Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 September	24 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. ST47 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientious Arsonists[edit]

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

Delete There is no in-depth coverage of the sublject. Bisides that there are no third party sources: the few info on the organisation's activities is based completely on its claims (note that the Greek-language article has been deleted for lacking notability, cf. discussion). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be a little coverage in the BBC and other news, But article needs to be written properly. This appears to scale through WP:GNG Catorce2016 (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article on terrorism in Greece that could house the little that is sourced in this article? czar 00:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: This is an article on the organisation. It summarises a 2 page proclamation published by the organisation. And that is another short piece about it, again based on a proclamation. This is all we suppose to know about Conscientious Arsonists. No other coverage exists. I write "suppose" because all is based on the terrosists own claims and accounts of their actions. No verification from independent, third party sources exists. All is self referernced; all come from a primary soucre taken at face value. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems as if there isn't much material with which we can write an encyclopedia article, but if there were to be an article or list that summarized Greek terrorism, the news coverage mentioned above would seem to make these car fires worthy of inclusion in such a list. If there are no suitable redirect targets, agreed that it would suffice to delete. czar 01:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chalk19. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Tenčl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Very very poor referencing. Mostly books. Only one actual ref and that doesn't assert nowt. Possibly A7. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any references that qualify as third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's lots of books and tapes by him but insignificant coverage about him. No reliable sources that I see. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly all information found on him is his own writings or tapes. He seems to be notable in his own mind. The article also is missing inline citations and is very self serving. VViking_TalkEdits 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not clear enough Catorce2016 (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an article on cs.wiki but it is almost entirely referenced to self-published sources, just like this one. No evidence of independent notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't present enough notability. Barca (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps this could have been a speedy deletion. Edwardx (talk) 14:11, 27 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 09:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Achievers Awards[edit]

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

Non notable award created by branding agency. Huge number of categories. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No notability also claimed. Just existence isn't notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable awards meant for notable individuals. All the award winners are notable individuals in their fields and many of them have their wiki pages. Secondly, the Iconic Awards is featured on the news-related references cited such as:

1. Hindu Business 2. PTI News 3. CEO Magazine and a few others. With this I guess the topic passes WP:GNG. The future of the awards is also brighter in terms of garnering more notability. Let other editors weigh their ideas on this. Cheers MissiYasında&& (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of recipients does not get transferred to the award. See WP:NOTINHERITED. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in news media is established in line with WP:NCORP Catorce2016 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the large number of categories indicating it is a crock? scope_creep^Talk 07:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP does not apply to Awards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to above delete vote, please note that WBR Corp, the company that presents these awards is into brand management and PR. No wonder they throw trophies at large to various category of people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the number of categories dont bother me, but the awards fails WP:GNG. What I found was a few press releases, but not actual in-depth significant coverage. Cant comment on the future of the awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Usernamekiran.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charl Naude[edit]

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

PROD declined because he coaches an Olympian. Being an Olympian makes one notable, coaching one does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no citations. Fails WP:GNG completely.Catorce2016 (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Prod rationale was, "Not coaching athletes of a world-class level." I was responding to the rationale. Sorry for not checking WP:NSPORT. If coaching an olympian doesn't make one notable, so be it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 26 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 WP:SALTed by User:Athaenara as repeatedly recreated. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Felton Keith[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate and mostly WP:GNG because most of the significant coverage of Keith is not from reliable sources or directly about Keith himself. The article creator has exclusively made edits relating to Keith; either to this article, creating similarly promotional articles about Keith's ventures or affiliated organizations, or adding mentions of Keith to other articles. The editor has also made no WP:COI or WP:PAID disclosure. Even if Keith is found to be notable, this wildly promotional article and should be deleted and then recreated under WP:TNT to fit Wikipedia's standards. GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator, User:Itisandy, has since been banned for promotional editing and since the article has now been speedy deleted I guess this is closed. Maybe WP:SALT the article for now? Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:48, 24 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 Wrong article. Wrong article. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammed Madni Ashraf[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Presented references are name drops. scope_creep^Talk 21:55, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Malik[edit]

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

The thing that might make the subject of this article notable is that he was head of the Department of Sociology & Psychology for over 20 years at the University of the Punjab. However the article is almost entirely unsourced and his main claim to fame is apparently his prominence in the world of palm-reading, sourced only to a single obituary. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability supplied. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This person entirely fails to meet notability requirements. George Custer's Sabre 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NN. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not wp:notable. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's filled to the brim with dubious claims that can not be verified, such as a "special degree". One of thousands of writers on the occult. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability requirements due to lack of evidence of notable work. Also lacks significant coverage in reliable media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 20:39, 26 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 The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans. ST47 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Witwicky[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only reception is from something I'm not sure even counts as reliable. TTN (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Lots of plots. No sources for most. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a list of Transformers characters. Did you ever actually watch the cartoon? Daniel Witwicky was one of the most important human characters in the third season. JIP | Talk 10:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. "Have you even seen the cartoon? He's kind of a big deal." isn't an argument that will demonstrate the article is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ZXCVBNM. As much as I enjoy seeing articles about important characters in shows I enjoy, if no reliable sources write about them, they aren't notable. Rockphed (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans where he already exists. No merge needed. WP:CHEAP -2pou (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans per 2pou.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid V[edit]

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

Not convinced this meets WP:NCORP; its parent label, V Recordings, was WP:A7d by RHaworth in 2015. Laun chba ller 19:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the fourteen years this article has been here nobody has managed to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search for reliable sources was futile. Non-notable as a corporation, non-notable as a record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:55, 24 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 moved to draft; also salting to require administrative review before any draft is moved back to mainspace. All keep !votes are from inexperienced editors and likely sockpuppets. bd2412 T 14:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizaveta Shanaeva[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does meet #7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Skaters who qualify to the Junior Grand Prix Final can be presumed to have the ability to compete in the free skate at the World Junior Championships (criteria #2 at WP:NSKATE; only 6 teams can qualify to JGPF whereas 20 ice dance teams would compete in the free dance. Articles have been created for skaters at similar points in their skating career (i.e. qualified to JGPF, but have not yet competed at World Junior Championships) without being flagged for deletion; for example, Avonley Nguyen / Vadym Kolesnik and Anna Shcherbakova, Kamila Valieva.

Independence source : ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

simply meet both WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. (wrote reasons and news articles below with tagging comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanaones (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~strike dupe vote.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment - neither of the valid keep !votes are based on policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment(revise after striked) She is Russian ice dance pair of “Elizaveta Shanaeva/Devid Naryzhnyy” (which means they have same ground) and Devid Naryzhnyy’s article was judged to be kept yesterday:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I think this article was created in anticipation of her appearance at a WP:NSKATE event (that should happen sometime in the next ~year). Draftifying allows preserving the already entered information until the upcoming event (when more articles are expected but not guaranteed). Rockphed (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG

Elizaveta Shaneva/Devid Naryzhnyy intervewing with Ted Barton (Notability on WP:NSKATE-#2 Heads of national and international federations. #3 major national figure skating hall of fame) when they’ve qualified the Finals. (posted on official ISU chanel) https://youtu.be/THGV_kfdAWQ[1] Only 6 winning pair can be interviewed by him and be posted on ‘official ISU chanel’ above 80 ice dance pairs. As a former figurenskater at this point(first half of the season) for likely to search on wikipedia is ‘who qulified for finals and who are them?’ to figureskating fans. Because final is the only the biggest international event of 2 big events beld by ISU. (another one is Junior Championship which will held only 3 months later.)

