primary sources, not seeing substantive independent sources discussing him. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion of how GNG and RS work

What? I'm sorry but isn't the first thing that people are taught about sources in school that primary sources are the most credible? The claim that Seamus Coughlin was born in Chicago is more credible if I have a video of him saying that he was born in Chicago (DePaul and #MiloYiannopoulos on YouTube). The claim that Seamus Coughlin attended Lyons Township High School is more credible if I have a video of him hosting a segment for the school news at Lyons Township High School (Know Time: Cell Phones - Feature Story - W). The claim that Seamus Coughlin is against gun control is more credible if I have a video of Seamus Coughlin making arguments against gun control (Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot!! on YouTube). Your claim that these sources are somehow less credible than secondary sources is absolutely baffling to me. Cc330162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can out right lie or exaggerate. Just like online profiles for places like dating sites. At best they can be misleading. I am really from the NYC area, 5’3”, overweight and never finished grad school at Columbia University. But I can tell you I grew up in Miami Beach, won various beauty contests at the various beaches because I rocked a bikini, that as a result I was the Cindy Crawford of bikini models, and I received a BA, MSW and PhD from Columbia. I said it. But that doesn’t make it true. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making up what I said? I did not say the primary source are not credible; I am not suggesting you just made this all up. What I am saying is that primary sources do not establish WP:NOTABILITY. For inclusion in Wikipedia we need secondary sources that say that what is in the primary sources is actually meaningful. Please read this policy and better understand our inclusion guidelines, otherwise we would have articles on every random person spouting opinions on Youtube. You can write a credible article from their own links but you need more than that prove this is worth us writing about. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Rab V (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: made an effort to try and dig out some sources for this article and I really struggled. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG at all. Maybe WP:TOOSOON is pertinent? -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 12:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little evidence, if any, of coverage in credible publications Dexxtrall (talk) 13:27, 18 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Terreberry[edit]

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

I can't really find enough coverage of him to meet the WP:GNG. Seems like a nice guy with a big youtube following, but there really isn't enough coverage of him in the news. There is a lot of one line mentions of him regarding joining Dragonforce, andlisted briefly here (and a brief followup interview here). None of this amounts to significant coverage though. Unless there is some additional coverage I have missed, he doesn't quite get over the bar. Might just be a bit WP:TOO SOON for him. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with nominator; a pretty decent following, but that in itself doesn't necessarily amount to notability (particularly that which is required for a Wikipedia article), and more sources are needed. Two of the four currently at the page are YouTube links (one to his first video, and the other to his channel). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band, Dragon Force, per WP:CHEAP. Not notable as a vlogger. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. The redirect would make sense if he were a band member, but he is basically a fill-in just for the tour. -- Whpq (talk) 00:31, 18 September 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. No objection to merging, which is out of the scope of AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daffynition[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no indication that this term is in significant currency and the external links are to an archived version of a self-published site and an apparently non-notable book, the title of which contains the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, am now happy to go along with the direction of discussion to merge to Word play. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joke definitions are a thing; this isn't. Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - a quick google check indicates ample references to the BBC radio show where the term originated. Is still a well-known term to people of an older generation in the UK. The main reason for deletion seems to be "I don't recognise it, therefore it doesn't exist". Ignorance is not a basis for running the encyclopedia. Manning (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "daffynition" is not used by I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, let alone originating it. The round in question is, as stated, "Uxbridge English Dictionary", though originally termed "New Meanings". FWIW, I have been a listener to the show for at least 35 years, have attended recordings of it and had never heard this term being coined. Neither is it used in the associated UED book. Source your claims, if you can.
  The ghits that I get are either mirrors of this article or a couple apparently misinformed by it. Neither of them are clearly WP:RSs.
  I'm not familiar with the process of adding Afds to categorised deletion discussions. If someone can add this to an appropriate one (say "radio"?), it might notify others familiar with ISIHAC. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony of talking about ignorance in relation to an idea that pre-dates a 1970s radio programme by at least three decades if not more, is not lost. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Lunker's problem is exemplified by ISBN 9789401210447 p.222, which cites this Wikipedia article as its source, and seems to have not understood the article. However, the real problem is associating this with a U.K. radio show in the first place. Try treating that as completely spurious, some late-to-the-party bandwagon jumping from 2005, and looking for sources that document a type of humour, as indeed Esar 1978 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFEsar1978 (help), an encyclopaedia, does. You can find stuff here and there, including a public speaking guide, going back to the 1950s. Herbert V. Prochnow uses, but does not define, the idea in his 1942 Public Speaker's Treasure Chest. This points to further areas of research. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Esar, Evan (1978). "daffynition". The Comic Encyclopedia: A Library of the Literature and History of Humor Containing Thousands of Gags, Sayings, and Stories. Doubleday. p. 198. ISBN 9780385062053.
~~Delete~~ Merge to Word play - changed my !vote, merge is a much better idea ~~per WP:NEO - an article about a particular term "must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term"~~ - Epinoia (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be somewhat of a thing, with 21,000+ hits on newspapers.com (most from 1940s–1970s) and 47 hits on WorldCat. Examples from here and there:
- "DAFFYNITION A blend of 'daffy' and 'definition,' usually applied to juvenile levels of comic lexicology. Slang and wordplay like splitting are often the elements of such elementary wit. Examples: Popcorn—Father's jokes. Checkmate—the girl you marry for her money. Illegal—a sick bird. Mandate—a male escort." -- Esar, Evan (1978). The Comic Encyclopedia: A Library of the Literature and History of Humor Containing Thousands of Gags, Sayings, and Stories. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. p. 198. ISBN 0-385-06205-2.
- "Daffynition. Some waggish genius once defined hootenanny as what you get when you cross an owl with a goat, and another verbathlete defined relief as 'what trees do each spring.' Punderful definitions like these take a fresh approach to the sounds and meanings of words. You won't find such entries in dictionaries, only in fictionaries, but they do have a name—daffynitions." Lederer, Richard (2012). Amazing Words. Portland, Oregon: Marion Street Press. ISBN 978-1-936863-30-3.
- "Another category of puns is the so-called daffynition, in which daffy definitions give everyday words new meaning." -- Pollack, John (2011). The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language... New York: Gotham Books. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-592-40623-4.
- "...the attribution of a new meaning to an already existing word, giving rise to the so-called daffynitions." -- Dynel, Marta (September 2009). "Beyond a Joke: Types of Conversational Humour". Language and Linguistics Compass. 3 (5): 1287. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00152.x.
- "A daffynition takes the form of a definition, but uses components of the word to create a humorous meaning." -- Jay, M. Ellen (1988). Teaching Thinking Skills: The Role of the Media Specialist. International Association of School Librarianship: 17th Annual Conference Proceedings. Kalamazoo, Michigan. p. 67.
- "I am an aspiring writer of 'daffynitions,' those clever (and hopefully amusing) little definitions you find at the bottom of this page in the 'Pepper . . . and Salt' column...." -- Kapur, Vipen (17 March 1998). "Confessions of a 'Daffynitionist'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 September 2019.

--Phleg1 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's good sources attesting to the term's use from 1978 to 2019, so it's not a neoplasm (pun intended). Bearian (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous vote, if kept it all, move to joke definition. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep subject has good, steady coverage as shown above by Phleg, and Mutt. WP:PERSISTENCE is achieved. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into word play. People have been making amusing definitions for centuries; for example, Johnson's "a harmless drudge". As the versions and variations of this are not exact, it seems best to consolidate them into a broad topic, per WP:DICDEF which states "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per sources showed by Phleg and Mutt wikipedia basic notability guidelines are fullfilled. Zinzhanglee (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word play. A dictionary definition followed by a bunch of random examples isn't an article, but this would fit well there in context. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Interesting points on both sides but I think Phleg has established notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BTW I enjoyed the article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 20 September 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 Elders of the Universe. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contemplator (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Elders of the Universe - he's not very notable within the fiction, but his appearances are scattered enough that having some localized context for him is helpful. Merging first appearance and creator names would retain the real world information. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elders of the Universe - No sources demonstrating independent, real world notability. As his basic information is already on the main Elder's page, a redirect there should suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 01:27, 20 September 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 Resident Evil: The Final Chapter#Filming. –Darkwind (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Jackson[edit]

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

Does not seem particularly notable. Potentially redirect to Resident Evil: The Final Chapter#Filming which talks about her accident. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albeit she (Olivia Jackson) seems to have an approximate notability --but-- I think it doesn't seem to be at an acceptable level of notability to have the competence of an independent article/page. At least, the mentioned article needs to be contained of more adequate sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this article I felt that the person was notable enough but I am happy to defer to the community on this as I do recognise that it does fall into a grey area of notability. I suppose what prompted me to make that call was that I found German Wikipedia had an article. I did try looking for additional references when I wrote it up and I am happy to give it another go and find additional and better references to try and prove notability.--Discott (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I think this article should not be deleted. The public needs to know her contribution to the history of the film. Evryone enjoys the action scene of hero and heroin but making this action scene stunts risk their life. Olivia Jackson is an example of it. So people will search about her and they will know here the details. And this article have many notable and trusted sources available in google. Ajairapara (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where the arm severing incident is covered. She seems to be notable for that one event, so the appropriate place to put information about her is in the article about that event. Rockphed (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Resident Evil: The Final Chapter#Filming (probably best) or List of film and television accidents#2010s. She does not appear to be notable apart from her tragic injury. All coverage is either of her injury, or simple coverage documenting a film role in sources about the film, not about the subject herself. TJRC (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ I think it should be here. Ajairapara (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Struck duplicate !vote; Ajairapara already !voted "Don't Delete" above.] TJRC (talk) 16:28, 21 September 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Yasinsac[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The dean of a small college at a university ranked 616th in the country is hardly notable. BigDwiki (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Full professors are often notable. This Google Scholar search shows a number of often-cited publications. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ACADEMIC. This one doesn't meet the guidelines. BigDwiki (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates passing any of the notability criteria. Deans are often otherwise notable, but this becomes less likely as we move to places that are not top ranked research universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As submitter. BigDwiki (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, striking your second !vote. Since AfD is explicitly for deletion, your nomination counts as a delete recommendation. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Alvey[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet WP:Basic. There are reliable sources but the coverage of the subject is not significant. Most of the sources are about other subjects and the mentions of Robb Alvey are incidental. It looks like a case of Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability.

