Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 December	15 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of wins by BMC Racing Team and its successors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of CCC Racing Team wins[edit]

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

Not a new team, just a name change. All the info is at List of wins by BMC Racing Team and its successors, and this is how all equivalent lists for cycling teams that have changed names are treated. Kevin McE (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was a point where someone changed the ccc page to bmc and created a new one. However that was all undone and this page was left all by itself. I agree to its deletion for the reasons stated above. Paulpat99 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink: Retain it as a redirect to List of wins by BMC Racing Team and its successors. Not the most obvious thing for someone to type in, but they might, and we do have redirects like List of Movistar Team wins, which is a close parallel. Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect Obviously closely related enough that a separate article is not needed. Reywas92^Talk 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jba fofi[edit]

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

Fails GNG, there is no coverage in reliable sources that could be used to establish notability or write a NPOV article. Could not find any sources that support the tribal legend/mythology claims.

Note: I recently removed a significant amount of content that was either unreliably sourced or cited sources that discuss giant spiders in general with no mention of "Jba fofi". See pre-cleanup version here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sources that discuss this spider:- Daily Star - here, La Vanguardia - here, The Journal - here, Tenerife Weekly (a weekly freebie paper) - here, and does it appear in Mysteries of the unknown : inside the world of the strange and unexplained. (Time Life book ISBN 9781618933522) (not sure but a gsearch threw it up, my old lappie didnt want me to look at it:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable sources can be used to meet GNG.

Daily Star is a tabloid, listed at Perennial sources as "less reliable than the Daily Mail".

Maybe La Vanguardia appears reliable, however it only devotes a single paragraph to J'ba fofi.

Tenerife Weekly's tabloid-style coverage cites Cryptid Wiki.

The Journal provides a decent writeup, although we don't often cite Q&A columns.

Maybe Mysteries of the Unknown's coverage consists of "This allaged beast looks like a tarantua, but with a 4- to 6-foot leg span." I would question the reliability of any "mysterious phenomena compendium".

We have a few marginal sources, but whether is meets WP:SIGCOV is questionable. There are no academic sources and not enough content to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also mentioned in Donavan Speight's The Congo Conspiracy Latter Days. Some blogs (e.g. [1]) report sightings by various explorers( cf. "Giant Spider " in Eberhardt's "Mysterious Creatures : A Guide to Cryptozoology" : Giant Spider, Unknown arthropod Inverteb rate of Central Africa and Australasia. Physical description: Huge spider. Distribution: Democratic Republic of the Congo; Papua New Guinea. Significant sightings: R. K. Lloyd and his wife were motoring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1938 when they saw a large object crossing the trail in front of them. At first, they thought it was a cat or a monkey, but they soon realized it was a spider with legs nearly 3 feet long ... . The story is reported also in Hidden Animals: A Field Guide by Michael Newton). Not much. 188.218.87.87 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useable here:

Congo Conspiracy is a thriller novel.

Personal blogs are not reliable sources, especially ones with "This blog is entirely humorous and should not at all be taken seriously" disclaimers.

Eberhardt is a fringe cryptozoological source.

Newton is another fringe source which relays a secondhand account via another crypozoologist, with no mention of the J'ba fofi name. 17:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete If someone writes an article for William J. Gibbons that would be the appropriate place for any content. I couldn't find anything independent of Gibbons that there is such a myth, but fofi might actually be close to a Baka word for spider.—eric 16:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to have been presented here at the AFD, and there is no requirement for sources to be academic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Slatersteven, the Baka are a real people of Central Africa. Should Wikipedia really be claiming they have this legend based on the word of some guy from the Institute for Creation Research who was out looking for dinosaurs? A source simply repeating some story found on the internet is not significant coverage, and without at least examining it's origin cannot be reliable.—eric 12:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a source repeating something means they have noticed it, hence it is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid-an-Noor, Newfoundland[edit]

Not a notable place of worship; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some editors might prefer more over-the-top statement of significance; I prefer under-stated. This is the first and only mosque in the largest city in a Canadian province. Maybe only one in the province; it is only member of Category:Mosques in Newfoundland and Labrador. First mosque in Ohio, USA, and similar are all accepted. Nice short article with sources and good photo. --Doncram (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note it is included in List of mosques in Canada, where it is asserted to be the only mosque in Newfoundland. By the way, I don't really understand the deletion nomination to mean anything more than "I don't like it"; perhaps it would be helpful to explain. Has any wp:BEFORE been done? There is no mention of having searched for sources and no assertion that sources present aren't fully adequate. Also there is no way this should be outright deleted, because obviously redirect/merge would be superior to that, but at this point I think "Keep" is simply best. --Doncram (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per doncram. Notable mosque. Zindagi713 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article already included RS coverage from the largest paper in the province and from the country's national broadcaster. This is obvious evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as improved. BD2412 T 06:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Heights[edit]