comment (updated after additional sources found to support it meets WP:GNG) - Two reliable sources with sufficient depth-of-coverage;
News posted on International Skating Union

[2], [3],
over 20 news articles from Sports.ru [4] : (Sports.ru on Russia Wikipedia[5])
Interviewed by Press officer of FigureSkating Federation of Russia and both articles posted on the official page of Federation of Russia[6],[7]
Can be found on google : News from U.S. Figure Skating [8], News from Archworlds.com [9]

As rule WP:GNG specifically wroted “Reliable” : as Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media and ‘in any language’ , these News are all from googling her name with Russian(Шанаева Елизавета). only brought News having her pictures and their name on the main title of the news to verify “Significant Coverage” and “Reliable”. 1.[10], 2.[11], 3.[12], 4.[13], 5.[14], 6.[15], 7.[16], 8.[17], 9.[18],
10. and there are plenty of video(media) of her competiting only by googling her name.
11. plenty of photo articles published by Getty Images [19] (of her competing and getting on the podium at “international competitions” organized by International Skating Union)

12.Wikipedia:Notability clearly says “ Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards? A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.“

13.International Skating Union rulebook’s definition of ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating:The ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating (known as ISU Champions Series from 1995 to 1997) is a series of senior international figure skating competitions organized by the International Skating Union and The junior-level equivalent is the ISU Junior Grand Prix. Note that events such as the Olympic Winter Games and the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating are not ISU Championships however, they do count towards Personal Best scores and World Ranking.(ref:ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking) So qualifing Junior Grand prix final can be regarded as WP:NSKATE #2.(Skater’s articles created and remain on same reason as : Kamila Valieva, Anastasia Tarakanova,Viktoria Vasilieva,Andrei Mozalev,Daniil Samsonov) — Preceding unsigned, comment added by Joanaones (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC) User was created the day after this and another related AfD were opened. Almost all of the edits of this user were on those two AfD's.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Hmm... is there any probelm with it? I simply saw on figure skating forum one of russian ice skater’s article is about to be delete because of the lack of the knowledge on FS so I came and which is true. here I came, watched over and added my own opinion. Didnt know wikipedia has this many skater’s article!! and I think it’s really delightful thing as a old figure skating fan😊 Wish my humble opinons can contribute to talented figure skaters who mark their names in this field. thanks to this special ocaasion i think i can contribute other articles too! Guess there is no point to put rage unless you are taking russian ice dancers personally? (I believe not❤️) I simply think there is no reason this article has to be delete and reason is I wrote on there so... If administrator consider my acts as a backfire i feel 100% fine to erase my vote but wish they consider deeply on my comments below.[reply]

comment I am sorry but User:onel5969 is taking this unreasonably. I admit I got upset and said harsh words at her talk page but this is wrong. First of all I want to ask the user she really read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion - on “Nomination” and followed the process? To he honest it wasnt me erased the proposed flag she(or he) marked on Elizaveta Shanaeva. Can check on edit of the article.

user:Sunyou31 erased the proposed flag with reasonable explanations.: (Qualification for the Junior Grand Prix Final suggests a level of skill equal to #2 in WP:NSKATE – competing in the free skate at World Junior Championships). But User:onel5969 once again ignored the explanations and put Nominated for deletion “right away”. As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion - on “Nomination” said there are like 20ways before considering the nomination. User didnt engaged on previous AFD she flagged but after it got keeped yesterday and I informed her it got keeped so she should not put flag on JGP Final qualifiers (somewhat in harsh words i admit) and she suddenly put her every effort on this AFD. At this moment I won’t mind it got deleted but I wish User:onel5969 reads the Nominated for deletion carefully and do as it says next time. : First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before. Check the "what links here" link to see how the article is being used within Wikipedia.p Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation. Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted. It clearly proved you didnt research in other language, didnt find “what links here” link(because there were almost 10 links of her name), and you didnt find independent sources either. And also ignored “Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted”. I understand your hard working on Wikipedia and i appreciae it but at least you can consider every possibility as the guidline says. I think it’s fine to delete the article. At first I was surprised and feel wrong by there were no problems with plenty of single skaters who has the same base and only the article i’ve invested on Ice dancers got flagged “here” but now I admit it can happen and I feel fine with it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Edward Campbell[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria or WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in independent sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Citations on Google scholar for author:James-E-Campbell (omitting unrelated hits from the more notable political scientist with the same name) are 560 (An approach to sensitivity analysis I), 202 (An approach to sensitivity analysis II), 34+30+15+14 (Risk methodology for geologic disposal, four hits), 11 (Distributed velocity method of solving the convective-dispersion equation), etc. The first two numbers are good but the very rapid tail-off makes it hard to justify a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I'm having difficulty finding anything in-depth about him even from his employer, even to justify the claim of being a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff. As for the claim to having developed Latin hypercube sampling, our article on that topic lists two other publications as having first proposed the technique, with Campbell being one of three authors who "further elaborated" it. I don't think that's enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not a coherent topic, and the concerns about it being incoherent also speak against using a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blind credential[edit]

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

Unreferenced personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This 2003 article has gone nowhere in 16 years because it has nowhere to go. According to the deletion policy of the time this would be a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic". It was actually challenged as such on the article's talk page in April 2004. It is not actually a computer science concept. It is not Chaum's blind signatures, which are another article entirely. It is not Chaum's anonymous credentials, which are to be found at digital credential#Anonymous. It is not blinding (cryptography). It is not anything.
Matt Crypto (talk · contribs) wrote in 2004 that xe could not find this concept anywhere. That is almost still true today. With some exceptions that do not count, it isn't in the literature, which has the aforementioned instead. It isn't an alternative name for anything in the literature, moreover.
The only places where this turns up in the literature are papers by people who have since plagiarized Wikipedia, and whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy (and knowing their own subject) should be lessened accordingly, by copying either this sentence from the authentication article that EntmootsOfTrolls (talk · contribs) wrote 4 minutes after writing the article at hand or this sentence where it was rewritten in 2008 by Beland (talk · contribs) as part of a merger. Some examples:
- Erbes 2008, p. 900 is lifted from authentication before the rewrite.
- Afizi 2015, p. 18 didn't plagiarize Wikipedia word for word xyrself, as xe credits a 2007 paper by Le Xuan Hung for the text in xyr review of the literature.
- Hung's research taxonomy paper (Hung, p. 4) still includes this sentence today. Sadly, Hung cites a whole bunch of things except for the 2006 version of the Wikipedia article that xyr section on authentication is lifted from word-for-word.
- Prasad et al. 2012, p. 455 is lifted from the post-rewrite version of the Wikipedia article.
This is a completely idiosyncratic non-topic, that highlights rampant plagiarism of Wikipedia in substandard computer science literature. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Erbes, Milan (2008). "Smart Home and Health Telematics". In Helal, Abdelsalam; Mokhtari, Mounir; Abdulrazak, Bessam (eds.). The Engineering Handbook of Smart Technology for Aging, Disability, and Independence. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470379356.
- Afizi, Mohd Shukran Mohd (2015). "Literature review". Novel approach of authentication using pixel value graphical password scheme. Anchor Academic Publishing. ISBN 9783954899135.
- Hung, Le Xuan. "Research Taxonomy" (PDF). u-Security Research Group.
- Prasad, P. E. S. N. Krishna; Prasad, B. D. C. N.; Chakravarthy, A. S. N.; Avadhani, P. S. (2012). "Password Authentication Using Context-Sensitive Associative Memory Neural Networks". In Meghanathan, Natarajan; Chaki, Nabendu; Nagamalai, Dhinaharan (eds.). Advances in Computer Science and Information Technology. Computer Science and Engineering: Second International Conference, CCSIT 2012, Bangalore, India, January 2-4, 2012. Proceedings, Part 2. Springer. pp. 454–468. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27308-7_49. ISBN 9783642273087.