The subject also fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 12:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 12:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has strong rules against people creating articles on themselves. We need to enforce these rules better and can start by deleting this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York times thought enough of him to include his picture in an article, and introduce him with the text "Mr. Alvey runs the Web site Theme Park Review, which collects posts about, and photos and videos of, theme parks and coasters all over the world. He also organizes tours to popular parks, for which he and his wife serve as guides and give their guests exclusive ride time on the best coasters. ..." That alone is enough for me to extract his notability. However there are many other sources: The Daily Herald says "Enter Robb Alvey of Valencia, Calif. He's the owner and creator of Theme Park Review... Alvey is a true roller coaster lover who said he has logged time on more than 1,300 roller coasters around the world. If anyone could name the top five coasters at Great America, it would be Alvey, right?. There is also USA today ("Robb Alvey knows his roller coasters: He's ridden over 1,500 of them and reviewed many for his website Theme Park Review...", Orange coast Magazine, and the fact that he is frequently cited as an expert. Clearly meets GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the plethora of references in article demonstrated by ThatMontrealIP as well as in the article it seems to meet pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Spy-cicle (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am really on the fence with this one. If we are looking to reach a basic level of notability with significant coverage (e.g., two or more in-depth pieces), he does meet it. This is based on the NYT and Daily Herald pieces. I would not count the Today piece as it is more about him riding a coaster and his review of it, not really about him with details about what he does (other than a brief mention. There could also be a case made under WP:CREATIVE since he is mentioned in many publications for what he does. Not sure about a !vote just yet but wanted to state my opinion to spark some discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The General Notability Guidelines have been met as others have stated. Dream Focus 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough coverage , is notable 16:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)
Keep passes GN. Maybe someday this will stop being nominated. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 18:31, 19 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lydall[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable model. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Like the oft deleted Parnia Porsche she was part of a controversial advertising campaign but has no independent notability. Coverage is about that campaign or tabloid. Like that Porsche article this was created by an editor dedicated to promoting One individual and his business interests. The relevant business here is Ultra Tune, the business promoted in that advertising campaign. Pure PR. Probable UPE. See also fellow Ultra Tune model at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyana Hansen. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cover girl. WP:NMODEL #3. Wm335td (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how she "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no siginificant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - photo spreads are not significant coverage and interviews are not reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Epinoia. Rockphed (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom has made an excellent and detailed case. Appearing in a controversial ad campaign seems more a case of being notable for one event and a model appearing in a photo shoot seems like someone doing their job. The bottom line is that she doesn't meet the notability criteria for models and, like her admate Parnia Porsche, she fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yip. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 20 September 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. –Darkwind (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Peláez[edit]

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

After a google search, I found no results. No indication of notability or verifiability Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was struggling to get clear signs of his existence, definitely not notable. Checked the books, and if those are their real titles, I wasn't able to find coverage about them. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because they are not the titles, and you've been looking for the wrong things. See es:Alberto Peláez#Libros. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but investigate. There may be plenty of citations in the Spanish language.Knox490 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a straight translation of es:Alberto Peláez but has omitted, for some mysterious reason, es:Alberto Peláez#Referencias. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources in the es.wiki article don’t look strong to me - mostly coverage and interviews about his book. There may be other sources but I’m not spending time on this one I’m afraid. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time seems needed to look into this, in particular to investigate sources in Spanish. Are there, for example, reviews of his books in publications in Spanish?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Haukur (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Need to look for more coverage in Spanish language. Alex-h (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 14 September 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. As noted in the discussion, the promised additional material never appeared. No prejudice against re-creation with additional sources to establish notability (though perhaps Draft it first). –Darkwind (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Adeyemi[edit]

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

Another Nigerian pastor who (self-)published a few books, and was written up once or twice. Does not pass the GNG. Are all these cats into prosperity theology? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- The question is whether a church with a membership of 20,000 is large enough to be notable. However, I would have expected us to have an article on the church, before we have one on its founding pastor. Possibly restructure and repurpose to an article on the church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: keep rationale coming soon. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete @Peterkingiron, how many membership is sufficient to be notable. besides that there is a lot more about Sam Adeyemi which has not been documented on wikipedia. It shouldn't be removed because he's notable. he's a leadership expert and speaks all around the world. i will definitely come up with something soon. Femdav 11/09/2019 --Femdav (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite promises that more supporting material was forthcoming, none has materialized - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some bit of coverage about the subject.
Sam adeyemi - Forbes Africa
Ogbugbu Plateau: Ihe Soyinka na ndị ọzọ na-ekwu ugbua BBC
On Pastor Sam Adeyemi’s Sucecess Story in the The Guardian (Nigeria) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eclipse (software). I'm not convinced another relist here will garner further consensus. There seems to be enough consensus here to merge the content, even if trimmed down. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mylyn[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Obmpeace (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When I hit the books links I am immediately not persuaded by the nom's claim There are no independent sources. ... The resultant books are covering the subject and do not at all appear like self published resources. A dilligent WP:BEFORE should pick this up. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remember that there are no independent sources. So, in case this article is decided to be kept, I will have to remove most of its content as it is not backed by any independent source. So, if you have any sources please add them as soon as posible. Obmpeace (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Obmpeace I have no intention of being directed by an account with your edit history and no apparent provenance of constructively building an encyclopedia. Have you interacted with me previously as an anonymous IP or otherwise? Or why have you chosen to skip WP:BEFORE and have not utilised the book resources so obviously available on the link ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eclipse (software). This page is unlikely to ever grow out of the stub status on its own. Its relevance to Eclipse, however, warrants its coverage. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without any independent source there will not be much to merge. Obmpeace (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to interpret that. There already isn't much content in the article, hence "not much to merge". As for independent sources, let me ask you something. Imagine you want to know the favorite color of a person. Which of the following the is the more reliable way of finding it out: (1) Asking said person? (2) Asking an independent person who has never met the person in question? As you can see, independent sources are unreliable when it comes to trivial descriptions of the features of an app or service. In fact, I'd like to stress that "no independent sources" is not a magic phrase for winning an AfD. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the merge proposal. It would be bad to lose this content by simply deleting the page, and merging into the Eclipse page seems like the right way to handle things. --A really paranoid android (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 13 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic accent (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic"—as is the case here—"then a disambiguation page is not needed". The two articles in question, Mid-Atlantic accent and Mid-Atlantic American English, are connected by hatnotes, and no article links to this disambiguation page. I previously prodded this, but Madreterra, who deprodded it, has not replied to my inquiry at their talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If one enters Mid-Atlantic English in the search bar, the target is Mid-Atlantic accent, where a hat note linking to Mid-Atlantic American English exists. There is a reverse hat note at the former article, so the system is working fine as is. All the present dab article will do if kept is create an extra step for those seeking the primary article, and that step needs to be avoided. StonyBrook (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:21, 16 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Morton (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability criteria for actors or comedians. According to its edit summary, this was originally created because "we have to put his recent AGT appearance somewhere" -- but "somewhere" should have been America's Got Talent (season 14) itself, not a standalone BLP, as people do not get automatic notability freebies just for appearing on reality shows. The winner of the reality show is the only person who gets to have an article because of the reality show per se, while non-winning competitors qualify for articles only if (a) they go on to accomplish other notable things after being on the show (e.g. Jennifer Hudson), or (b) they were already notable for other reasons before being on the show and thus already had articles anyway (e.g. Jon Dorenbos). But the only other notability claim here is a 10-year-old viral video, which is not supported by any evidence of reliable source coverage about it.

Three of the footnotes here are YouTube clips, a fourth is his own self-published website, and a fifth is a betting and prediction website, which means five of the six references are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. And while the sixth is a real newspaper article which I added myself, it's his hometown newspaper covering him solely in a "local guy does stuff" context — so it does not represent enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sources are garbage, but it was literally the only acceptable source I was able to find at all. Appearing on a reality show and losing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. Prior to AGT, he has worked in Vancouver cartoons either as a voice actor and a voice director. Where else can we list his character impersonations? We should work on improving the page. As for the YouTube references, they were added by @ScottStephenJones: --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a notable actor or comedian who gets to keep a Wikipedia article requires him to have reliable source coverage in media. If that type of sourcing cannot be found to support his notability, then we don't have any obligation to "list his character impersonations" anywhere — just having worked in cartoons is still not an instant notability freebie that exempts him from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing, because no actor can ever be notable without sources. And it doesn't matter who did or didn't add the YouTube sources, either: they still can't be used regardless of whether they were added by you, me, ScottStephenJones, Howie Mandel, Donald Trump or Santa Claus. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Bearcat that this person has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rockphed (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not had significant roles in multiple notable productions per WP:NACTOR and has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 01:00, 20 September 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. No valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Saeed (cricketer)[edit]