Not a notable neighbourhood; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just wondering if the nominator considered a "redirect/merge" to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (may need to make a "Neighbourhoods" section?), anyway, found this - "This was the second way that expansion took place – nearby communities were folded into the City of St. John's. Blackhead Road (later renamed Shea Heights), a community settled mostly during the 1930s by St. John's residents who could not find or afford housing within city limits, was one such area. It had a reputation for unemployment and poor housing, but a 1963 federal-provincial Urban Renewal Project improved conditions and services, and Shea Heights was added to the St. John's Metropolitan Area (a census area defined by Statistics Canada as an urban area, having a population of at least 100,000, consisting of the urban core and surrounding urban fringe) the same year. However, it did not officially become part of St. John's until 1984, and still retains its identity as a distinct community.", so feeling a bit keepish about this. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect on the basis that we generally take a highly inclusionist approach to populated areas of any type and size, per WP:GEOLAND, and this appears to be a populated and recognised area, although I'm a little unclear on whether it is legally recognised, or what would be required to demonstrate that. Like Coolabahapple I'd argue for a redirect/merge to the larger settlement if there was a consensus against keeping the standalone article. Hug^syrup 14:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador - per WP:GEOLAND we have low bar for inclusion, however this area must be a legally recognized area, and it is not. For neighborhoods like Shea Heights, we need to pass GNG, and we do not have RS for that. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching on "Blackhead Road" in a few seconds I find Williamson, T. Morgan (1971) Blackhead Road: a community study in urban renewal. Masters thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland., which looks like substantial reliable source coverage of the community, the result of major study by Williamson. Its bibliography includes numerous materials about community development and urban renewal, some which may be largely about Blackhead. Some are general national level works, some are more local / primary sources. A few are (sorry for some garbling in copy-pasting, partly but not wholly fixed by me):

Iverson, Noel and l-1atthews, D. Ralph 1968 Communities in Decline: An Examination of Household Resettlement in Newfoundland. St. John's, Nfld.: Institute o£ Social and Economic Research Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Works by Project Planning Associates, Ltd. (

1961 City of St. John's Newfoundland Urban Renewal Stu • Prepared for the Municipa Counoil. oronto.
1965 An Interim Report on Urban Renewal at Blackhead.
1966 "Residential Standards and Rehabilitation". In Blackhead: St. John's Urban Renewal Scheme Part I, Toronto (July).
1966 "Housing at Blackhead" • In Blackhead: St. John's Urban Renewal Scheme Part III, Toronto (October) • . ~
1967 Blackhead: St. John's Urban Renewal Scheme Final

Various dates of St. John's Daily News and St. John's Evening Telegram coverage.

I notice that one place the masters thesis is cited is Urban Sociology in Canada, 1986, 2nd Edition, by Peter McGahan.

"Blackhead Road" is mentioned in this about National Film Board of Canada, where the mention i think means it was one of the communities that were subject of a documentary.

I'll stop here. It looks to me that this was formerly a separate community, and has been the subject of plenty of study, and the topic meets GEOLAND and GNG. --Doncram (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move Doncram's sources suggest that Blackhead may be a notable neighborhood, not Shea Heights. Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For AFD purposes, i think Reywas92's view should be interpreted as "Keep", though maybe with a recommendation to consider moving/renaming, but leave that up to editors at the article's talk page, or to a wp:RM more fully evaluating weight of coverage. BTW, "Move" is not an outcome recognized in wp:AFDSTATS. I happen to write mostly about old places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and I usually do like to use the historic name of place during time of its significance. But if the current name is different and is common enough in usage, I often/usually have to go along with "modernists" for the article title, as long as both appear in bold in the first sentence of lede. Here, I am not sure "Blackhead" is better than "Shea Heights" as article title or not; I would tend to defer to knowledgeable locals. :( --Doncram (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As of this moment, I have completely rewritten the article from the ground up per WP:HEY. It's a former standalone community called Blackhead Road. Easily passes WP:GEOLAND #1 and I will let the sources in the new article speak for themselves. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to SportingFlyer for improving the article to show that it meets WP:GEOLAND. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Necla Güngör[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as coach of a women's national football team, and well sourced. CeeGee 09:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee: only the youth team which does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to ignore her chaching at Turkey women's U-21 team. CeeGee 08:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having managed a full senior international and for not managing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). This Hurriyet article would count towards WP:GNG, but I don’t see another independent reliable source with significant coverage on her. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primus (Transformers)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. There's only one maybe worthwhile source in the lead. None of the sources in the previous AfD amounted to anything. TTN (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another toy/fictional character with no indication of passing NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. RL0919 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodimus[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. The only sources are extremely narrow Top X lists, one of which may not even be a reliable source. They aren't up to snuff. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another toy/fictional character with no indication of passing NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Autobots since they're WP:CHEAP as of now. To anyone searching, remember to search "Hot Rod" as well, as that might actually be a more frequently used term. There was movie coverage with Last Knight. Lots of other sites covered that as well, but this one at least went a bit further beyond the standard click bait. In the comics world, little bit of commentary on him could be found in some reviews, but probably need more for notability. Forbes probably sums him up best here, when saying, "he wasn't Optimus and could never be, but we knew he was the father/hero figure we were stuck with and had to learn to love. Not everyone did, but he has long since earned a key place in Transformers lore. but I don't think that's enough. (Man this Wikipedia article is all over the place... again, I hate these...) -2pou (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's a plausible search term and Autobot has some information on the various incarnations of the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Winter[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. from Ojorojo at talk:johnny Winter discography: "A couple of searches shows the title in lists of Winter albums and ads for record clubs (remember those? – 10 ALBUMS FOR 10¢), but nothing that would be considered "significant coverage" and it never charted, received any awards, etc. Sullivan gives it the most attention with 3–4 sentences mixed in with JW Story and About Blues. […] Otherwise, the article probably wouldn't survive AfD." Laun chba ller 20:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Admins managing this AfD should also see the related Talk page discussion that has been linked by the nominator above. Johnny Winter experts agree that this album was really released but sank without a trace, as a quickie cash-in scheme that was disowned by the musician. I can find no reliable media coverage that does anything more than briefly list the album's existence, not even in books about Johnny Winter (via a Google Books search). Can be briefly listed in the relevant discographies but a stand-alone article is unwarranted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no information about it in music references, online searches don't show any album reviews, and it didn't appear on the Billboard chart. It is only briefly mentioned in two bios as an unauthorized compilation of previously released recordings from early in Winter's career.[3][4] Otherwise, it is listed in various discographies and record club ads (title, record company, year), which may be trivial mentions at best. The original article included two user generated sources listed on WP:ALBUMAVOID and identified it as Winter's second studio album and misplaced it in his chronology (since corrected). {{Notability}} and {{unreliable sources}} were added the day it was created (19 June 2019), but have not been acted on. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of the discussion is that the GNIS designation is probably incorrect per other sources, and even if correct, a GNIS entry does not necessarily indicate a place is "legally recognized" as meant in WP:GEOLAND. RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosia Mill, Arizona[edit]