I don't see my edit in the history, but just skimming this I'd lean toward making this a redirect to Digital credential#Anonymous. This seems to be another name for that concept. -- Beland (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not my area of content knowledge, but I did find the use of this term in other academic literature in google books. See here: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digital credential#Anonymous. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge but the term 'Blind Credential' can be added to the target if a sufficiently reliable source mentions it. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. "Blind credential" seems to be another term for "anonymous credential", and if not, a plausible misunderstanding that seems to get searched for even without the AfD. Using context clues and some searching, "Blind credential" seems to actually imply "Blind signature credential", which is using blind signatures to provide credentials. There is no possibility for another target for the article, as the "digital credential#anonymous" is the only possible destination for the term. One may think that "blind credential" could be redirected to "blind signature", but the latter refers to the encryption of the signature, while the former seems to be the methods used to verify legitimacy of the blind signatures, or their credentials. In this case, because we are in the realm of cryptography, I imply digital credentials when I speak of [credential]]s. I'll agree that the article shouldn't exist on its own, but the article talks about the relationship between blind signatures and digital credentials. It should encompass a subsection of an existing article at most. The article has a decent history, which is NOT actually my premise for redirection but simply an add-on. I'm willing to change my vote if somebody could clarify my understanding of the subject. Utopes (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the sources mentioned by User:4meter4.
The first source (a better link to it is here) does construct something called a "blind credential"; however, they are using the term for a new type of primitive, not referring to any other "blind credentials" in the literature. The second source is about smart contracts; I don't think that is the type of credential the current article is talking about. The third source does not even contain the words "blind credential" but rather "credential" and "blind signature". Similarly to the first source, the fourth source defines a novel notion of "blind credential" as part of their larger anonymous credential scheme.
In summary, all these sources suggest to me is that on occasion, a few security researchers have used the words "blind credential" to refer to perhaps related, but distinct notions. There is no well-known and universally accepted "blind credential" primitive common to a larger body of work. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NEO. I found no sources for this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:37, 27 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 withdrawn. So Why 13:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Sauvé[edit]

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

Not notable. Only assertion of notability is that she is a candidate in forthcoming election, so sadly fails WP:NPOL. CSD-A7 was rejected as "candidate für a notable office from a notable party. Consider merging to election's article per WP:ATD-M", but she's only one inexperienced candidate in one constituency of a national election. PamD 12:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: agree that Redirect is best option. Will do so. PamD 13:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abbotsford (electoral district)#Election results where she is mentioned in the table as a likely search term per WP:ATD. Regards So Why 13:10, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worshipp Khanna[edit]

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

Moved from draft by creator after rejection, I can find no in-depth coverage beyond the usual listings, Linked In, IMDb and Facebook etc Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing seems to show his notability for Wikipedia inclusion 10MB (talk) 07:34, 30 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 Witch & Wizard. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch & Wizard: The Gift[edit]

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

Not much coverage for The Gift novel. May not meet WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW I found an LA Times review --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Darth Mike, maybe it's better to merge the articles? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The page Witch & Wizard already has sections for each book. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the merge consensus above by Darth Mike and Tyw7. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Darth Mike and Tyw7.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saunkh. Consensus is pretty clear that in this form the topic does not meet notability guidelines even if it's not a hoax. There is apparently some wiggle room here so going for a redirect in lieu of deletion, and going for a redirect over draftification because - this being a historical person rather than an upcoming company/person or upcoming whatever - it does not seem like its notability status would change within a timeframe short enough to justify putting the article into draftspace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Hathi Singh sonkh[edit]

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

This article looks to be of dubious historical accuracy. The first source, the book [24] "Maharaja Hathi Singh Tomar, only ruler of north india , who captured the mewat region after defeating mughal forces" looks impressive (published by the "World History Research Organisation"), but the publisher or organisation seems to be brand new, has no reputation I can find, and only one topic of research so far, the Tomar Emperors.

It will need some specialists to judge whether this is a hoax, a puff piece about a local ruler of little importance, or some neglected piece of history for which we have good sources, just not in English. So far, the latter seems unlikely though. Fram (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no results coming on a source search. This is a possible hoax. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft for now. From what I found out, this is not a hoax, but an article about a not so important chieftain. It seems Hathi Singh was a chieftain who build a mud fortress near Sonkh. Some references
1. "hati+singh"+sonkh&dq="hati+singh"+sonkh - A large archaeological expedition at Sonkh, about 22 km. to north west of Mathura was undertaken ... It was known as the Garhi (fortress) of a Jat. chief Hati Singh who was a contemporary of Suraj Mai and Jawahar Singh of ...
2. "hati+singh"+sonkh&dq="hati+singh"+sonkh - ...artificial plateau within the fields of Sonkh, fourteen miles as the crow flies from Mathura and some eight miles south of ... It was built by a Jät named Hati Singh, of the time of Suraj Mall of Bharatpur, or Jawähir Singh;
3. "hati+singh"+sonkh&dq="hati+singh"+sonkh The nomenclature of the mound, 'Hati Singh-ki-garhi', preserves the memory of a Jat Chief, Hati Singh, who built a mud fortress here in the eighteenth century when Suraj Mai was on the throne of Bharatpur. Sonkh, according to some, derives ... --DreamLinker (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As already clarified by DreamLinker, this is not a hoax, and the subject's name is Hati Singh: Raja means king in Hindi language, and Sonkh is the place he ruled. But he has seemingly received just passing mentions in academic sources, mainly in connection with the excavations at Sonkh, which were carried out by German art historian Dr. Herbert Härtel. Here are relevant quotes from two of the three sources provided by DreamLinker:

a) Sharma:^[2]

Sonkh Excavations: A large archaeological expedition at Sonkh, about 22 km. to north west of Mathura was undertaken by Dr. Herbert Härtel, Director of Indian Art Museum, Berlin and Professor in Free University. The work commenced in the year 1966, continued for eight years and was wound up in 1974. The excavators looked for an undisturbed site and they chose the lofty mound just at the northern outskirts of village Sonkh. It was known as the Garhi (fortress) of a Jat chief Hati Singh who was a contemporary of Suraj Mal and Jawahar Singh of Bharatpur in the 18th century.

b) Härtel:^[3]

Other records concern the more recent history of Sonkh, the period of the Jäts. According to Growse the "old fort" was, as already quoted, built by a Jät named Hati Singh, of the time of Sûraj Mall of Bharatpur, or Jawähir Singh. We have reason to assume that the Jät mud fortress of Sonkh was built at the same time as the rubble-and-mud citadel of Dig under Badan Singh (1722-56) by his son, the then prince regent Suraj Mall. Sonkh is also mentioned as one of the four strongholds of the Jäts in the reign of Aurangzeb (Qanungo 1925: p. 341).

Härtel and Sharma seem like prominent scholars of their field, and the Google Scholar Citation Index of their above books are 87 & 72 respectively. Similar details of Hati Singh are also present in other sources, e.g. [25], [26], [27], etc.