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

This article is wrong google showing salman saeed a actor while wikipedia saying salman saeed is a cricketer the article is wrong if salman saeed is a cricketer then it should be in cricket section not in actor section with references too , if you google it will show salman saeed actor photo with this wikipedia link. MemonBhai (talk) 18:35, 13 September 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 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An IP editor had added a single unreferenced sentence identifying this cricketer with a Pakistani actor. I have removed this sentence, which leaves the article covering the cricketer – pretty inadequately, but he has played enough matches of sufficient importance for there to be a reasonable presumption both of notability and of adequate sources somewhere. Johnlp (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnlp

if you have fixed it then i will add few references as well i was confused actually if he is a cricketer why he is showing in pakistani actors list on wikipedia and when we google it the picture i see was of salman saeed actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Conflicting Google search results is not a valid rationale for deletion on WP. The cricketer passes our notablity, having played FC/LA/T20 matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the rationale, very bizarre nomination. Anyhow, meets WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 18:39, 14 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Prochar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA, WP:GNG. Sources used do not show that the site meets the current notability guidelines and I found nothing more from Google. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMEDIA and GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable newspaper in Bangladesh, fail WP:NMEDIA. Does not meet WP:GNG. no significant coverage.--Nahal^(T) 08:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Latinoamérica (League of Legends)[edit]

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

Not notable, sourced mostly to a wiki. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Wiki sources themselves are sourced to social media. I'm not familiar with Spanish sources so I can't tell you whether it's otherwise notable, but this particular incarnation of the article is WP:TNT material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:16, 15 September 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 Seiko#Seiko 5. Any interested editor is welcome to browse the page history for useful material to draft a new article or to add/merge to the main Seiko article. –Darkwind (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seiko 5[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to the Seiko 5 section of the Seiko article: Seiko#Seiko_5. This article was a redirect a stub was created in its place recently. The Seiko 5 is covered in that section of the main Seiko article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I made the page originally for that specific intention. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, AfD is not a place to make redirect requests, in the future just rollback those edits and leave a message on their talk page. Saves a lot of time.. I don't really think community input is needed on a stub like this. See WP:ATD-R. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on If there is independent coverage of this topic, why should it not have its own article? I understand there is a section of the Seiko article which covers the subject, but that section of the article has no references and this particular watch has been discussed in a number of published independent reliable sources. Doesn't this qualify it as warranting a standalone article? Even a stub one? A loose necktie (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There probably could be a decent article, need to add a lot more information to the article know, at the moment it doesn't pass WP:GNG and simply having a stub article doesn't really help anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're 100% correct. However what you initially added to that page doesn't even come close to even a stub, hence the reason it should have just been reverted back to a redirect. This is exactly why calling it to AfD is the wrong choice. Find enough 3rd party sources on the watch and I'll switch my vote to keep - but just understand in the future that instead of adding a single line and walking away you should prepare the new page in a draft then apply it once finished. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Seiko 5 section of the Seiko article: Seiko#Seiko_5, consolidating any duplicated material.Djflem (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elders of the Universe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gardener (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero real world notability. Just another minor comic character.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character being covered in detail in sources such as this and that. Andrew D. (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant in-universe descriptions that lack any commentary on the character. TTN (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Please change your !vote to "redirect" and/or "merge" -- those sources do not prove the independent notability of this extremely minor character -- in fact they support the assertion that he isn't independently notable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elders of the Universe. That article at least has some sources, and I've frankly never heard this character being referred to outside that context in any secondary or tertiary sources. Andrew's sources support this assertion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson, or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elders of the Universe - There is not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to support an independent article, and the character is already sufficiently covered at the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Few paragraphs in CBR, mostly summarizing character fictional history and such, are not sufficient for this to pass WP:NFICTION. No discussion of his significance in literature, impact on real world, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 18 September 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 with some reluctance. Unfortunately the 'keep' arguments have no basis in Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Many non-notable authors have their books in many library collections (and all of them find their way into the Library of Congress). Contributions to books is also not an inclusion criterion. Any coverage he's received seems to be WP:ROUTINE. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Hornberger[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:BIO. References are primary or related to the subject. Prod tag removed with edit summary that similar person has web page (see WP:WHATABOUTX), and that this subject may run for president. My Google news search doesn't provide reliable, secondary sources but mostly things he wrote, not substantial details about him. Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not seeing anything substantial in a search for RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be very liberal in extending coverage to minority political viewpoints. Most of his boosk are self published by the foundation he founded, but some are held in a large number of libraries (The failure of America's foreign wars including by West Point;) and he has significant contribution to mainstream books,as a representative of his viewpoint ( Gun violence, Immigration : opposing viewpoints "U.S. military deployment" , Human Rights all by Greenhaven Press, aa part of Gale/Cengage) . DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this article is not reliably sourcing that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. The references are overwhelmingly primary sources, such as his self-published biographical sketches on the websites of directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own bylined writing — exactly zero of the footnotes represent reliable sources writing about Jacob Hornberger as a subject. Conversely, several sources represent Jacob Hornberger writing content about other things — but he has to be the subject of a source, not the bylined author of it, for that source to count as support for his notability. People are also not exempted from having to have any media coverage just because they happen to be "representatives of minority viewpoints" — even there, the notability test still requires reliable sources to analyze and contextualize his significance as a representative of those viewpoints, so it still comes down to the fact that we're still batting zero for evidence of reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable 3rd party political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree 100% with Ifnord and Bearcat. My own internet search totally corroborates their arguments. The subject clearly fails the WP notability test. Sal2100 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Calibrador (talk) 07:00, 21 September 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 as non-notable, falls well short of GNG. JGHowes ^talk 02:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wideload (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable character. The reception is from something I’m not sure is even reliable source, and it’s trivial regardless. TTN (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not have any notability independent of its in-universe perspective. Term is not likely to be a searchable title, so an alternative to deletion is not necessarily warranted here, and there is nothing of value to merge. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list somewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:52, 13 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Express Transport[edit]

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

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - non-referenced. Acnetj (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Bookscale (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not specifically about anything except the concept of fast couriers. I think a redirect to that might be appropriate, otherwise verba delenda est! Rockphed (talk) 18:30, 17 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down-wing politics[edit]

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

Notability. Relies on insufficient independent relable sources. TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Up-wing politics

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Genetics4good (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one guy's proposed schema; his book got some coverage at release but that doesn't establish notability for this concept itself. I added the related and duplicative Up-wing politics to the nom if that's alright; it uses the same sources and certainly doesn't have coverage for its own article either. Both could be merged to the author's article FM-2030 Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a noteworthy phrase.Strandvue (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info, but keep articles as redirects to FM-2030 (so somewhat similar to what Strandvue suggested). I disagree that it's just "one guy's schema" btw. It is supported by a non-profit organisation (upwingers, inc), and also by Breakthrough Institute's Steve Fuller; see links. It would also be weird to delete these articles entirely as we too have a right-wing politics and left-wing politics page. I'll move forward by duplicating the info here to FM-2030 page. Genetics4good (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neologism not mentioned in any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Salt if necessary. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brexit in popular culture. –Darkwind (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexitovka[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is an article about a Brexit vodka. It fails WP:SUSTAINED (and thus WP:GNG), as almost all coverage is from March/April 2017. The coverage since then are brief mentions, usually in a list of odd Brexit stuff. As a result, the page is little more than an advertisement for a company's gimmicky vodka. Reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit (cat). – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brexit in popular culture as a valid alternative to deletion. Does not warrant an article with its 15 minutes of fame. But maybe a sentence or two, given that it's got sources with coverage, could be mentioned in the article about the cultural impact of Brexit? Red Phoenix ^talk 15:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Phoenix brings up a good point that I should have put in my nom statement. The closer should please consider my nom a !vote for delete or merge, with or without redirect. – Levivich 16:02, 13 September 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 withdrawn by nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis (actress)[edit]

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

No news or notable information found in google news / google / newspapers regarding 'Nargis' MemonBhai (talk) 14:31, 13 September 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 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her native language is Urdu, by googling her name I found her interview with BBC, which I added the source to article. The title of interview is "Who is Nargis" in Urdu language in BBC. I think she clearly notable actress.Abtehas98 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong her native language is punjabi you are confusing nargis , nargis fakhri and nargis actress , this article of nargis is for stage dancer and only one article isn't enough to show her notable there are 1000's of actress here who have one article but they are not yet on wikipedia. Kindly provide other references as well one article isn't enough the filmogrpahy isn't even notable none of her film has media coverage.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination is not very convincing. The subject easily passes WP:GNG per given citations. Also a quick search yielded these articles 1 2 3. samee converse 09:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep It is fair so say that there is currently an issue with the sourcing. However the limited sourcing provided seems to suggest notability and that current content is essentially correct. It is probably also fair to assume that sufficient sources exist in Urdu, so it just needs somebody speaking the language and having access to them. Tagging it for source/reference improvement should be sufficient for now, i.e. no need for a deletion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theek hain i have fixed it can i close this AFD Tag now ? seems like article is fixed.