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

This is listed in the GNIS as a populated place, but all I can find on the place itself is that it was a manganese mill/refinery, without any evidence it passes WP:GEOLAND #1. Recent AfDs have shown a listing in the GNIS as a populated place does not automatically mean the place qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia, as the GNIS is only the official federal list for place names and does not convey legal recognition in the same way incorporation would. [5] SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, inclusion in GNIS does show it passes WP:GEOLAND. Just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates.

Hence, inclusion in the GNIS shows that the location is federally recognized, the GNIS then goes further and classifies the location, in this case "populated place", giving it a "federal legalized status". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted, the location is called "Ambrosia Mill" by the federal government, but calling it a "populated place" does not convey any legal recognition on the place, it just means the Federal Government has picked a name for that particular feature. Legal recognition means either incorporation or, for unincorporated communities, official designation by the census, and that has been considered in the other recently deleted articles. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and this clearly show this was a manganese mine and not a populated place. We have lots of articles mines and a mine article could be developed if there were sources to establish notability. The location was apparently included in GNIS just because it was listed on a topo map (the source in GNIS) but was obviously mis-classified as a populated place. There is no exemption from GNG because this is obviously not a populate placed as intended by GEOLAND#1, regardless of the mistaken classification in GNIS. MB 20:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Delete fails WP:GEOLAND. Even if it was a populated place it is not legally recognized as anything other than an area so it does not pass NGEO. Failing that we need to pass GNG, however Reliable sources also do not exist. Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because GNIS has it categorized as a populated place does not mean it actually is one or ever was one, much less one with notability. Look at it on the map and screw your lazy mass-produced "is a populated place" falsehood. Listing in a database of names is not legal recognition, certainly not in the intended meaning of the apparently poorly written geoland. Reywas92^Talk 08:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Innovations[edit]

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

IT company with no established notability. A Google search finds only 38 hits and almost nothing once you remove the firm's website, its social media presence and company listings of various sorts. I see no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject does not appear to be anywhere near meeting WP:NCORP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by an author with a likely WP:COI setting out a company's wares but with no claim to encyclopaedic notability. The provided sources are primary along with routine listings and searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 06:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many-finned sea serpent[edit]

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

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE search did not return any reliable, non-fringe sources that could be used to write a NPOV article or satisfy notability requirements for a standalone article.

No clear criteria: Article seems to be a coatrack for various reported sightings of sea serpents with many fins. If reliable sourcing is found, recommend merge with Sea serpent.

Note: I removed a number of fringe sources and fringe-POV analysis before nominating for deletion. See pre-cleanup version here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete One of Bernard Heuvelmans's classifications, don't need a coatrack standalone article, and sea serpent could use expanded content.—eric 14:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Redirecting or merging a cryptid article seems to just cause problems in the target.—eric 14:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One unsourced sighting in 1899, and it's unclear if On the Nature of Animals refers to just run-of-the-mill imaginary sea serpents or the equally fictitious many-finned variety. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a few book mentions but not significant. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith sea serpent.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea Serpent as the page still receives some traffic. While nothing in the article currently seems to be verifiable, I think the mentions in the google books could at least theoretically merit a mention in the sea serpent article. However, @EricR: if you could elaborate on why they think otherwise, that could change my opinion on this.

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see how you an merge a TNT but as the sources are here they can be used to recreate something useful. Otherwise clear consensus TNT applies Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VBS2[edit]

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

Unnotable piece of software, with the article written under obvious COI. Fails WP:GNG and is mostly unsourced, aside from the ad-ridden customers list (which also mostly relies on primary sources). Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most current sourcing is primary, with a lot of deadlinks mixed in, most I've been unable to verify or find a good archive for. A lot of press releases or news clippings from the companies or militaries directly involved for the most part. BBC is the strongest source here, while others mention it in a broader context of military spending and with little focus on the game itself. I found a single review in what would be considered traditional VG sourcing. For each of the entries, VBS1, VBS2, and VBS3, I have found maybe 1-2 solid source that could be considered indepth. On their own, I cannot find enough independent coverage to say GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge - Software article of clear notability, established by significant coverage in BBC and Wired. Stars and Stripes is also an independent source with coverage - funded by military but editorially independent. A merge of the 3 Virtual Battlespace articles now at afd into a single article would also be a reasonable solution. Possible promotional content and low quality refs should be removed, but that is outside the scope of afd. Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD. The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be). A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable. Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is. -2pou (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with 2pou's TNT + merge suggestion. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also support merging the 3 VBS game articles into a single series article.Dialectric (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I agree with the merge proposal to a franchise page. There are a number of very solid articles on both VBS2 and 3 (haven't checked 1 yet), adding them in should add some meat that can hopefully be kept when the poorly sourced and promotional content is sliced out.