Although I have access to only snippet view of the above sources, the subject seems non-notable to me. DreamLinker, I guess we should add a line or two at Saunkh regarding Hati Singh, and delete/redirect the above article. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ifsmagazine.com/2019-jgp-chelyabinsk-russia/
^ Sharma, Ramesh Chandra (1984). Buddhist art of Mathurā. Agam Kala Prakashan. p. 84. ISBN 978-8193845745. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
^ Härtel, Herbert (1993). Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 Years of a Town in Mathura District. D. Reimer. p. 13. ISBN 978-3496025030. Retrieved 29 September 2019.

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dujuan Thomas[edit]

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

Minor coverage related to two incidents he was involved in but only tabloid stuff afaict (he once accused Mel B of striking him). I cannot access ref #5 due to geoblocking but from GNews preview it does not look like much either. No significant coverage about him anywhere as far as I can tell, so fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I didn’t support this when it was an AFC submission, as it clearly failed WP:NACTOR/WP: ANYBIO, and I cannot see any significant improvements since then. IMDb is not an acceptable source and the other sources do not demonstrate significant coverage. Clear attempt to inflate the individual’s importance to something that it isn’t. Dan arndt (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Wikipedia Notability ( people ) states that if any of the criteria is met that a person is notable.

Dujuan does fit in as WP:ENT which states Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: as he clearly has notable works in film,print, runway modeling and online episodes as noted in IMDb ( a credible and only source that signifies actors as verified) he also has a large following (cult following) across his many platforms as refrenced.

He also qualifies for Wp:Author which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Which he has produced and wrote a notable film.

Should I Include more ? Because at this point I've covered several things that cover this individual.

Also So there are actually hundreds of media outlets that covered the Mel B incident, such as MSN and Yahoo News. As well as the TV show I refrenced on the article, but I did not go into depth due to the allegations not being finalized in court.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbycarroll: Indeed, there are a number of sources that covered said incident (hardly hundreds though), however, all such coverage for Thomas boils down to "a male model" or "a male model says ...". It's not an in-depth coverage of Thomas himself and even if it were, it would fall under WP:BIO1E. Regards So Why 17:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need blatent promotion of an absolute nobody thank you. This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and all applicable WP:SNG. Recomend WP:SALT. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI HOUNDING (John from Idegon) you have wiki hounded me my entire time on wikipedia please refrain from blatant disrespect. I have given several reasons why this individual is notable and this is not a promotion. This article qualifies under WP:ENT & WP:AUTHOR Abbycarroll (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add as well in WP:Npossible it states "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Also stated in that articles says that reliable sources do not have to be in English if you do research, there are hundreds of Articles covering :Dujuan Thomas: across the world. Abbycarroll (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the Mel B incident and his tangential involvement in a robbery, I find no significant coverage of Thomas as an entertainer or author or in any other capacity. There are no reliable sources to support notability for an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Those are notable stories/coverage in accordance with Wiki. It states the articles content itself does not have to correlate to be notable.

The Television shows he was covered in also count as reliable sources. Dish Nation and Paducah2.

The Paducah2 source actually covered all of his work as an actor/writer and model. And his large following ( which counts as notable in accordance with WP:ENT

Abbycarroll (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NACTOR and blatant promotion. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not make a credible claim of notability, with a handful of very inconsequential achievements; sources don't amount to much. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are other local and/or unreliable. He's met some famous people and talked to them. So have lots of student journalists and me and your cousin. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
- No apparent significant news coverage from reliable sources outside of Mel B complaint (see "subjects notable only for one event").
- No apparent significant secondary source coverage of his role as a "celebrity interviewer, model, actor, cinematographer, photographer, and business owner."
- WP:NPOSSIBLE: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." – Archer1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- The article does have credibility of notability from my research. WP:NACTOR is covered with his work in Film, and his social following. After reviewing his television appearances which are a credible source of his celebrity status. It seems that some users are putting personal opinions above Wikipedia norms. However I think more research can be done and sources added to better this article. But at this time it does meet a basic minimum requirement to be included in the encyclopedia. Topoint22 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Topoint22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His social following? The article claims "a following of over 11 thousand on Instagram". Wikipedia does not as far as I am aware use number of followers on social media as a guide to notability. Even where it does even mention followers, it tends to talk in terms of multiple millions of followers being worth mentioning, and even then an independent reliable source is required to say that that is a notable number of followers. It is not acceptable to use as a source the subject's own social media page. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the creator of this article has been blocked for socking, I've G5 speedy nominated this. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how G5 works; I've declined the G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, nothing Thomas has done is wikisignificant, no sources cited in article or found (allbeit with a quick gsearch only) discuss is work indepth (plus many of them are not wikireliable). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:38, 27 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters[edit]

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

Badly sourced list of mostly non-notable fictional creatures. Most of the monsters in the lists are not individually notable, and most don't even have any description besides their names. Not a very active user (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are articles that we can write about D&D. There are probably a few articles on D&D specific monsters we can write. This article does not fall into that category. It is essentially a table of contents for every monster book published between 2000 and 2010 by Wizards of the Coast. The current sourcing is all primary and I do not foresee any secondary sourcing arising. Rockphed (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rockphed. As mentioned, this is basically just a transcription of the table of contents of various D&D books, making it more of an attempted game guide than a valid list. Its not even particularly useful as a navigation tool, as many of the entries that are actual links just lead to other lists of D&D monsters. And while there may be some valid sources regarding some notable D&D monsters, there is really not anything discussing the notability of specifically the 3rd Edition monsters as a group, causing the list to fail the notability requirements of a stand alone list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable in the slightest. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. This is a list of minor monsters similar to the deleted lists of Mario and Zelda enemies._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It certainly isn't badly sourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say it's badly sourced, just totally WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no secondary sources to prove that it is encyclopedic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its badly sourced in the sense that the sources are entirely primary. There are no secondary sources included to indicate notability for this grouping of monsters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with all the other lists currently up for deletion, it's pure game guide material. The number of notable monsters probably ranges in the two to three dozen range, not the hundreds like the current lists. There can be a brand new list made that encompasses just those if it's deemed necessary. TTN (talk) 18:13, 29 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. ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoox (company)[edit]

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

So highly promotional as to need complete rewriting. As written , the article implies that the firm has created fully autonomous vehicles on a completely original design and gotten a permit to use them.

It has not done that. It has gotten a permit to use retrofitted conventional vehicles as autonomous vehicles, and hopes to develop its totally new design. It seems to be at an early stage of testing, based on the sources.

I tried to adjust it on the basis of the sources, but it would take complete rewriting. The company does seem to be notable , so it would be worth someone doing it. If anyone wants to rewrite, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I've given it a five-minute re-write. I will leave for others to determine whether it now makes the grade. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It does have some sources which raise above the level of press-releases and business as usual reports that pollute this category. Stil, CNBC coverage is a video. news.com.au is a WP:INTERVIEW, NPR and Gizmodo halfway, but Wired and SFChronicle articles seem rather decent. I can't access full text of the WSJ article, but the odds are it is decent too, I mean, it WSJ. As 90% of my votes on company's AfDs are 'delete this spam', well, I can't say it this time, this company likely passes NCORP/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company based on coverage in Forbes, Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, Business Insider, NPR, Wired, Axios, etc. just a terribly done article. Trillfendi (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are you perhaps willing to rewrite it? DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super sad keep Props to them for being able to generate news.com.au coverage out of the question of what do they do. The answer is try to invent self driving cars. Even more credit to them for being able to generate so much coverage that refers to them as mysterious or secretive. Clearly their PR knows what it's doing. While most of the coverage is routine, non-notablity generating stuff like funding and personnel moves, the CNBC video, news.com.au, and Wired all strike me as NCORP compliant and thus notability establishing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Shadows (EP)[edit]