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. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VPN.ht[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Sources primarily consists of mention in passing, primarily in reference to Popcorn Time which may be a possible soft delete redirect (merge?) target to consider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Popcorn Time or delete: I did assess the possibility of a merger into the Popcorn Time article. There isn't anything to merge. The target already covers all that can be covered. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:17, 21 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Martial Arts Games[edit]

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

There is no indication that this is a notable martial arts event. I found no coverage that is not from the sponsoring organization or local coverage saying that "so and so will be competing at the World Martial Arts Games" or local coverage in the host city talking about this upcoming event. There is no significant independent coverage which is required to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused by the no consensus last time, it looks to me like it should of been deleted. I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was closed by a non-admin by mistake. Non-admins are only supposed to close non-controversial discussions, which this clearly was not. Papaursa (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant third party coverage for this event is easily locatable, e.g. United Nations, national body coverage from China, Russia, South Africa, Turkmenistan. I also think the volume of local news coverage itself is significant, as this event is mostly about broadening sports participation in general rather than being the undisputed pinnacle competition for elite martial artists. If the topic warrants time in a Russian President's schedule, then it is same to assume it has achieved general notability. SFB 18:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that these show significant independent coverage. The U.N. release is not unusual for politicians, especially when it's for an event in the Secretary-General's home town. The China article is from the Games' founder's visit to China to promote China's participation in wushu events. The Russian, South African, and Turkmenistan articles tout each country's medal winnings--all of which seems like routine sports reporting and WP:NOTNEWS. The Russian president made time because apparently Russian won the most medals and he used the occasion to promote Russia and its values (which is his job).Sandals1 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That point could be made about any sporting event. Countries, their media and their politicians do not tend to give time and coverage to sports events that do not concern their nation or its people. SFB 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that there is not sufficient independent, significant coverage in reliable sources to accept the notability of this competition. Furthermore, despite the previous AfD having a dozen sources that supposedly showed notability, none of those sources have made their way into the article. Every currently used source in this article is to the games' website. Looking around the web, I am seeing more uses of this event's title for describing other events than for this event. Rockphed (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a web search for sources, again. What I found wasn't really different from the first discussion. Sources either weren't independent or were local stories of athletes (overwhelmingly kids) competing at one of the events. I don't believe these are the type of references that suffice to meet WP:GNG. Combining those with routine sports coverage doesn't make these events WP notable. The splitting of the original organization, having multiple events, and titles that overlap with other organizations makes this even harder to follow--especially with no documentation. Papaursa (talk) 20:43, 18 September 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. There were no !votes against keeping, and nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuya (department store)[edit]

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

Department store. Unreferenced one line sub stub. No indication this building (company?) is notable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#3. Well-known Tokyo department store, with 100 hits on the Nikkei website for the Ginza store alone.[13] The laughably bad nomination claims that because the article is a one-line sub-stub it should be deleted, yet the author of said nomination apparently didn't bother to read that one line as he is confused as to whether a department store with one branch in Ginza and another 5 km away in Asakusa is a single building. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to do better than to say WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Nothing you say contradicts my points about it being a sub-stub (for 15 years), having zero references, and totally failing NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of shitty articles on this website. Very few en.wiki editors know anything about Japanese topics, and those who do ... have to put up with a lot of BS from POV-pushers, loons, and worse (part of why I'm not around as much as I used to be; User:Curly Turkey seems to have left entirely). If you want to redirect the page to Department store#Japan until someone creates an article that would be worth its own page, then withdraw this nomination and fire ahead. I can't do that now that the page is under AFD. The topic is notable, with 20 times as many Nikkei hits as DHC Corporation [14] (a random Japanese company I pulled out of my hat). This is not an WP:OSE argument -- I don't know or care whether DHC has its own article, but you can't claim that this topic is not notable when you didn't even bother to read the article before making that claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: You wanna withdraw your nomination now? Normally when someone opens an AFD and their argument about the article and/or topic is rebutted by the first line of the article, they have the good sense to withdraw as soon as it's pointed out. You fought back, forcing my hand, and now all the content of your opening statement is wrong.

(And FWIW, I would now not like the page to be redirected; it contains too much detail on this one department store chain to be incorporated into the main department store article, and I went to the trouble of reading popular news media online for it, so I'd rather not see the content blanked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the largest, oldest and most important department stores in Japan. No I don't have dozens of refs to hand, and no I'm not volunteering to spend half my weekend chasing around trying to build and source the article more fully. But SERIOUSLY WP:BEFORE. Mccapra (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above unsigned comment is from @Mccapra:. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's one of the most well-known department stores in Japan. It's clearly notable even if the article isn't as polished as other articles on Japanese department stores. Mcampany (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Complete WP:BEFORE failure; learn how to use Yahoo! Japan, google.jp, and translation tools. Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: WP:BEFORE is not a valid speedy keep rationale -- the criteria are rather strict and narrow, and while I agree at least one of them does apply here (hence my own !vote above) a much, much bigger issue with the encyclopedia is people abusing the deletion policy. I think you are acting in good faith and are just mistaken, but it would really be a lot better if you clarified. (And FWIW, WP:BEFORE is actually a pretty bad reason to !vote "keep", let alone "speedy keep", since it's very difficult to prove without violating AGF. I agree it seems pretty obvious from the OP's rationale that they were extremely clumsy with this nomination, but by citing WP:BEFORE you imply that the problem is not doing a thorough source check. Not pinging Mccapra since they gave other reasons.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think it would be a bad idea to talk about "BEFORE" in cases like this. Matsuya may be one of the better-known Tokyo department stores, but it is still a relatively local institution, certainly not as well-known as the homonymous fast food chain nationwide. Maybe not even in the 23 Wards. For someone who doesn't read Japanese (Piotrus doesn't, and nor do most AFD !voters) that could be extremely confusing, and we don't want to leave the door open to disruptive "keepist" editors coming along and claiming that there was "no compliance with WP:BEFORE" and citing a quick Google search they did for "Tokyo Matsuya" without regard for the quality or relevance of what they find. This editor has been known to do this,[15][16] especially with Japanese topics.[17][18][19] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've used BEFORE as a rationale before without any complaint, and stand by it here. Nom admits not knowing what the article subject is; even the most green nominator peruses page one of Google results so they don't come off as not knowing what they're doing before the nom. A 200k+ editor for fifteen years should know the bare-bones of this process, and that they don't is a concern. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not having perused the first page of Google results is not the same as not reading the article itself, and the distinction is an important one since the latter is a speedy keep criterion, while the former is not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - major historic department store of Japan. Sources are easily found even in English. I don't speak Japanese, but it took me 30 seconds to find an academic source that discusses the company in great detail, and have now expanded the article. There are dozens of solid sources available from Google books alone. The nominator has repeatedly ignored WP:BEFORE and failed to perform even perfunctory searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and stubbornly refused to withdraw them even after numerous sources have been presented. I've just recently dealt with the user's similarly irresponsible AFDs for Micree Zhan and Jihan Wu. I will file an ANI complaint if this behaviour persists. -Zanhe (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Article has been expanded with foreign language references which we can probably AGF and now at least mildly asserts the subject's notability, through I will comment that I find it very said that we cannot resolve such issues in a friendly and civil manner, instead of retorting to personal attacks and threats. The battleground mentality some display here is rather sad, particularly considering the major problem of spam Wikipedia is facing (and some spam creators have learned to game the system well, using fake offline/foreign language references, knowing that very few people will have the time and will to try to verify them). Given the surprising level of vehemence, one has to wonder if some people creating an defending this type of articles aren't undisclosed paid editors, whose livelihood is being threatened... now this is something to consider at ANI, indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First you fail to adhere to WP:BEFORE, and now you resort to WP:Casting aspersions. If you have reasons to suspect anyone of being a paid editor, go file your evidence at WP:COIN, but stop making baseless accusations just because people disagree with you. And realistically, what company is dumb enough to pay people to write a one-line stub about them? -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did WP:BEFORE, but I don't read Japanese. If Japanese speaking editors couldn't have been bothered to expand this from a single, unreferenced sub-stub for 15+ years, it's time for an AfD review. The issue is addressed now, through I encourage you to think about WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. From my end, I see that you are only trying to help, I wish you'd return the favor and address me in a less combative terms. As for what companies do, well, there's also the common case of a boss telling their employee to simply write a yellow pages-like entry for Wikipedia, among many other possibilities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems a bit hypocritical to talk about "combativeness" and "AGF" given your above response to me and your bizarre comment about paid editors and fake foreign sources. If you hadn't responded the way you did on Friday, no one else would have needed to respond. I will try to take a look at the Sofmap case per your request on my talk page in my own time, but I am not, frankly, all that interested in articles on shops and other businesses, and I do not think it is appropriate to issue implied threats of AFDing unrelated articles that are not unsourced one-sentence sub-stubs and to ask me to fix those articles as a compromise for you withdrawing this nomination after you refused to do it when you should have done it on Friday. (BTW, as far as I've seen the bigger problem with AFDs on Japanese companies is stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyence, where an editor nominated the page with an attack on the company in question, and later revealed that his motivation for doing so was that his employer had told him they were a bad company.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

et me just say that I appreciate any efforts you take to expand such articles, but somebody has to do it. Unreferenced one-liners don't belong in mainspace, this stuff wouldn't be accepted in draft. See also my comments at Zanhe's talk page for more on when I am coming from. Let's try to AGF, we are all here trying to help the project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. I did it with this article, which opened the floodgates so that you could ask that I do it with an article that is not an unsourced one-liner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:03, 15 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Curzon[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as a local television and radio personality in a small town. As always, broadcasters are not automatically notable just because they existed; they need to have some evidence of nationalized significance, such as having worked for a national radio or television network, winning a national-level award for their work, and/or having broad nationalized reliable source coverage about them -- but this claims nothing inherently noteworthy about him, and cites no sources at all. The only reason I'm not speedying this is because it's been flying under the radar since 2006, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that's been around that long. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails: WP:BLP, WP:NBIO, WP:V... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 15 September 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 Hearst Communications. The G11 version of the article was substantially the same as the one under discussion, and it had been previously deleted as WP:A7 under a different name. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MCG Health[edit]

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

Been G11'd twice. Here is entries on the deletion log.