70.240.207.189 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mapleton Shopping Area[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The existence of a specific "Mapleton Shopping Area" is also dubious, as the area is not referred to as that on any signs. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 00:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linn Svahn[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:SPORTSPERSON She is on her 2nd season in the World cup and won her first world cup race today. JonasB (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to be source to an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to skiing results, it doesn't get more reliable than FIS. JonasB (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she does meet WP:SPORTSPERSON, and the sourcing is sufficient to show that. There are several other Swedish-language sources, such as this analysis, but nothing that would add any significant new information to the article, so there is no need to WP:CITEKILL it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not how it should be, but there is a parallel discussion about it on my talk page for those who have an opinion about the issue. JonasB (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won a medal at the Skiing World Cup, which is the highest level of competition short of the Olympics. Clearly notable. It is obvious the nominator didn't do any WP:BEFORE judging by their comments on JonasB's talk page that they "don't know" what the World Cup is or if it establishes notability, nor do they have any idea what the FIS is apparently. Smartyllama (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not I looked and found precious little. World cups tend to be reported around the world. I am still finding almost nothing about this "notable" win in English. Thus my reason for thinking this is not a world cup outside a very select few. If we compare to the football word cup, even even the world series (a world cup in only one nation) we get vast international coverage of the winners.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love cross country skiing, I have to admit that it is a pretty small sport compared to football. Also, a skiing World Cup is very different from the Football WC as it is not a single event held over a month but rather a collection of races held through a season. But, it didn't take long for me to find this article about her: https://www.eurosport.com/cross-country-skiing/svahn-surges-to-surprise-gold-in-davos_sto7576425/story.shtml JonasB (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I note it is date and time stamped after I AFD'd this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As above. J 1982 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per notable sport achievements. Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibigul Tulegenova[edit]

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

Non notable opera singer who doesn’t possess significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone, not encyclopedic. InvarBurke (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. article is in a slightly different tone, but its not promotional--it's just the standard tone in the Russian Wikipedia, where biographical articles are written in a form more like an outline than we do here. . The article needs some revisions, but not deletion. As for notability , she is covered in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we always consider that people covered in the standard national encyclopedias are notable. For some reason, this reference was not carried over into the enWP, but I added it. It can be difficult to judge the importance of Soviet era awards with those more familiar to us, but two Order of Lenin awards, plus the ero of Socialist Labor (1991). People's Artist of the USSR (1967). Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1970) are more than sufficient to confirm the notability. There was a real problem, but I fixed it--a note giving the source of the original needs to be added, as for all translations from another wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a People's Artist of the USSR and a USSR State Prize winner. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tulegenova was a deputy to the seventh through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR. She has received the Kuliash Baiseitova State Prize of the Kazakh SSR (1966) and the State Prize of the USSR (1970). She has also been awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals. --Aselhan (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)aselhan[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments. Passes WP:ANYBIO with multiple state awards (1) and an entry in the The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3). She also received widespread coverage on Kazakh press sustained over the years. --MarioGom (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets ANYBIO with multiple national award. According to this source (Astana Opera), there's also a competition named after Bibigul Tulegenova: "The Queen of Opera Stage Bibigul Tulegenova Delighted Her Admirers". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes on the awards alone, plus numerous substantial references to her on Google books. I've added 2 English language refs to lengthy news articles, linked to the English version of the article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and formatted and clarified the remaining refs. The article is still pretty rough around the edges, but this can be easily fixed with copyediting, wikifying. etc. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Bibigul Tulegenova is one of the very famous singers in Kazakhstan, she received several national prizes and served as a deputy, and there is information about her in the wiki encyclopedia.Mussir Aidana (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Mussir Aidana[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) 15:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Banks (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards, no charted songs, and little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources used in the article, most are song lists, YouTube, or make trivial mention of this artist. This source has some detail, but interviews are primary sources. As well, being the victim of a shooting does not enhance notability as a musician. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable subject and lacks sources.InvarBurke (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per InvarBurke. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC, and the sourcing is not nearly good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: more than half of the footnotes are to YouTube videos, five more are to other unreliable and non-notability-supporting sources like DatPiff and Urban Dictionary, and the few that are actually real media are virtually all covering him in the context of getting shot rather than in the context of anything related to the notability criteria for musicians. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if his notability and sourceability improve — but based on the sourcing here, he's a WP:BLP1E who's notable only for having once been shot, which is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic run of the mill rapper known only for a single event as a crime victim. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathair Sgiathach[edit]