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

Two passing, WP:ROUTINE mentions. No WP:SIGCOV and I can't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angels & Airwaves per WP:NALBUM, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" - as there is nothing substantial here to merge, a redirect is appropriate - Epinoia (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wonder if the nominator and the previous voter really searched for sources of if they just looked at the present state of the article. The EP made the Billboard charts, a fact that is presently cited in the article, and thus qualifies for WP:NALBUM #2. Professional notice was admittedly scanty but it was covered briefly at LouderSound ([28]) and a few other places, and received a robust review at Sputnik Music ([29]). Thus it has a few reliable sources per WP:NALBUM #1. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doomsdayer520: Why yes, I did do WP:BEFORE. Billboard did not return any chart results in my search. I'm wondering if you know the difference between a professional and a staff review at Sputnik, but glad to see you know the different between WP:ROUTINE coverage as offered at LouderSound and the sort of coverage required for notability criteria. Now, all that charting really did not result in a lot of coverage so delete the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footnotes seven through ten in the article go to working pages at Billboard indicating that the record reached the charts there. That satisfies #2 at WP:NALBUM, and that policy also says "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria." You have a point about the non-staff review at Sputnik but I intended for that be an example of minor media coverage. Perhaps that is a stretch, but you're the one who missed the Billboard chart placements in that BEFORE search of yours. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - But charting alone simply suggest that they "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." (see the preamble to WP:MUSICBIO) The charting did not result in any recognition of the work so clearly, it fails any reasonable understanding of what notable is. Redirecting the entry to the band's discography section would maintain all of the charting information and nothing would be lost. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 24 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 Shutterstock#Facilities and staff. WP:ATD-R czar 02:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thilo Semmelbauer[edit]

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

No claim nor evidence of notability as an individual. No biographical coverage in third-party RSes. WP:BEFORE shows only a tiny number of passing mentions. PROD declined as president of two notable companies - but there literally doesn't seem to be the material in RSes to base a BLP on. David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shutterstock#Facilities and staff where they are mentioned - not mentioned in the Insight Partners article so a redirect to Shutterstock seems indicated - Epinoia (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 23 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Digital Awards[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this award - I find no references about the award ceremony itself, merely the press-release style announcement and mentions of several different but similarly-named awards. [30] has a different date and place than the one reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable article with plenty of RS [31]; [32]; [33] and [34]. This is the same award. Some countries have their editions e.g. the "Ghana edition, which is also the maiden event of the Africa Digital Awards", Nigeria edition, etc. A slightly similar format to Eurovision Song Contest. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 23 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial creature[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable fictional "creature". It is not even an actual monster, so to speak, just a template that can be applied to any animal in D&D. There is no indication of notability at all on this concept, as evidenced by the fact that only reference being used is a single, primary source and that any additional reliable sources that discuss this concept in any depth don't exist. Rorshacma (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we will find any non-primary sources discussing this particular phenomenon except in passing. A retrospective on D&D 3rd edition might mention templating monsters since it was a major part of the game system, but I doubt they would dedicate space to discussing the ability to turn any creature into an angelic version of itself except, as I just did, in passing. I don't think this is a valid redirect term both because I think the proposed redirect target should be deleted and because celestial creature might also point at Uma Thurman. Rockphed (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely vague term that can also apply to real life mythology, especially the angels and seraphs. Article has no notability. Maybe bundle this with Celestial (Dungeons & Dragons) though?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crufty, poorly sourced (only one and it's primary,) fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belker[edit]

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

Extremely minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are no non-primary sources being used in the article, and I have been unable to locate anything else. Rorshacma (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be redirected to the same place where Belkar currently redirects to, as it is a possible misspelling. 46.132.185.56 (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect the current page is pretty much WP:NOT. It is a possible misspelling of Belkar, so, inasmuch as that target is borderline notable, it is a viable redirect target. Rockphed (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters is at AFD, so the merge suggestion has little weight. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 25 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhawk[edit]

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

Completely un-notable fictional creature. There are no non-primary sources being used in the article, and I have found nothing significant showing any sort of real world notability upon searches. There are a handful of other things bearing the same name, such a a novel and a former hedge fund group, but they have no relation to this creature. Rorshacma (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the proposed target for the merge is also being considered for deletion. Not a very active user (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be totally non-notable and a minor fictional animal._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character is not notable enough for its own page. — Kstone999 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic with no potential whatsoever. TTN (talk) 18:12, 29 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Sinha[edit]

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

WP is not Guiness worlds records DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sufficiently narrowly defined, everyone holds a world record for something. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single event, no other coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance, this might appear to be a WP:BLP1E. However, Sinha also garnered media attention for setting a different world record ("Most Miniature Paintings on a Single Canvas") and there are a bunch of sources that aren't yet cited in the article, both English ([35][36][37]) and non-English ([38] [39]). Sinha lists more sources on his website. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is enough coverage to establish notability, but just wanted to point out the additional sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging Vexations and ThatMontrealIP in case they would like to consider these sources.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will stick with delete. Both activites are a bit silly, and I wonder if they are actually true. I am pretty sure there are larger oil paintings out there somewhere. As @DGG: says, we are not the Guiness World Book of Records. Even if this potentially meets gng by virtue of coverage of world record events, I am inclined to IAR and keep with delete on the basis that these events are non-events.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, those sources contradict the claim that Sinha created "World’s largest professional oil painting by a single artist". To quote: While painting is something that Sandeep enjoys and uses as a medium of stress management, he currently works as an IT Professional with Tech Mahindra, Pune (originally hailing from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh). The artist uses acrylic colours. (emphasis mine). Vexations (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, bear in mind that the source you're quoting is from June 2017, while Sinha didn't begin work on the oil painting until August 2018. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, I'm rather concerned that the reporters do not know the difference between oil and acrylic paints. The Hindustan Times wrote: He then turned towards oil paintings. "Gradually I found my love for acrylics." This is all to silly for words. The subject is a hobbyist who gets attention for setting records for some narrowly defined goal that no-one else has even attempted to break. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you Vexations. This source says that Sinha's work was exhibited at the Raja Ravi Verma Art Gallery, so I don't think it's fair to say that he has only received attention for setting obscure records. However, that exhibition on its own isn't enough to pass WP:NARTIST, and, like you, I'm not thrilled about the quality of the sources. I'll see if I can find additional sources that would establish Sinha's general notability, but right now I'm leaning towards deleting the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The show at the Raja Ravi Varma Art gallery was only two days long, and it was at a vanity gallery devoted to showing the work of the artist Raja Ravi Verma. The gallery opened in 2014 and is now permanently closed. That does not seem significant. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even with the new material Lord Bolingbroke posted above, the subject of this article does not meet WP:ARTIST criteria. There seem to be no significant exhibitions or museum collections. I'm not convinced it is enough to garner media media attention for world records. Netherzone (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple Guinness World Records do not constitute multiple events, still falls under BLP1E as an artist famous for earning obscure Guinness World Records. Any other events do not satisfy notability criteria for WP:ARTIST. On a different note @DGG:, "WP is not Guinness worlds records" is such a fantastic phrase that I'm tempted to make a WP:NGUINNESS redirect to WP:NOT. Utopes (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought we had one. Following your suggestion, I added it. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 26 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. The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 1950s[edit]