18:01, 16 May 2019 Ritchie333 talk contribs deleted page MCG Health (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)
11:40, 12 September 2017 GB fan talk contribs deleted page MCG Health (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails WP:ORG. No claims of anything extraordinary. Sources are routine takeover/merger announcements or press releases. Classic Internet searching for sources.) (thank)

Looking for salt.

scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete or merge. Not seeing any coverage outside passing mention and rewritten press releases. Not sure if there's much to merge, but a possible target is its parent company Hearst Communications, where we can redirect this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect same reasons as Piotrus. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GridStream Productions[edit]

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

Article about an online music station tied to Anarchy Online. The sources that work are primary sources or connected to the subject. Many of them don't even directly support what they are attached to without assumptions having to be made by the reader. My WP:Before comes up with nothing to add to any chance of this meeting any threshold of inclusion at this point. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GridStream Productions has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and press releases and sources connected to the subject do nothing to establish notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If enough quality sources can't be found within a reasonable time to qualify for a standalone article then perhaps some of the information can be merged into another article on WP. Gridfan (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pruthvi Ambaar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage for latest film but nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable - possibly because the Tulu film industry is so small, but they don't seem to produce notable films that are widely distributed and reviewed by two or more nationally known critics per WP:NFILM (the Kannada cinema article says they churn out over 190 films a year!) - so Pruthvi Ambaar does not meet WP:NACTOR for lacking significant roles in multiple notable films - Epinoia (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buz-e-Chini[edit]

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

No notable news / references found in google news MemonBhai (talk) 13:05, 13 September 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 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not widely screened, nor reviewed in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C2 Education[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Prodded by User:Ethanbas, prod removed without any rationale. Time to clean this WP:YELLOWPAGES/WP:CORPSPAM entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG: no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:06, 20 September 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. No prejudice against someone creating a disambig in place of this article, and if anyone wants the two sentences worth of content to merge, I am happy to userfy it. –Darkwind (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger line[edit]

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

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. We have articles for cruise lines and shipping lines. This one is needful, parallel, and will just get recreated eventually. Stubs are a thing and there's no reason to remove the one we already have (not inaccurate, against policy, etc.). This one currently anchors the google results for "passenger line", which reduces the need for people to click through even while it's being helpful. If you just personally feel it needs expansion, BEBOLD. — LlywelynII 03:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It needs references. Rathfelder (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term also refers quite frequently to rail lines that carry passengers as opposed to freight. This might better serve as a disambiguation page, linking for example to passenger ship and Rail transport#Passenger trains. XOR'easter (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of passenger ship companies per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content as per Andrew D, but amend page to a disambiguation page dealing with passenger ship and passenger train. Bookscale (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY - Epinoia (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a dictionary definition instead of a stub.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what's wrong with changing it to a disambiguation page then? Bookscale (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace I don't care if a disambiguation page replaces this one (I actually like Bookscale's proposal), but this article doesn't have any future. Thus, verba delenda est! Rockphed (talk) 13:04, 18 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirti Diana[edit]

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

UPE spam. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO by a few many nautical miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 12:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undeclared paid editing--I can't judge the subject. two other articles by this editor ,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wheelwright (author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax-Free Wealth are also at AfD. A third one Tasha Williamson will need close examination. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have trouble seeing notability. The Sourcing is weak and it may just be WP:TOOSOON Wm335td (talk) 20:15, 16 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wheelwright (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. UPE spam. ∯WBG^converse 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - It seems a bit unfair and aggressive to call this article spam, its subject easily meets Wikipedia's standards for notability Re: WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. It has plenty of WP:RS, a simple Google search will pull up sources such as Forbes, Fox, CNBC, Accounting Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, ABC, Entrepreneur, and others. The article itself has numerous sources and references, and is written in a neutral tone. Although the editor claims that I am undisclosed paid editor, there is literally a disclosure template on my userpage as per Wikipedia's rules. I would be happy to improve the article in any way suggested, or to allow others to edit it. Unless I am missing something, there seems to be no cause for outright deletion. I would appreciate some other editors weighing in on this to figure out what ought to be done. KoenigWrites (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What DGG says below. Your disclosure is meaningless and which part of WP:PAY can't you understand? ∯WBG^converse 09:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. KoenigWrites is the creator both of this article and of Tax-Free Wealth, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax-Free Wealth. Narky Blert (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam it is. He is an accountant, not an author. Despite what is implied in the article, he has written one book only, published by "Rich Dad Advisors", the in-house self-publishing press of Robert Kiyosaki, a bankrupt financial advisor. He's contributed chapters to some of that firm's other books, and seems to be an assistant to his enterprise. The purported good sources are just mentions where he or his PR agent gets himself included in a general article about taxes, or else promotional interviews where he says what he pleases. The only disclosure by this paid editor is that he is paid by Anthony Conti, whomever that may be. Arguments by paid editors, declared or not, for their own paid articles need a certain amount of discounting, for reasons that should be obvious. (the advice for those whose articles ae nominated for deletion is to comment, as for anyone else with direct COI, and let others decide. One of hte arguments against paid editing of any sort is that it induces people who would not otherwise be entitled to an article to try to get one. This can even harm them, for if after the article is deleted they should ever become notable, it strongly decreases the chances that there will ever be an accepted article. The very few good paid editors here are very careful about what jobs they accept. It's rather obvious what "ought to be done. " DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Talk about WP:REFBOMBING. I looked at all 31 citations (sic - there are some duplicates) in the article, and not a single one of them is an independent source specifically about him, as required by WP:RS. They are a mixture of passing mentions, quotes, interviews and promotional material. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

(I was particularly taken by this sentence in one of the citations - "[Wheelwright] is best known for making taxes fun, easy and understandable".) Narky Blert (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no value in keeping this article. Let its putrefying remains be fed to the fires of our discontent as symbol of both our virility and our commitment to vanquishing paid editing! The sources are as trivial as they come. The subject of this article is extremely WP:MILL. Thus, verba delenda est! Rockphed (talk) 13:12, 18 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tax-Free Wealth[edit]

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

Promotional UPE spam. Fails WP:NBOOK as I don't see any reviews sans a bunch of press-releases. Not much clue, as to what the sources are about. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking a look, the book doesn't seem to have any coverage out there that's in-depth and reliable. Of the sources on the article, some are written by Wheelright himself, at least one is a press release, and the others are also unusable to show notability as they're either self-published Forbes contributor blogs or they're sources that only quote Wheelright without actually going into any depth on the book or are otherwise not about the book at all. The sources aren't even usable to show notability for the author, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like a chance to improve the sourcing of the article, with the intent of keeping it up. KoenigWrites (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it has been pointed out that it is advised that the article creator mainly comments and allows others to vote, I am going to withdraw my vote and change it to a comment. I have since added a few more sources, and will continue to improve the article until the discussion is closed, for deletion or not.KoenigWrites (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KoenigWrites is the article's creator. Narky Blert (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, just like its author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wheelwright (author). The claimed references are either mentions along with others , presumably arranged by the authors PR agent, or self-serving pseudo-interviews. The editor is an incompletely declared paud editor who has never declared with respect to this article. Arguments by paid editors, declared or not, for their own paid articles need a certain amount of discounting, for reasons that should be obvious. (the advice for those whose articles ae nominated for deletion is to comment, as for anyone else with direct COI, and let others decide. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:REFBOMBING isn't as bad as it is in Tom Wheelwright (author) (12 citations compared with 31), but REFBOMBING it is. Only 3 of the 12 citations purport to be about the book as such: these reviews, 1, 2 and 3. You only need to glance at them to see that they are not independent, are promotional, and therefore fail WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reviews in reliable sources about this book. Compare a contemporaneous book about a similar topic, A_Failure_of_Capitalism. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Narky Blert. When my antivirus starts freaking out when I look at one of the sources, I know it is going to be a bad source. Rockphed (talk) 13:17, 18 September 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. While a surface reading of the !votes would normally lead to no consensus, given the BLP implications of the article's content, the consensus is to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Base (platform)[edit]