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

Fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indidcriminate collection of information. Actually this nom is a result of fat finger syndrome, because it had occurred to me that this should be a redirect , as it was until reformed to an article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to list of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities would be the natural choice. If that's kept or merged somewhere, then a merge/redirect would be a good result here. If that's deleted, then this should be too. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Milburn. There's not really any out of universe significance to this deity that justifies giving him a separate article. Michepman (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the proposed merge article IMHO also fails GNG, as clearly does this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the AFD at the target list results in it being deleted, Restore Redirect if it does not. There are absolutely no reliable, secondary sources that cover this fictional deity, and it is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. The target article, if it is actually kept, already has more than enough information present already, so any additional merger is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houdini (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards, no charted songs, and little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources used in the article, most are song lists or make trivial mention of this artist. Three sources used in the article offer some biographical detail, but the websites are not notable and appear to be user-submitted (each has a "sent us your content" link), see [6][7][8]. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The album Hou I Am peaked at 27 on the Canadian Independent Music Association Charts. HipHopCanada is the biggest Hip Hop news source in Canada. GRM Daily is the third-largest hip hop outlet in the UK. Both sources are well known within the Hip Hop community, as they not only provide news but also act as an outlets for artists to gain popularity and fame. They are written by editors from the companies. I have also added more notable / reliable sources. I believe this article is notable enough to keep, however, if there are changes that can be made to make it stand out even more, suggest them to me and I will make those changes. Thank you. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TwinTurbo is the creator of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Independent Music Association charts are not notable, per WP:CHART. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both his mixtapes were released Create Music Group which is distributed by Sony Music. TwinTurbo (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create Music Group is a pay-for-use distribution service which accesses 100+ music stores (including Sony, Apple, Spotify, etc.) How does this support notability? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CIMA is not a notability-making record chart for the purposes of passing NMUSIC's charting criterion — for a Canadian artist recording in 2019, the only chart that fulfills that criterion anymore is Billboard's Canadian Hot 100. Would that this were the 1980s or 1990s, so that The Record and RPM still existed — but it's not, and they don't. And as for the "major label" criterion, we're looking for the label, not the distributor — and Create Music Group is not a notable record label for the purposes of passing that criterion, nor are mixtapes considered "albums" for the purposes of that criterion. All of which means the only NMUSIC criterion in play here is #1, "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", but there are zero sources here that pass that test — the only one that's even a reliable source at all, Complex, just namechecks his existence a single time in a blurb about somebody else, and is thus not substantively about Houdini. None of the other sources are contributing anything at all: for a Canadian musician, the kind of sources you have to show are real daily newspapers, the CBC, Exclaim!, BeatRoute, Now, The Georgia Straight, Voir, Cult MTL and other publications of that ilk — "My Better Life" does not cut it, "Hip Hop Canada" does not cut it, "Notoriously" does not cut it. Now, obviously this can be recreated in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this — for example, if he pulls off the trick of getting a Juno Award for Rap Recording of the Year nomination next year (rare, but not entirely unprecedented, for a mixtape), then that will obviously change things — but as things currently stand, neither the substance of what there is to say about him nor the quality of the sourcing available to support it clear the bar yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @TwinTurbo: I notice you gave this article a B-class rating on its talk page after creating it. Perhaps if you share your rationale for arriving at a B-class rating, this will help to support the article's notability. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 *(UTC)
Delete per nomination and Bearcat's amply presented reasoning, which saves us from repetition. Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's very well reasoned explanation of why there is no passing of music notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal national under-15 football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, non-notable youth team. Andrew Base (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, a single page shouldn't be nominated out of the 15 or so articles about such teams. Also, nomination looks like pretty drive-by-ish—while assuming good faith "Fails WP:N" is a pretty lazy statement. Geschichte (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, speedy keep. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peer Jakhar Faqeer[edit]

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

I can't find any sources. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Norwalk, Connecticut. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Gregory[edit]

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

Warden of a community not large enough to pass WP:NPOL. No proof of any media coverage either. Only sources are census related. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being warden of a small town is not an automatic inclusion freebie — but the article is referenced entirely to primary source census records, verifying only his residence and the names of his family members, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage about him for the purposes of getting over WP:NPOL #2 (where the bar is "significant press coverage", not "is verifiable as having existed".) The key to making a local political figure notable enough for an article does not rest on the ability to locate the names of his wife and kids — it depends on the ability to write and source some substance about his political career: specific things he did in office, specific projects he championed, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to List of mayors of Norwalk, Connecticut. It'd be a more useful navigational tool and wouldn't lose access to contribution history.
@Bearcat: I added 2 secondary sources, and I do have a few more. However, the guy is only noted for being mayor of Norwalk for a year and his livery stable (which burned down). I could theoretically add the other sources I do have,^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]} but I don't think I should bother since this would be better off as a redirect. I don't know if any of that changes the calculation for you, so I wanted to just let you know. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage we have of him is hyper local press coverage we will find on every city leader everywhere that the printing press had been used to create a mass production press, from its first implementation in about 1830 onward. Nothing makes him notable, and there is no strong concensus that histories of localities should list every leader ever. So I see no reason to redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: For as long as we have List of mayors of Norwalk, Connecticut as a list, we should ensure it receives a steady supply of links to it through redirects and the like. If you think that my proposed target doesn't meet WP:LISTN, then I encourage you to nominate it for deletion to be rid of it because it currently does George S. Gregory. Otherwise, your arguement against redirection, to me, rings hollow. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Norwalk, Connecticut as a valid target. --Enos733 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Wiedmaier[edit]

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

non-notable individual who does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or any other WP criteria for notability. Dr42 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, political figure in a tumultuous period in the second largest country of Europe. Geschichte (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already two perfectly good sources. There is a perfectly good wikipedia entry (on which this one is based) in another language version of wikipedia.

Placing a speedy deletion tag on a new entry within a couple of hours of it being started indicates a bizarrely destructive approach from "Dr42", a fellow who has contributed regularly to wikipedia for fewer than four weeks. You will do nothing to encourage people to contribute to wikipedia. Please do something useful! If you want to improve the entry, of course you are welcome to do so. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work.