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

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of doing these individually you could’ve consolidated them into one AfD...Trillfendi (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did he list six articles at AfD or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself.... " Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually seven of these pages but only five have been nominated. "Thought I was having trouble with my adding. It's all right now." Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic (but Lugnuts' joke is a a good one). Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excessive details running riot, e.g. "Eastwood and his wife moved into an apartment at Villa Sands at 4040 Arch Drive off Ventura Boulevard to be closer to the Universal lot, also occupied by fellow Universal actresses Gia Scala and Lili Kardell." This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These pages were reviewed in 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and work of Clint Eastwood; the result was a strong consensus to keep. Consensus can change, but I don't see a reason why it should in this case. As multiple commenters pointed out, the topic is notable and these are legitimate subpages, so article deletion is not a realistic option here, even if merger might be. AfD isn't the right place to discuss what is more properly a question of how much content is "too much" and how many spinoff pages are too many. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Just direct readers to the single book this is wholly sourced to, don't turn this into an entire book by itself. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 1960s[edit]

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

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic. Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large topic, and an example of what articles we should have. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excessive details running riot, e.g. "... Eastwood's wife Maggie came over for a visit. She found time to take a break in Toledo, Segovia and Madrid and regularly read Time magazine." Well, whoop dee doo. This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Just direct readers to the single book this is wholly sourced to, don't turn this into an entire book by itself. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 2000s[edit]

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

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic. Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~Excessive details running riot. This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article.~~ Not too detailed, but there's no reason to single out a single decade. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article. Although in this case, I really mainly do not see any reason to split this out from the main article. I see this as craziness causing. What next Pope John Paul II in the 1980s, Gordon B. Hinckley in the 1990s, etc. This is craziness causing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 1980s[edit]

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

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic. Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excessive details running riot, e.g. "Later on, he drives a Dark Maple Red Metallic 1980 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency 4-door sedan." This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Just direct readers to the book this is almost wholly sourced to, don't turn this into an entire book by itself copying every fact in that one. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 1970s[edit]

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

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic. Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~Excessive details running riot. This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article. This nomination should have been bundled.~~ This consists of information about the films he acted in or directed. Any useful, unduplicated material can go in the individual film articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Just direct readers to the single book this is wholly sourced to, don't turn this into an entire book by itself copying every fact in that one. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chess ICT[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:ORGCRIT and has no substantial coverage in WP:RS and WP:IS as PRoDded earlier here by User:Rosguill, but was deprodded by the author without any substantial change (rev). Article is full of PR links in wiki and on the web, and the only thing that author is claiming as significant for notability (1st rank in Top 100 Best Companies to Work For) doesn't really qualify to have an article on its own as it is a one-time thing (the current rank is 12) and is only valid within UK. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH (all the sources are routine business announcements) or WP:GNG. Its only claim to fame is "1st place in The Sunday Times Best Companies to Work For" which is not enough for an article. A quick Google search doesn't help. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:37, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters[edit]

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

Completely unsourced list with no indication of the subject's real-world notability. It also has about a dozen empty sections. Not a very active user (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nom, seems like possible WP:OR violation as well.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait, didn't I just comment on this? Oh, that was for the list of 3rd edition monsters, not 3.5 edition monsters. There might be a place for articles on D&D monsters on Wikipedia. This article just shows that either D&D is not nearly as culturally intrusive as its proponents think or that there is a massive media conspiracy to ignore it at every turn. There are no secondary sources. I could see, maybe, having a "List of D&D monsters" article that listed monsters that are either unique to D&D (e.g. the Beholder) or are uniquely interpreted by D&D (Bahamut and Tiamat), but not making a giant table of contents of every book published by Wizards of the Coast between 2000 and the present.Rockphed (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters, this list is basically just a transcription of the table of contents of a bunch of D&D books. Its not particularly useful as a navigation tool, and there are no reliable sources discussing specifically the 3.5 D&D monsters as a group, making it fail the notability requirements of stand alone lists. Like Rockphed said, a singular list of the few actual notable D&D monsters would probably be a valid list, with actual sources to support the notability of the grouping. These basically copied book contents, however, are not and do not. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Non notable directory listing of minor monsters with no context information._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It certainly isn't unsourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per other editors, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above, currently pure game guide material. TTN (talk) 18:11, 29 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isomag Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing per WP:ORG. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. News search shows press releases and mentions but nothing credible that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:08, 26 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pharaoh Francis[edit]

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

I recognize that this will be controversial, as I guess all 2nd noms are. No new coverage (that I can find). Article sourced almost exclusively to book listings, not secondary sources. The one other source is a book review. ~~Subject seems to be a prolific author (250 books is nothing to sneeze at)~~ but no indication that she is at all a notable one. Fails GNG as well as NAUTHOR Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I conflated the numbers I read. She has less than 20 books and a couple short stories. Hydromania (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Published much, noted little (that I can find). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep While I haven't found a huge number of reviews, there are multiple reviews of two of her novels, Path of Fate (in SF Site Featured Reviews, Voice of Youth Advocates, Booklist and the Kliatt Young Adult Paperback Book Guide) and The Cipher (in a lengthy review/profile in The Montana Standard, a substantial review in Press and Sun-Bulletin, and (again) Booklist (whose reviewer seems to have read and reviewed most of Francis' novels!)). I also find a search result in Genreflecting: A Guide to Popular Reading Interests, 8th Edition (2019), but I can only see the index page on the Google Books preview, not the page she appears on. I would say that this meets WP:NAUTHOR#3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I removed all the references to her own works, so it's now much easier to see which are reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added five more (unfortunately offline) published reviews. I think there's enough here for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, I think there's enough here in the way of reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you David Eppstein for adding additional sources. The ones in this article look better to me than the ones in her biography on encyclopedia.com, however that includes visions2004. it appears she also is involved in literature criticism for her academic work, a chapter in Sci-Fi, imperialism and the third world.^[1]. Fred (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Science fiction, imperialism and the Third World : essays on postcolonial literature and film. Hoagland, Ericka, 1975-, Sarwal, Reema. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. 2010. ISBN 9780786457823. OCLC 667271538.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Comment Changing Weak Keep to Keep based on the additional reviews added by David Eppstein. (I also found the academic articles she has written, but they do not appear to be cited much, so I didn't think it worth including them.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:56, 26 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Base 11 Numeral System[edit]