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

Nothing significant available for the company that can establish any sort of notability, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because CBC/MSN/Global/Vice have all covered it. Olivia comet (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts - I'm not sure this should accurately be considered a social media platform. It's more like an organisation that primarily uses a social media platform to communicate and exist. The sources mainly consider someone to be joining an organisation called the Base, which has a social media platform. I think if it was rewritten to be premised like that, it would be notable. As it is now, it's somewhat misleading. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I was just going by the earliest report, as "Vice" calls it the name of a social networking platform. Would the term describing a group refer to all users of the platform or only some? I remember years ago silliness like "hacker known as 4chan" (that too is a platform, not a person or group) and don't want to jump to any conclusions. Olivia comet (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, and that's about all the sources say. Sub-stub, most of the content is about a semi-related arrest of a user. Not a notable website(?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 13 September 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Lieu unique[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Previously full of self-aggrandisement and peacock phrasing suggesting COI editing. Despite tagging for notability and lack of refs, none have been forthcoming. Searches reveal own website, this article plus many adverts, travel guide listings social media etc but nothing that conveys notability. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis it's difficult to imagine a major arts centre in a major city isn't notable, though admittedly it is not so easy to find online sources when they aren't in English. But, for example, Fodors calls Le Lieu Unique the "it" place to go and there's a very comprehensive history and desription in this book. There are also two books about the centre and a lengthy news article cited in the French Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have no evidence that this is a 'a major arts centre' . Sources that might demonstrate this are very few, even in French. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's semantics, rather than a reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis it's difficult to imagine a major arts centre existing for 20 years and producing no more than 2 bare mentions in reliable adjacent sources. I searched all the sources I could find on google and found a bare 2 that were more than "it exists". Neither was very much deeper than "it exists" and they definitely did not support the text of the article as it currently stands. The mentions I could find largely dealt with various protests involving the center, leading me to think this is more of a local attraction and art gallery than anything else. I suspect the permanent staff is 2: the "president" and the janitor. Rockphed (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral see below. Rockphed (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has anybody looked at the French Wikipedia? see here (been there since 2006 with no apparent issues), has more then here on English Wikipedia including references/books? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That hadn't even crossed my mind. I looked through the 4 sources they had, and 2 of them appear significant. One is from what looks like a culture magazine/newspaper (liberation) and is probably independent. The other is a book, "Le Lieu unique. Le chantier, un acte culturel", and might not be independent of the museum. The other book does not return any web hits when I search for its ISBN. The final source is an interview with the first head of Le Lieu unique, and isn't independent. Also, it looks like the current english version is just a translation of the French version. On the one hand, I think we can establish that the place existed, so this isn't a hoax. On the other, I can't be sure what the relationship between the book I can find and the place is. Rockphed (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:27, 13 September 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. Personally I think there is enough here for GNG, but I'm not sure there is the consensus for a keep here. Certainly though there isn't enough for delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krystian Żołnierewicz[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made 4 appearances (2 as a starter, 2 as a substitute) in Poland's fully-pro Ekstraklasa. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in Polish- and English-language sources appear to be routine (database entries, transfer announcements, and a few brief notes on his league debut and an unsuccessful trial with AS Roma after his debut season); I tried to rescue this article from the unsourced BLP pile, but the subject simply isn't notable. Jogurney (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's sourceable, [20] and [21] are beyond routine in my opinion, along with links like [22] which may not technically count towards WP:GNG but shows there's enough out there on him to write a fully sourced article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SF's second link, from Weszlo (Gtranslate) looks like WP:SIGCOV to me; not sure about the other two. – Levivich 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. All three sources linked above are WP:INTERVIEW, through the first two are at least rewritten partially for the tone. Another issue is reliability of sources. The third one is a regional newspaper, but the first two, some internet portals that don't seem to have even a page on rather inclusive Polish Wikipedia (Alexa rank: sport.pl is #66 in Poland, weszlo.com is #644 in Poland). So sport.pl coverage seems pretty decent, popularity wise, but the entry is also very short, almost like a press release based on an interview, little better than pure stats - I mean, it's just pure stats in sentence mode. As such, I think he fails WP:NBIO. Given NSPORTS super inclusitivity, it would be borderline, but we really need to tighten our guidelines here, and I feel that three interviews in minor/niche outlets are not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and enough out there to likely meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sources indicate he stopped playing years ago, in 2013 or 2015. Not finding two GNG sources. 4 appearances in the 2010s does not suggest off-line sources are out there. – Levivich 01:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL with four appearances in a top-flight fully professional league. Number 5 7 16:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not appear in any international game, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject barely scrapes WP:NFOOTY & WP:NBIO and then disappears from view. To quote from this AfD's decision: There is clear consensus that players who scrape over the line of the SNG and can be shown to have essentially ended their careers are not presumed to pass GNG unless clear sources can be presented. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Great point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Same comment I've brought up elsewhere. Interviews are (arguably) primary sources (along with statistics websites, game reports, transfer reports, etc.) Are there any non-interview secondary sources upon which we can base this article? Without a real secondary source, I don't see how this article can be kept and yet comply with core policy WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Here, we seem to be basing an article entirely on primary sources–and if it's just interviews, entirely on ABOUTSELF sources. – Levivich 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Somehow missed this AfD until now, blind as a bat! Understandable nom., given the low apps/prior examples, but there's enough out there for GNG: [23], [24], [25], even [26]; as well as, though I somewhat understand the questioning: [27], [28] and [29]. I disagree with those denouncing interviews. If they were quick three-question pure Q+As after matches, sure, but they're about his career to-date at that time with good depth input along with the interview, esp. #4 & #6. As for those questioning the strength/integrity of guidelines, an AfD isn't the place to examine them - as, most recently, noted at AfD/Atantaake Tooma. AfD/Phakamani Mngadi is a disingenuous comparison, given they had very little to no articles written about them. R96Skinner (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "passes NFOOTY" handwaves are irrelevant in light of the compelling dissection of the sources by Piotrus and Levivich. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's WP:GNG arguments made by both myself and R96Skinner. There's more out there than just the couple of sources I added. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the sources that R96Skinner lists above, easily meets GNG, and that's without using the interviews. I'm also baffled by these claims that in-depth comprehensive interviews don't count as GNG - I don't see any policy behind that. Or the claims that he's no longer playing - how is that relevant? Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 21 September 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. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional acupuncture[edit]

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

WP:SYN, WP:PROFRINGE, lack of WP:MEDRS and (in particular) excessive reliance on studies conducted in Korea and China, both of which have a long-term problem with pseudoscience (China, especially, produces exactly zero negative results on studies of woo). This may be a notable topic, but it is a WP:TNT job if so. Guy (help!) 11:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first citation is not MEDRS, and the article falls apart once that is removed, with it's associated nonsense. Remove all the meaningless crappy language (encyclopeadic writing ought to make sense) and nothing remains. An article could probably be cobbled together, but this isn't it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a POV content fork of Accupuncture. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's OK to have articles about pseudoscience, but they have to be articles about notable pseudoscience, which this isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible article. scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "make the therapeutic remedy due to the patient's unique constitution, which contains the specific way his or her organs affect health, living habits, how he or she looks and behaves" is a typical "holistic approach" claim that does not distinguish this particular variant from acupuncture and alternative medicine in general. The particular mataphysics of many schools can vary but there's no indication that this particular variant is notable enough to have its article. "Constitutional energy traits" are like other meridians, nadis, etc... —Paleo Neonate – 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you are cleaning up after a May 2019 school project.
Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the "fork" of acupuncture was made about 15 centuries ago, when Chinese acupunture was imported into Korea. There are different vaguely identified schools of acupunture, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and so forth. This article is purportedly about Korean acupunture. Interestingly, Micozzi 2010, p. 404 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMicozzi2010 (help) says that although these qualifiers "appear to add meaning" they "often obscure as much as clarify". Xe does discuss some of the schools further, including the more specifically named Korean constititional acupuncture and Korean hand therapy on Micozzi 2010, p. 425 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMicozzi2010 (help), which our acupunture article probably should at least mention the existence of, but does not. Also note that we already had Sasang constitutional medicine. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Micozzi, Marc S. (2010). Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (4th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 9781437727050.
Delete per the nomination and the delete !votes above. It's the holistic course of action, best suited to the article's unique constitution. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is made by newbie, so there are some problems. But we can improve this article with other users at any time! --Garam (talk) 10:50, 17 September 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) Smartyllama (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Wenfei[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability standards for kickboxers. The world championship is undocumented and doesn't even specify the organization. I lack Chinese language skills so I can't judge the quality of the sources, but the achievements don't appear to meet any notability standards. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs to be better written, but he is famous in China for winning multiple national martial arts championships. A Google News search of his Chinese name returns 700+ results, even though he's been relatively inactive in the past three years due to injury. In 2016 Tencent Sports named him the fourth most popular fighter in China, see [30]. -Zanhe (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular isn't the same as being notable. As I said, I can't read Chinese so if you could list a few articles showing significant non-routine coverage I would appreciate it. Then maybe I could try a Google translation, though I don't really trust those it's the best I can do. For all I know, those news results could just be reporting results. Sandals1 (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity by itself is not sufficient for notability, but being called by mainstream media as one of the most popular is, not to mention he won multiple major national championships. Some more in depth coverage (not routine report of results): [31] [32] [33]. You can use Google translate to read them. -Zanhe (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was talking about. One of those sources is an interview with him about his upcoming "Wulin Wind" fight, the second is a report on the semi-final round of a sanda team competition, and the final one is a list of career highlights (one for each of the competitors in the "Global Kung Fu Festival" tournament). I would say that all of those represent typical sports coverage and fail to meet the GNG standards.Sandals1 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles from mainstream media dedicated to his fights and career highlights are far from trivial and constitute significant coverage. Even less substantial mention from multiple sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Please read WP:BASIC. -Zanhe (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted a weak keep at the first AfD because of the claims of his success in China, which I assumed would generate significant coverage in China (that I could not read). If Zanhe's claims of abundant coverage are correct, he should be able to give enough examples to meet WP:GNG. I do agree with Sandals1 that the articles he selected do not rise to the level of the necessary coverage. I would also accept evidence showing he meets WP:NKICK or has had martial arts success internationally, as per WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fighter quite easily hits WP:GNG - I would also admonish the nominator not to post AfDs for subjects on the basis that they can't personally read the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the nom, I (and most other English WP editors) don't read Chinese. I think the nom was just being honest. I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask for examples showing WP:GNG is met. Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Personally, I think his accomplishments in China are pretty impressive (see WP:MANOTE) and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding coverage in Chinese, but I'd feel more comfortable with some specific examples and/or proof that any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even without the iron clad evidence I was hoping for, I think a case can be made for him meeting either WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Therefore, I'm sticking with my vote from the original AfD. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Tone 08:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Order[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Not individually notable, but no other likely target and reasonable search term.--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Fails WP:NFICTION so at best can be listified, WP:PRIMARY sources only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. There are no sources demonstrating any notability, and the character, with basic information, is already present on the target list, making anything more than a Redirect unnecessary. Rorshacma (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Tone 08:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deathurge[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters TTN (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MacCready (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. All sources WP:PRIMARY, no indication or argument this passes WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. No independent notability, no in-depth, independent sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 20 September 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. Improvements made to this article since AfD was first listed have moved the needle considerably‎ toward meeting GNG. That secondary sources such as British newspapers Metro and The Times cover its pronouncements as newsworthy‎ is indicative of notability and encyclopedic value. Also persuasive is that published books and reputable journals in various countries have written about the impact of the denomination's‎ teachings. JGHowes ^talk 02:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain of Fire and Miracles