I do not know whether I am permitted to vote in a discussion concerning an entry on which I myself am working. Please disregard this "vote" if not: the comment remains relevant, I think, although I note that "Dr42" deleted it last time I placed it here. What is it with this guy? (Yes, I gather it's not strictly a question of votes, but I can't think of a better word just now.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly notable science biography, about an IPCC chair -- and clearly passes the various notability guidelines described by folks. Sadads (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Roberts[edit]

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

Non notable, fails WP:NACADEMIC and not notable for her govermental work Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being an IPCC co-chair is a rare honor for an academic, equivalent to criteria 3 and 7. Zero^talk 10:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Most available online information is social media-related or redundant listings of her CV. Dr42 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her Google Scholar citation record (10 papers with over 100 citations each, some singly-authored) gives her an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 on top of any notability for heading IPCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've added four more sources about her to a new "Further reading" section (because they're not yet used to source anything in the article itself). I think she also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I'm otherwise generally inclined towards WP:NPROF C1 being met, we recently decided that Craig Loehle, who works in a similar field and has about double her citation count including on top-cited papers, was not notable. Note that he's a climate change denier, which is certainly a fringe viewpoint. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think David Eppstein has made a good case for WP:PROF/WP:GNG. This isn't one of those instances where there might be an arguable pass of WP:PROF#C1 on citation counts alone but a lack of sources to actually write an article with. XOR'easter (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I believe the subject passes WP:Prof#C1 In addition as David Eppstein has stated, the subject passes GNG as well. Lightburst (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced by the WP:NPROF C1, and the GNG aspects help support. (I raise Loehle for consistency's sake, but certainly don't think we should use him to set precedent.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete bio of non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable Indian YouTuber and actor who has not received in-depth coverage in reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Edobor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

It does not pass notability test. It was deleted earlier in 2017 and is back

Reyk _YO! 08:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being chair of a political party's youth committee is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — but this article makes no claim that he has additional notability for other reasons, and is not referenced well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL: it's referenced entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with virtually no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He isnt chair of a political party's youth committee. The Fabians are an independent organisation and very notable in their own right. Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that the Fabian Society's article explicitly describes it as an affiliate of the Labour Party, even if that's inaccurate it still wouldn't change a darn thing. Even chairs of independent organizations still don't get a notability freebie just for existing, in the absence of any evidence that they clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist. There is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and Bearcat, as well as WP:MILL, and WP:TOOSOON. There's nothing he's done that has been beyond the ordinary political activist. We tend to hold off on creating articles on young activists. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shades of green. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 20:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric green[edit]

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

Electric green does not appear to be a noteworthy name for a color. It has the same RGB value as Green as well as Lime and does not appear to be used in any noteworthy places such as X11 or HTML/CSS. Altay8 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Electric green[reply]

Comment - it's used in a lot of fashion/clothing nowadays. Perhaps a deeper search may be needed. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shades of green. There are enough external sources that say #00FF00 is sometimes called "electric green" for mention to be made there, but insufficient notability for a separate article. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shades of green, per anon. Zero^talk 10:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esportz Entertainment Corporation[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable company despite the dozens of gnews hits which are all passing mentions or press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources listed are passing mentions, in fact they all focus on the subject to the extent that Esportz Entertainment Corp. (or some variation) is in the title. Besides this, I think characterizing sources like Reuters, European Gaming, and Celebrity Access as press releases is inaccurate, although they are industry publications. The page was nominated for speedy deletion as spam just yesterday by the same editor nominating it here, but that nomination was overturned by an admin. I feel like this nomination as non-notable is just a continuation of that debate, since this editor does not approve of the outcome. I understand the importance of preventing spam but this page does meet Wikipedia's criteria. ElectricNatchos (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single article is in depth coverage, they're all press releases, passing mentions or WP:MILL. Praxidicae (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the largest esport network isn't notable? That's a joke right? Seems plenty notable as it is, and I assume there will only be more stuff published about it in the coming years. I don't really know how anyone could think that this is WP:MILL. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what independent source states this and isn’t based on a press release? Praxidicae (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluedude588, can you please provide a reference that isn't based on information provided by the company? The claims of being the "largest esport network" appears to be one that is made by the company itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my comment. Didn't realize that press releases weren't allowed. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluedude588, it is more conventional to strike it out by surrounding the text with some markup as follows: "<s>The Original Text You Wish To Strike Out</s>" which would result in it looking like this: ~~The Original Text You Wish To Strike Out~~. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Independenr Content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject - none of the sources meets this test. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 23:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Animeism[edit]

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

We're not a TV guide, are we? This is just a catalog of sorts, lacking proper sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, basically the whole article is a listing of all the episodes. Puddleglum ^2.0 16:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This TV programme block meets WP:NTV because it has a national reach thru a major TV network in a developed country. A before in the Japanese name "アニメイズム" gave me promising results. ミラ P 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Miraclepine's reasons but the page is also heavily undersourced. lullabying (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only a programming block, not a program. Merge to network. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese television network articles here have a much different structure than most western networks with more of a just-the-facts type of writing than the broad history we have for those networks, so we don't have a List of Mainichi Broadcasting System programmes where this could go easily. I'd suggest creating that, but at this point I'm not finding a lot to object to involving the body of this text other than the single-sourcing of ANN to support the entire article, but Miraclepine's hits look promising to keep this article. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have plenty of articles on programming blocks. This one is already more than a simple list. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Miraclepine's and Xezbeth's reasons. In addition, I have expanded this article with sourced information, though it does need more work, and isn't just a catalogue of titles. Alex Tenshi (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:NTV, as per Xezbeth.-Nahal^(T) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Farahmand[edit]