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

Already stated in List of numeral systems. No need to merge because it's a stub. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is only two sentences long, and does not say much other than stating the obvious. It is badly written - "a addition" should be "an addition". Vorbee (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As this article is uncited and possibly WP:OR derived from duodecimal, there is no content suitable for merging. I cannot find many sources detailing the subject that may be used to expand this article (there really is only one aspect – the bit about the French Revolution – that has been covered, but is only two sentences that already exist in List of numeral systems), so I'd say it fails WP:GNG. Additionally, the title is rather wordy and thus not ideal for a redirect; undecimal and base 11 suffice for that. Hence, delete. ComplexRational (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I disagree with ComplexRational claim to OR, the topic of the article is already covered at the list of number systems. Still, there isn't substantial content worth merging here that isn't covered there, as Base 11 was never really notable in its own right, and a redirect would not work either. So in the end, it isn't that there are no sources or that original research is present, but that the topic is extremely insignificant and does not possess any coverage besides routine definitions. So delete. Utopes (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: The bit about using X (dek) as a digit for 10 is what struck me as OR, by the way. But I agree with this viewpoint as well. ComplexRational (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[[40]]. Unreliable source from Quora. Apparently "X" was chosen as it was the Roman numeral for ten, which kind of makes sense, but the information is still not verifiable. However, it DID come from somewhere. Delete still stands. I can see why you would call it OR though, as a controversial claim without a citation. In all honesty, you were probably right. Utopes (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: @ComplexRational: Using Dwiggins X (dek) for the last undecimal digit was done by the Dozenal Society of America (link is to their site; it's a synopsis of multiplication tables for all bases between 2 and 60 inclusive), so it's not quite OR. OTOH, for bases 12 and above they use the author's self-created transdecimal numerals, the DSA has switched to Pitman numerals (in which digit-10 is an inverted 2, not an X-like shape), and the DSA is hardly advocating use of undecimal! Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless base 11 was ever used on a significant scale -- which I highly doubt, given the practical issues -- there's no more reason to have an article about it than about base 13, base 17, or any other impractical numeral system. It's also worth noting that we don't have (or, IMO, need) an article for base 7, even though it's both a lower number and at least indirectly used for days of the week. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this merits more than a line in a table. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the same principles that apply to individual numbers in WP:NUMBER apply here. Does this base have multiple interesting properties distinguishing it, in its use as a base from other bases? No. Does it have any significant historical or cultural use? Not really, except as the punchline of a joke. The ISBN checksum has been claimed to be base-11, but it's not really — there's a calculation mod 11, but no use of 11 as an actual radix for base-11 notation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the joke, AFAIK the only claims to notability for this base are two historical mistaken identifications of languages as base-11 (Pañgwa and Maori in 1922 and 1826(!) respectively, see this paper by Harald Hammarström on rarities in numeral systems), i.e. not much. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is short, uncited, badly written and the subject has no more reason to have its own page than any other impractical numeral system. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both Base 11 Numeral System and Base 11 numeral system would have to be deleted. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:01, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate in Quantitative Finance[edit]

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

Advert for a course by a non-notable institute. Does not meet any requirements for inclusion. I would Speedy but it has been around for awhile and a discussion would solidify it. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there are articles to be written on degrees (MBA, Master's Degree, PhD), I think this is the equivalent of writing an article on Journalism at Columbia University, which could be a redirect to Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, but instead writing it as an advertisement and course guide. Rockphed (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also a bit advertisement-like. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:21, 28 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Braegarie[edit]

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

This article is about a house in Scotland ...period. Absolutely no claims of notability, no SIGCOV at all. The picture shows a dam. Fails WP:NBUILD Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've started calling my house 'Lavandula Manor'. May write an article about it someday.Hydromania (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, why did you de-PROD this article? The subject seems completely non-notable. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a prod patroller and saw the topic listed at CAT:ALLPROD during a routine patrol. The title seemed to be Scottish and I am familiar with such topics. I checked it out, had no difficulty finding a detailed historical source, concluded that the topic had merit and so removed the prod as that's the process. Note that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Editors should expect opposition in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind pointing us to this detailed historical source? Hydromania (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke: Please note that any prodded article may be deprodded for any reason or none. See WP:DEPROD. Prodding should never be used unless an article is very clearly non-notable. The discussion here shows that this is not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the article was first created, it was as "settlement", not an individual house. This source validates that it once was some kind of populated place ("his wife was from Braegarie") which would probably meet WP:GEOLAND. Another PDF document also refers to "the older settlements of Balintuim and Braegarie". So it indeed was once a settlement. I don't know if more sources can be found that would allow further growth of the article.

(I can't save the link to the second PDF because the url is blacklisted. I removed "https:" so I could save this edit - //www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=42&ved=2ahUKEwjpgYfa-OXkAhWKsZ4KHdiECG04KBAWMAF6BAgFEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcairngorms.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2F07-Corriemulzie-rpt-H.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Fpf73C0eok8FJq5-B1_tv) MB 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solid point. I've gone ahead and changed it back to 'village', may as well discuss the actual subject. still not changing my vote though. Hydromania (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any evidence that Braegarie was ever legally recognized, as required by WP:GEOLAND? The only other source I found was this, which identifies Braegarie as a place "of three small farmhouses, each of which has suitable offices attached". – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is no evidence that this is or was a settlement. Phrases such "his wife was from Braegarie" were used in relation to farms. The PDF document you refer to is presumably this which sources the statement ""the older settlements of Balintuim and Braegarie" to nothing more than the "OS First Edition (1867)", which in its labelling does not differentiate between a simple farm and a hamlet, so cannot be used to verify this claim.----Pontificalibus 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Places, place names, and structures on Mar Lodge Estate. A separate article is not supported by WP:GEOLAND as this is a populated place without legal recognition (or at least was in the past) and for which there aren’t sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG.Pontificalibus 06:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a named settlement and so passes WP:GEOLAND. This is a bleak part of the world and so the population is low but so it goes. We do not discriminate against rural areas and communities. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- According to GEOLAND, there should be legal recognition of a place. If not, it goes on a case-by-case basis. If we can't determine what this place is or was, I doubt it is notable. Rogermx (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There doesn't seem to be any difficulty determining the nature of the place which seems quite legal and respectable. We have multiple sources showing that this was a named settlement of several households and so we're good. There was perhaps some confusion when it seemed that it was just a house but now that is resolved there is no case for deletion. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's common for farms to be subdivided between different tenant farmers, or have worker's cottages etc - that doesn't make them settlements. Even if we accept that this is a a settlement, there is no evidence it was legally recognised as such, so WP:GEOLAND would have us merge it in the absence of sources giving sufficient coverage to write an article.----Pontificalibus 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Braegarie was recorded as a separate place with multiple households in multiple censuses. That seems adequate as legal evidence. In any case, it up to those who want to make a change to justify it. I am content with the status quo – that we maintain the page – and can't see any benefit in chopping and changing it. The main issue here is deletion. It appears that we can now rule this out and so we're done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list, or to Corriemulzie. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the house in question was originally a settlement that held a population, then it is perfectly suitable for Wikipedia to have an article on the topic. Even if the population in itself has diminished to just the occupants of a house, it is still a piece of land that qualifies for an article under WP:GEOLAND. Utopes (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corriemulzie, where Braegarie is already mentioned, or to Places, place names, and structures on Mar Lodge Estate. While Wikipedia is supposed to function as a gazetteer, it is not an indiscriminate collection of place names or geographic features. WP:GEOLAND says that "populated, legally recognized places" are presumed to be notable, not that "all populated places with a name" are presumed to be notable. According to this source, Braegarie comprised three small farmhouses belonging to the Earl of Fife. I don't think that counts as a "legally recognized" settlement. GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition are evaluated against the general notability guideline, and I'm not seeing evidence that Braegarie passes GNG either. This seems like a clear-cut case for a merge. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "legally-recognised" is not defined but common sense indicates that it means that the place was recognised by the legal authorities; that it was not an ad hoc encampment or unauthorised squat. The proximity of this place to the main lodge of the Earl indicates that the tenancies were well recognised and legal and that everyone, including the national government, recognised this place as having a separate and distinct name for centuries. How is this not legal? Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this "isolated dwellings" are regarded as settlements in the UK. Also "It should be noted that some small clusters of properties are classified neither as hamlets or villages. These include traditional rural settlement forms such as isolated farmsteads with or without additional dwellings..." This would suggest that named farms satisfy WP:GEOLAND. ----Pontificalibus 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was clearly once a recognised settlement, so is notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 26 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gadens[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE, I believe this law firm fails WP:ORGCRIT. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you Meticulo for your re-write and to the dedicated volunteers of Wikipedia to salvage an article. I am withdrawing this AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Having a quick look at the history of the article, plus search engine 'news' results, there are enough mentions by independent reliable sources to perhaps justify retention as a stub. A law firm that's more than 90 years old, with branches in four capital cities, is in my view likely to be notable enough for inclusion. But I agree the article as it currently stands is severely lacking. Meticulo (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gadens is a well-known and large law firm in Australia with coverage in several cities (and previously across Australia) and a long history (1928 in its current form), and back to the mid-1800s under previous names. There are enough mentions of the firm in external sources to justify notability. Bookscale (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~: Looking at the sources I can find on the internet, none of them rises above routine coverage. Okay, so there are a couple white papers and profiles in industry publications, but they seem to lack independence. On the other hand, they are between 90 and 150 years old, so maybe there are more sources that aren't on the web. Rockphed (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it's definitely borderline as to whether it all amounts to significant coverage. Here's a few sources I found: The Straits Times, News.com.au, The Courier Mail, ABC News. (Note that several of these are somewhat negative stories about losing branches to rivals, or having to make a damages payout, which would counter the promotional tone of previous versions of the article and leave it more balanced overall). There are also stories locked behind paywalls at The Courier Mail (again), The Australian, The Australian Financial Review and The AFR (again).