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

Not a notable outfit in any way, certainly not via the GNG--just another ministry. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, not least for the adverse publicity which is cited in the article. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fayenatic, I checked again because I know you're no fool--but I just find it extraordinarily thin. The Pulse is generally acceptable as a source, but the two articles ([34] and [35]) are just short lists of chatty stuff, written by the same person, and without any in-depth discussion at all. This is dead (other articles from that publication are just trivial, reminiscent of what my local paper writes about some minor church service or event--[36] and [37]), and this, from some tabloid, can't be called news coverage. So I'm sorry, but it is hard to argue that this coverage makes it pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Since there appears to be a networks of churches, not only in Nigeria but in Western countries where there is a Nigerian diaspora, this probably qualifies as a denomination, though apparently some of the satellites are seeking independence. The investigations may also make it notorious enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources from newspapers, and Alexplaugh12 has expanded the article using some better ones from academic journals. IMHO it is well worth Wikipedia keeping this article, not least as a warning about the practices of this movement. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was a unanimous "Keep" decision at the previous AFD (noted on the article talk page), which I have just linked above. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for the church worldwide expansion range and the size of its main auditorium for 100,000 people. JohnThorne (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep votes. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:34, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Warren[edit]

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

Prod by user:John from Idegon, deprodded by anon. I concur that this seems to fail WP:NBIO, and the red flag of SPA involvement, suggesting potential paid for or vanity angle, does not help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the acting holder of a government civil service role is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have any reliable sources — but between the three footnotes and the three links that are being contextlessly linkfarmed below them, five of those six are primary sources (press releases, directory entries, the USAID's own self-published website about itself) which are not support for notability at all, and the only one that is a reliable source is a local interest magazine covering him in the not inherently notable context of joining a consulting firm after his most potentially notable job had ended, which means it's not enough to get him over the bar all by itself as the only non-primary source in play. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can show evidence of much more reliable source coverage about him than I've been able to find, but the sourcing present here is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see just enough biographical material around the internet to establish notability and justify retaining the article. My recent edits have, at least partially, mitigated the problems with sources mentioned above. I would note that while these are trade publications they do have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking.182.239.82.234 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the sources added: seems like a rewritten press release by a niche portal, [38] WP:INTERVIEW by a niche portal, 100% press release, mention in passing. I still thinks he fails WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I see on the internet do not rise to the level of notability. Rockphed (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear User:Rockphed, may I suggest you clarify your vote? It is customary to use terms like delete, keep, merge or redirect. Latin proverbs are hard for a closing admin to quantify :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 19 September 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) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jihan Wu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No in-depth coverage, just included in some lists of 'wealthiest people', passing, offhand one-two sentence mentions of him in mainstream news, and the usual rewritten press release drivel in BitCoin walled garden self-referencing media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

Delete - non-notable Bitcoin billionaire who only has trivial mentions in the mainstream media and occasional coverage in the cryptocurrency-sphere. Unless someone can find a piece of significant coverage from a reputable source that deals with him in particular, rather than his company or Bitcoin Cash or whatever, I don't think there's any reason to keep it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is hard to believe, but hasn't the nominator learned anything from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micree Zhan discussion just a few months ago? This is again blatant failure to perform WP:BEFORE. I just did a cursory search on Google, and found significant coverage about Jihan Wu from Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg, Forbes Billionaire index, Quartz, and Straits Times. And that's before I even looked at the thousands of articles about him in Chinese. Besides being the billionaire co-founder of Bitmain, probably the most influential cryptocurrency company, he is generally believed to have masterminded the widely reported Bitcoin Cash hard fork, see Quartz and Fast Company. -Zanhe (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable and the sources support it. In fact he is a controversial figure, with lots of media coverage in the industry rags (in addition to mainstream). Additionally, I believe as former CEO of Bitmain the notability test is also lower, perhaps by WP:CORP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable person with plenty of coverage. However, the article needs to be improved and cite more independent reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, While only two sources Zanhe presents (the first two) are actually independent in-depth coverage, the rest being mentions in passing or CV-like summary submitted by the subject (or likely, their PR team) to generic bio-blurb sites, the Forbes and Fortune coverage does appear sufficient to warrant passing NBIO. Thanks for finding them, and I can only wish Zahne would assume more good faith towards other editors. Spam is a major source of problems for this site, and attacking editors who try to deal with it is not helping. Zahne, your help with rescuing articles is very appreciated, just try to stay cool, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per previous comments. Zanhe has done a great job in finding sources and expanding the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

This subject of this article has so much media coverage is difficult to even sort out the high quality RS from low quality. Here are two high quality China Daily [39] and Caijing/Chinadaily [40]. As well as Sohu [41], Sina [42], etc. For those that dont know, ChinaDaily is an official government mouthpiece, as good as an RS comes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 15 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, modern crossbreed type dog being represented as a breed, but unrecognised by any notable breed organisation or kennel club. No RS included in article, the only secondary sources on google are two self published works on bulldogs. Cavalryman (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. See following sources: 1 2 3. Dorling Kindersley (publisher of the first two) is a reputable publisher, the third is harder to identify but at least has an ISBN. FOARP (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, please confirm what the first two books you have linked above say about the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, my google searches does not show either book on any of the first five pages for these dogs. The third book you cite is one of the two self published works mentioned above.

These dogs are not recognised by any breed association and not covered in any works I have access to. Whilst they are good looking animals and likely a healthy robust line, I see no evidence of their notability Cavalryman (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please click on the links to see what the two sources, both of them Dorling Kindersley reference books, say. You need to search Google Books to see what book-sources are available. That a reference is not visible in the first five pages of Google results is neither here nor there. A breed not being recognised is also neither here nor there. Edit: additionally, there are two articles available in French from what appear to be reliable sources (including a veterinary journal) regarding this type of dog: 1 2. I saw a lot of news articles about attacks by this type of dog but I'm not sure that counts as significant coverage of the subject of the article or not. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, thank you for the advice. I am unsure if it is a regional difference, but the links you have provided only take me to a picture of the books with a publication summary, neither a preview nor a snippet view are available. So again I ask, please confirm exactly what they say about these dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Full-page articles about the subject of the article. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - shady practices but with a nice store front. Fails GNG. ^{Per the RS provided by JLAN. Good job! 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)} What I've seen are articles like this one, which is a major red flag for me, especially considering none of the long established registries recognize this breed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the present state of the article is bad, but I don't think this is WP:TNT territory. The DK references appear to indicate that this is a notable subject. I think something could also be added about the attacks involving this type of dog. EDIT: I've made my attempt at a WP:HEYMAN edit of the article - have a look. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I have reviewed what you have done with the article but still believe it fails GNG. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

There's two full-page book references in there, from a reputable publisher. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, “These dogs typically have a predominantly white coat with blue merle markings, and with patches of any colour, triangular ears, a broad head and a short muzzle” and “This dog requires careful training and regular exercise” hardly establishes notability. Cavalryman (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It's not the parts included in the article that determine how notable the subject is, it's whether or not they have received significant coverage from reliable sources. DK is a reliable source. Two page-long articles is significant coverage. This is without being able to consult the vetinary journal article referenced above. FOARP (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think something could also be added about the attacks involving this type of dog. FOARP, the cited sources are problematic per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, particularly your mention of "the attacks involving this type of dog", regarding the 2012 incident. Dog type vs dog breed are not the same. Dog types are crossbreeds, mixed breeds, mongrels or mutts. ~~We have far more traffic fatalities and don't list all the deaths in the articles of the vehicle manufacturer.~~ I will add that other applicable WP:PAGs support deletion, including WP:GNG which states in part: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This article fails GNG, and WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:NOTADVOCACY - I mention the latter because of the one or two dog attacks by an unrecognized breed cited to questionable sources. It is important that, as editors, we provide accurate information and not conflate dog breed with dog type or worse, stereo-type a dog based on appearances. Misidentifying dogs creates multiple issues as per the following: USC's report, PLOS ONE, Smithsonian and Winograd here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Dorling Kindersley is indeed a reputable publisher, though not an academic one; the books do support the content in the page (and also give height, weight, and a scrap of history). There's other coverage in Springer Nature, in the American Journal of Veterinary Research, in the proceedings of the Conférence nationale des vétérinaires spécialistes de petits animaux, 1999 and in "alapaha+blue+blood"&hl=en Country Life, 1995. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it appears RS has been found and that is a good thing. I cannot view any of the google books links (perhaps it is a regional thing) and so cannot comment on their value. I ask that one of the contributors who introduced them incorporate some of that information into the article as currently it is abysmal. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:14, 21 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolve Inc.[edit]

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

promotional and with insufficient evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure puffery. A company notable for making an advert??. Nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm the author of this article. I'm also pretty new to all of this so sorry if I broke any rules. Not sure if this is the correct way to reply to the nomination for deletion discussion.

I created this separate article, This is a Generic Brand video. It's not so much an advertisement, as it is an indictment of cliches used by advertisers. It's an indirect commentary on formulaic pandering. The video was the first of a trilogy, which went on to mock generic presidential campaign ads as well as stereotypical ads targeting millennials.

It's actually quite brilliant making fun of ads in an ad. It's a double entendre! I discovered these in one of my lectures and felt like these videos deserved to be documented. It's like these troupes describe the socially accepted values during this select moment in time.