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

This article qualifies for CSD X2, but this appears to be a speedy deletion criterion that our wise administrative corps is unwilling to apply. The reasons for deleting these machine translations is (exhaustively) set out at WP:AN/CXT. Even if there weren't a machine translation issue, I also have no idea what's supposed to be reliable about the sources for this biography of a living person. —S Marshall T/C 16:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Marshall, I have no comment on X2, but I just added three reliable sources. As I expected, it's not easy to find sourcing for an Iranian documentary filmmaker, but I think what we have right now at least suggests he passes the GNG. Oh, if that stuff that was in the article was machine-translated, there's a lot less of it now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep, Notable person: several awards at major film festivals (more than listed, but I got lazy to chase sources for more), plenty reliable sources. Requires a lot of cleanup/verification of film titles by a bilingual person. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an editor with dual fluency in Persian and English who could verify this translation then I would happily withdraw the AfD. You may be able to recruit one via WikiProject Iran. I suspect such a person would find it easier to make a clean start than to fix this, though.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All dubious/unferifiable is deleted. In fact, there are plenty of English language sources. Please take a look at the latest version. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, and my view is, it needs renaming to list of films by Reza Farahmand. Possibly keepable if renamed to that. It's not a biographical article.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a list. As for "not a bio", please show me the corresponding guideline. Anyway, this is AfD, not requested move, to which I will oppose. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More generally:

Reviewing the nom's X2 speedy requests, about 2/3 have been deleted, and 1/3 have had the speedy removed. I have not looked at them specifically to see if this is related to quality / notability / willingness of soeone to immediately check & improve/which admin did the deletion.

Questions. I've just tried to refresh my knowledge of the discussions on X2; I seem to be missing something, but it seeed to me that the latest status of the discussion is that the ones that are still present should be draftified. [15]--in the absence of other reasons to delete them.( It was assumed in the discussion I have cited that most that are transferred to draft would end up deleted after 6 months as G13 because nobody would work on them).But I do not think this was ever done, so there must be a later discussion.

I see we at present have [[ Wikipedia:Administrators _noticeboard/CXT/Keep list July2017] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017. I looked at a few of the articles on the lists. The ones on the kept list are mostly OK, though some need further copyediting or referencing. Most of them were utterly straightforward, which is why they were kept. The ones on the Draftification list were varied: some have been extensively worked on with skill; some need extensive copyediting; a few had problems that I cannot resolve without retranslating; a few can not be fixed without rewriting, because the original used was inadequate or unclear. (we talk about the skill needed to translate, but we also need to consider the skill necessary to write an article in the first place). Most of them would be worth improving, but not all.

So, 1. S Marshall, or anyone who can help, from where did you get the articles you nominated for speedy? 2. What is the actual current consensus status of X2.? 3. The original discussion was that X2 was to be temporary. That was two years ago. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I've been going through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017 looking for the biographies of living people. (2) CSD X2 is still listed on WP:CSD and has not been deprecated. (3) It was temporary until all the articles have been checked. Now, more than 30 months later, they still haven't been. It's just been me doing it, and I had a wikibreak.—S Marshall T/C 21:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your desire to clean garbage from wikipedia, but I dont like your vigorous opposition to article rescuing. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much in favour of rescuing articles. These machine translations, though, are a special case. The Wikimedia Foundation very unwisely created a tool that turned a foreign-language Wikipedia article into an en.wiki article with a couple of clicks. The algorithm they used was Google Translate. But the thing is that anyone can generate a machine translation with a couple of clicks at any time, and the translation algorithm is constantly improving. Therefore when you put a machine translation from fa.wiki into en.wiki, what you're actually doing is crystallizing a translation that's going out of date as soon as you've crystallized it. Unfortunatley, these 3,613 articles were generated very rapidly, at the rate of dozens per hour in some cases, while I have to go through them all painstakingly, one by one, identify the problem ones, nominate them for CSD, get disregarded by sysops who decide they're improvable without reading and understanding the discussion I've linked, nominate them for deletion, and then fight AfDs, inclusionist by inclusionist, trying to get through policies that are designed to defend good-faith article creators who've put some work in. It's an utterly disproportionate amount of effort and with these particular ones, trying to rescue them makes it worse, not better.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but this particular article is 98% rewritten. I did my part just for fun of figuring out what the heck " otagh e soud ", means, how to back-translate " treking chamber" or "Persuasion", etc. Other than that I have no interest in Persian culture whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you got it right?—S Marshall T/C 01:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My basic concern about this is that now we seem to have an article written in plausible English, but partly based on sources in Persian, written by editors who don't appear to speak Persian.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added five sources in English, that IMO establish notability well enough esp. given the paucity of English-language sources. The rest is article improvement. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's main concern seems to be the machine translation of the original version of this article. There are now far more English-language sources than Farsi-language sources, so verifying the information is not a problem. I can't agree that finding and adding English-language sources makes this article worse, nor that the encyclopedia would be better off without this article about a filmmaker whose films have won awards in Iran, France and the Czech Republic, and have also been seen in Italy, Germany, Greece and the UK. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources. Translations should be judged as any article would be. The nom's concerns, in particular seems to be the possible inaccuracy of translations, and the reliance upon references few of us can read. But these potential problems apply to all of WP, not just the translated articles. Almost all WP articles except those few that have had formal peer review by experts and not changed since have potential inaccuracies. The purpose of WP is not to construct a perfectly accurate and reliable scholarly encyclopedia. Even were this possible -- there has been no general English language encyclopedia that has ever truly reached this standard, despite what they may have claimed in their advertising & PR--making such an encyclopedia is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor do we have the standard of not having errors. Similarly, we accept in good faith references we can only a few of us read in WP--references in all languages are acceptable, no matter whether one particular person cannot read them; the standard is Verifiable, not verified. If there is a reasonable challenge, we look for a WPedian who knows the language. Similarly, if a source is a printed book and is reasonably challenged, we look for a WPedian who has access to a copy. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever problems this article may have had previously it now has adequate sourcing and if there are further amends needed to correct for a mistranslation a future editor can deal with them. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If any individual novel from the bundle lacks sourcing, please mind WP:ATD-M before renominating. czar 02:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bec (novel)[edit]

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

Individual books in this series lack significant coverage and fail to meet WP:NB, with the exception of Lord Loss, which won a major award and thus passes WP:NB. No claims of notability or RS in the articles. Also no claim of notability in the series' main article, but if that's remedied, WP:NEXIST applies. Reviews that exist of individual books are user-posted, ~~paid~~ from sources who allow authors to pay for reviews (e.g. Kirkus), or blogs. All articles listed consist of almost nothing but plot details. I am not including Dark Calling in this nomination because it's up for speedy deletion under CSD G4 (previously deleted via AfD).