Hard to say how independent the trade journals/industry publications are, but with multiple articles in the likes of Australasian Lawyer and Lawyers Weekly, combined with the above sources, I'm verging on the side of keep.

If we decide on delete, another option would be to merge any content worth retaining into the article for Dentons, which poached the Sydney and Perth offices of Gadens. Meticulo (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the firm still exists in its own right, that might be appropriate if the entire firm had merged, but I understand your point. Bookscale (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 4 non-paywalled sources you listed, I think only the courier mail article is even borderline significant. The other three are mostly about other things that happen to include mentions of Gadens. True, two of them are about a settlement between Gadens and a (probably now former) client, but the information there about Gadens is primary coverage, not secondary analysis. The titles on the pay-walled articles do look promising. Does anybody have access to be able to check them who is willing to give short analyses of the articles? Rockphed (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier-Mail article is a short article on partners being poached, but the Australian article is a long articles about the establishment of the firm's Singapore office in 20113 (which was discussed in detail in the context of the liberalisation of Singapore's legal market), the AFR articles discuss the takeover of the Sydney and Perth offices by Dentons and then the re-establishment of a new Sydney office under the Gadens name. The second and third articles show the most notability. I'd agree with the sentiment that there are likely to be some offline sources discussing the firm (including probably under its older names e.g. Gadens Ridgeway and whatever it was known as before that). Bookscale (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That sounds like articles that meet WP:ORGCRIT, so I am changing my vote to Keep. Rockphed (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Bookscale:@HickoryOughtShirt?4:@Rockphed: I've rewritten the article. Suggestions and further edits invited. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment - thanks Meticulo - article is looking better. Bookscale (talk) 10:13, 30 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco_Visconti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marco Visconti

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

Not notable; neither as musician, nor as Occultist. His only latter claim to fame seems to be his leaving the OTO which is hardly notable on its own. Zero sharp (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. was leaning toward keep based on the number of sources on the page, then realized none of them seem to qualify as WP:RS. Hydromania (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The independent references mention him only tangentially, or are not about him but the bands he played in. The sources where he is the main subject are all closely related to him. If sources that are independent of the subject can be found I will change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 30 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. Withdrawn by nominator. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Air Force squadrons[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically the same as List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons, except that perhaps this ought to include the reserve and Air Guard units. Further, it seems to be a list of lists. All in all, the aforementioned is much better. If we fixed this, we would more or less have duplicated that one. What say you? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this remotely the same? This "list of lists" article seems to encompass *all* types of Air Force squadrons, rather than just aviation-related squadrons (which seems to be somewhat out of date comparitively, perhaps?). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Does the Air Force have Dental Squadrons? If we could list all those oddball units, this article might have some utility I suppose. All in all, I am unhappy with the list of functions (Presidential transport) rather than the units themselves (XXth Airlift Squadron). Did my recent fit of editing help or hurt? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting enough, it does have dental squadrons, plenty of them. While I haven't checked them all, I would guess that each of the redlinked squadron names contain actual squadrons, many active, some historical. I'm not really sure how I feel about removing all of them, tbh, as redlinking isn't something to be frowned upon, nor does it violate any guideline (that I'm aware of, at least). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Two completely different lists. List of USAF squadrons covers types of squadrons. ex: Air control, Air defense, Intelligence. The ACTIVE USAF AIRCRAFT squadron is a list of individual squadrons such as "16th Airborne" and "7th Airlift". I'm wondering if you actually looked at the content of these lists; or just noticed the similarity in article titles. I noticed that prior to nominating this for deletion that you appeared to gut a large portion of the article first. [41], [42], and [43]. I'm wondering if there is a particular line of thinking here that I'm missing. — Ched (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Maybe I am the one who is wrong. Take a look. Did I improve or ruin this article with my changes? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not faulting the removal of red links, but I will note that it is common to have them in articles in hopes of future creation. I won't go so far as to say you ruined the article, and certainly not with malicious intent; still, in you eagerness you've also removed List of United States Air Force fighter squadrons with your edit here. You claimed earlier today in your edit summary here, and I quote: OK, here comes the Great Pruning of this. Down to bare bones to rebuild it - and yet here you are 8 hours later putting the article up for deletion. I hardly consider putting something up for deletion as "rebuilding", so yes, I question both your methods and your intent. — Ched (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also mentioned this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history — Ched (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wandered to this article and thought I could make it more like the RAF article. Then, after much chopping I found List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons and lost heart. That article seems (to me) to be all this one wants to be. Or not. After a period of comment we can undo what damage I might have done. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different list, and it a valid list for linking to so many related articles. Dream Focus 13:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Squadrons of the United States Air Force are highly notable, and a list of them is a useful thing to have. It is surprising to me that this would even be nominated for deletion. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 15:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a duplicate as noted above. Linked lists of different types of combat squadrons benefit from being combined at a central location. Support squadrons depend on interest (Paul has deleted a lot of empty lists, but who knows when someone with an interest with fill them out to the extent, for example, that the aerial port and communications lists have been). Also many of these lists include historical units not currently active (and do not require the maintenance that "list of active USAF Foo Squadrons" would have.) I would eliminate the Presidential airlift (redirect to 89th Airlift Wing, not a link to a list of squadrons and Air Force demonstration (same to United States Air Force Thunderbirds). Civil Engineer only contains RED HORSE and PRIME BEEF units, which are listed separately and contains no Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering (1961-1994), or Installations (1948-1961) squadrons. If the red links create too much clutter, the lists could be divided into sections for operational and support squadrons.
Speedy Keep, a very relevant list that serves its purpose and is NOT duplicated by the list suggested. Utopes (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender I am sure I made a mistake. Thank you all. I would propose one of you repair whatever damage I did and close this discussion. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:24, 24 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.

[1] ttps://www.ifsmagazine.com/2019-jgp-chelyabinsk-russia/

[Sharma-2] Sharma, Ramesh Chandra (1984). Buddhist art of Mathurā. Agam Kala Prakashan. p. 84. ISBN 978-8193845745. Retrieved 29 September 2019.

[Härtel-3] Härtel, Herbert (1993). Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 Years of a Town in Mathura District. D. Reimer. p. 13. ISBN 978-3496025030. Retrieved 29 September 2019.

[4] Science fiction, imperialism and the Third World : essays on postcolonial literature and film. Hoagland, Ericka, 1975-, Sarwal, Reema. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. 2010. ISBN 9780786457823. OCLC 667271538.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]