Anyway so this article is about the company behind these clever videos. Cool brand. Other company's have wiki articles, shouldn't this be acceptable? TylerDurden213 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerDurden213: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSINTERESTING and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 20 September 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) 06:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewelstreet[edit]

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

promotional article for unimportant company. Speedy declined on the basis of notable owner Paul Fraser. but it's not his main enterprise, and notability is not inherited from a businessman to every compan yhe's associated with . DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable company, run of the mill coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 13 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Gh. Simionescu[edit]

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

no evidence of any particular notability --and in any case would need a complete rewriting into understandable English. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He was a parish priest, who no doubt did good deeds, but nothing really extraordinary. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a parish priest of purely local significance, mainly sourced to untraceable oral sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name appears on the Council of Europe's list of prominent political prisoners, Doc, 547, 1956. Genium . 17:55, Sep 19, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5, then redirected. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmatic[edit]

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

Page should just redirect to the parent company, but creator just reverted from redirect to full article. Sources don't meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination: it's a single sentence about a division of a company. If it ever gets spun off as a subsidiary, with significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH independent of its parent company, then a separate article might be needed. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as specified - -the information is already in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:58, 13 September 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. –Darkwind (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barking fire[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, but I'm not at all convinced this is appropriate for Wikipedia. I declined the prod request because it technically passes GNG by virtue of news coverage, but this was a fairly routine fire which had no casualties and caused limited damage (the residents started moving back in just 5 days after the fire) to a single block. It got a disproportionate amount of news coverage because it was the first large fire in a London residential block after the Grenfell Tower fire rather than because there was any particular significance; the fire that destroyed central Walthamstow a couple of months later was orders of magnitude more significant in terms of damage caused and economic and social impact yet we wouldn't even consider giving it an article. Although this had a disproportional amount of coverage on the day, to me this is a fairly clear WP:109PAPERS case.

Plus, while I appreciate that AfD is not cleanup, in just 482 words this article manages to include a citation to the Daily Mirror, two raw URLs in the article text, and four unsourced paragraphs including one which is potentially libellous. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The Grenfell fire has resulted in much interest in the construction and regulation of cladding. Examples of other major fires naturally form part of this. The Grenfell article has a section which lists such examples and the Barking fire appears there. But that article is tagged as too long and so perhaps the details should be split off. These developments would best be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror and the bare URLs are gone, now. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pleased to see the improvements that have occurred in the last 24 hours, it shows WP at its best. I started the article because of its major political, emotional and sociological importance. The issue that made the Guardian so agitated was that it was a cladding fire, and post Grenfell that is a political and building issue- both here and in similar blocks. I like the suggestion of writing an article on the Walthamstow dhopping centre fire- could someone else start it as I don't do shopping malls but could help with the job loss aspect. I think the article is a sensible starting point, possibly with retrospect I would have chosen a different title but at the time this seemed the best choice. I would like to expand this to link or explain the Barking Reach develepment, the architectural structure and the involvement of Bellway and London and Quadrant.

I considered the WP:109PAPERS essay. To apply I think it must pass three tests- It must be 'of an instance' clearly the story starts with warnings being sent to builders, then there is the event and weeks later we are still waiting for legislation . Test failed. It must be a repetition from a single source (press release)- here we have, the Guardian a most notable national newspaper that we use as a source on WP repeatedly, then we have a reliable building trade journal giving the technical details (different nature) then we have a local paper giving the human interest. Test fails. Thirdly temporary notability- ok we are waiting the legislation but within housing, building and government this is established and will be raised again next time next time anyone dies in a fire in social housing. Test fails.ClemRutter (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill fire with no casualties. The contention that this event has "major political, emotional and sociological importance" is not supported. Already mentioned in Grenfell Tower fire#Similar_fires which is the appropriate level of coverage for this event.----Pontificalibus 06:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - If the coverage had died out in June/July I could understand this delete, but I see that it was still being covered in reliable sources in August and this month: 1 2 3. Whilst I am ambivalent about the likelihood that this topic will continue to receive sustained coverage, it is an example of an on-going phenomenon in British society (large buildings clad in energy-saving cladding burning down), and there is a strong likelihood of a report in the near future that may have further coverage. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, generally improved. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a classic case of WP:HEY with both additions of information -- and deletions of cruft. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 21 September 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. No reliable sources means that there is nothing that can be merged. Sandstein 07:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Claw (Batman)[edit]

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

A non-notable Batman villain that only appeared in a few episodes. No significant coverage and the only used reference is a wiki. SL93 (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Batman Family enemies per WP:PRESERVE. SL93 - We're getting a lot of these minor comic-book characters on AFD and the result is typically merger, so please consider merging per WP:DIY rather than going for a full AFD. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if merging would be appropriate with no reliable sources in the article and Red Claw never made a comic appearance. SL93 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article's referencing is not the decider. List of Batman Family enemies also includes animated series villains, but List of DC animated universe characters is also possible. FOARP (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quote, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." - Searching for reliable sources and then adding them to the content is not fixing through normal editing. If you want it merged, I suggest verifying it yourself. I wouldn't mind just a plain redirect at this point. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you're voting merge for a topic that isn't even reliably verified per a policy. Quote WP:BEFORE if you want, but I vote policy over guideline. SL93 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. I don't even know what to tell you if you think that adding references isn't "normal editing" and that it's OK to delete stuff without actually checking if references exist that aren't cited. I suggest you read WP:BEFORE again, then read WP:DP, particularly WP:ATD and especially WP:ATD-M. Here's some references it took me like 5 seconds to find confirming that, yes, Red Claw was an animated series character and should be an easy merge: 1 2 3 4. The Geek article makes me think this might even be possible to save as a stand-alone article but it would take a few more like that to properly support it and I don't have the time to look properly. FOARP (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. You still voted to merge unreferenced content and you quoted the notability guideline in a wrong way earlier. So how about we both messed up? SL93 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has been fun and all, but this can be merged now. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor character that has no real-world notability. There are zero reliable sources present in the article, and I have been unable to find anything of any substance. As there is no actual sourced material in the article to merge anywhere, and it is not a particularly plausible search term for a redirect, it should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 20 September 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. Sandstein 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Thomas (sportscaster)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, could not find any secondary reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV on him. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme case of sportscruft, some people think that anyone associated with sports is notable. What's next, biography articles for factory works making apparel worn by sportspeople? Anyway, more seriously, fails WP:NJOURNALIST too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thomas is a known sportscasting hosting ESPN's premier soccer studio show in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For me, that is reason enough to keep his wiki page. --Nigelnu (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Nigelnu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete the only sourcing is to his employers website. Nigelnu's argument does not work. If hosting this show was so important we would have outside sources discussing the fact he does so, including indepth coverage of him, which we don't have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Justice Society of America enemies. Sandstein 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Wasp[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. There are no worthwhile citations to assert notability. TTN (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Justice Society of America enemies. Reasonable search term and reasonable place to hold basic creation information.--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User talk:Killer Moff, also WP:PRESERVE. PS - User:TTN, not saying it's been you who's been doing them, but there have been a lot of these minor comic book character AFD nominations lately, merging them to a suitable over-arching topic is normally the result, so why not cut out the middle-man and DIY? FOARP (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though these articles have been mostly abandoned for a literal decade, there are still random fans who have yet to realize they can move to Fandom. They get in the way of any movement, regardless if it’s BOLD mass redirects/merges or a methodical “leave merge tags and merge discussions for X amount of time” situation. This is the only way to make sure it sticks, and deletion is honestly the best option in my opinion. TTN (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if people vote for it, and they're not likely to vote straight-delete in this case. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 13 September 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WonHwaDo[edit]

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

This article has no significant coverage in independent sources. The coverage is from the organization's own sites and fails to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is well put together but it appears to contain sources that either emanate from interested parties or are listings of books written by some leading figures in the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd submit a Weak Delete per nomination and on the basis of the commentary here, mine and others'. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no question this art exists. The problem is that, as both previous editors have mentioned, there is no significant independent coverage which is required to meet WP:GNG. My own search did not find any evidence that any SNG or GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Traditional Korean martial art" with no article on Korean Wikipedia? That's a big red flag. Sources seem mostly primary (company/creator website). As written, this likely fails WP:GNG. But I am open to revising my comment if someone can show coverage in Korean sources. I tried searching for 원화도 1972 on news/scholar but nothing jumped out, but my Korean is pretty poor. PS. Korean wikipedia article for this is a redirect to Hwarang which does not mention this term, as far as I can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 13 September 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. Sandstein 07:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bunch Bey[edit]

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

I don't see any accomplishments that meet WP:NBOXING and I don't see any non-routine sports reporting that shows he meets the GNG. Notability isn't inherited from once fighting someone who became notable. Sandals1 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage of him required to meet WP:GNG and there's no evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 02:38, 13 September 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) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Bullmastiff[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no RS to show this is a breed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another non-notable "new breed" recognized by an unrecognized, non-notable breed registry. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be recognised by the Sociedade Brasileira de Cinofilia, but it is not recognised by the FCI or any other major western kennel club. William Harristalk 11:53, 14 September 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) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calupoh[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no RS to show this is a breed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable - except for mention of it on the internet so it must be true. Not. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "breed standard" is mainly about the supposed - but unwitnessed - cross-breeding of wolves and dogs before Columbus. The final sentence presents this dog and suggests that it is a wolf-dog hybrid but with no genetic analysis to support this claim. (Unclear where they are getting their wolves from for this alleged hybridisation, given that back in the 1990s the few remaining Mexican wolf specimens were being used in a government breeding program to bring them back from the edge of extinction.) William Harristalk 12:05, 14 September 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) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mantiqueira Shepherd Dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG, absolutely no RS to show this is a breed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 02:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, no RS or official recognition/documentation that satisfy WP:V or establish it as a breed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be recognised by the Sociedade Brasileira de Cinofilia, but it is not recognised by the FCI or any other major western kennel club. William Harristalk 12:10, 14 September 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.