With that explanation, I'm nominating the following articles on books in this series in addition to Bec:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The Demonata or Darren Shan' – I agree with nom's assessment of the subjects' claims to notability. Redirecting to The Demonata would be the most natural from a flow-of-information perspective, but that article's sourcing also seems to be deficient and it's not clear that we should keep that one around either, at least as currently written. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merging everything to The Demonata would probably be okay but I suspect some of these books do meet WP:NBOOK. A search on ProQuest reveals that Demon Thief was reviewed by School Library Journal [16] and The Times Educational Supplement [17] among others. Haukur (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, did the nominator even consider "redirects" to the series page of what are popular books of a very popular author? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and another thing, the nominator says that reviews are "paid (e.g. Kirkus),...", can they please provide us with proof that this is so? i know that some organisations do provide such a service, although looking at kirkus it appears to be indie authors only?, but to allege that this author's reviews are such may be bordering on the slanderous? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another bundle of afds that a nominator expects other editors to spend their time finding reviews instead of doing it themselves, having a look at Shan's page of reviews for this book we find The Westmorland Gazette - here, The Echo - here, The Independent - here, The Irish Post - here, Business Post - here, unfortunately i don't have access to the physical reviews to confirm whether these are reader or independent reviews (hopefully there are editors that do:)), but that doesn't matter as here we have reviews from School Library Journal and The Horn Book Magazine, and here (about halfway down) a review from Voice of Youth Advocates thus meeting WP:NBOOK (multiple independent reviews), expect the other titles to be the same (see listed reviews of Demon Thief above). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the above comment is honestly selling it short, take a gander at this page [18]. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Coolabahapple for doing the work I put off doing yesterday. The sourcing presented by cool shows notability under WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Coolabahapple: The reviews you listed along with others I saw on Shan's site are not significant coverage, in my opinion. I can accept if my idea of significance does not align with consensus, and will make adjustments accordingly, but your claim that I'm being lazy and expecting others to do the work for me is short-sighted and in bad faith. The Westmoreland review reads as if the reviewer has never read Bec. It talks primarily about Shan's other books and goes no deeper than a regurgitation of Bec's flap copy, cliffhanger closing line and all. The Echo review is nothing but a description of the plot accompanied by brief praise for Shan's previous books. The Independent review is a user-submitted fan write-up by a 14 year old 1. The Irish Post review is a single paragraph, consisting again for praise of Shan's previous books, plot summary, and a single sentence of commentary on Bec: "An excellent read." The Business Post review is similar, focusing on the author's previous works with the exception of one sentence about Bec. I checked reviews for every book I listed, through Shan's page and numerous Google search strings. I did not have access to search on ProQuest, which may garner more significant reviews, but I put substantial work into investigating each book listed. If these reviews qualify as significant in spite of their lack of depth, I can accept that I need to recalibrate my expectations. Laziness, however, is not the issue, and I reject your assertion. As for the Kirkus claim, I only meant that the site allows authors to pay for reviews and is not a reliable source. I can see that I phrased that poorly and I'll adjust it. Thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any really meaty reviews either, which is why my comment above is so half-hearted. The School Library Journal review of Demon Thief is a brief plot summary followed by this: Demon Thief follows Lord Loss (Little, Brown, 2005), the first volume in this grim and very gory series from the author of the "Cirque du Freak" books (Little, Brown). Readers who love the ghastly and demand a fast pace will be asking for more.-Walter Minkel, New York Public Library Traditionally, even short reviews qualify under WP:NBOOK as long as they are demonstrably independent, but this is pushing it a bit. Haukur (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this is a pretty standard review example in SLJ (and LJ). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and so, even if we discount the author's listed reviews (not that im necessarily doing so:))we still have kirkus (still no proof offered that they received money for their review, start down the generalised "but they do carry out some reviews for money" and we may as well discount all reviews from newspapers/magazines/journals that carry any advertisements from publishers/book sellers as it could be argued that they are not independent), we have slj (short but is it trivial or non-trivial (from nbook)? - after all, the poetic form of haiku is short ie. 17 syllables but is it trivial?:)), horn, another "short but sweet" review and VOYA, hence multiple reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A publication directly taking money for reviews is not comparable to having advertisements related to content (standard practice for any publication containing ads, for obvious reasons). Same goes for comparing a book review to a haiku. These are very strange arguments. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm much more fascinated in the Kirkus discussion here, but honestly, I'm not sure how it applies... I can't find any Kirkus reviews for the works that are listed on this AfD. Neither on the Kirkus site nor on any of the review compilations from his site (note that he does list Kirkus for other works). Perhaps in print-only Kirkus issues? I could only find Lord Loss, which was intentionally omitted from the nomination (and not paid for, see below).
@Skeletor3000:I found the Kirkus topic interesting, so I searched and found these previous discussions on the Reliable Sources archives: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Kirkus Reviews. Bottom line, it seems that you want to look for an indicator at the bottom of the review saying "Program: Kirkus Indie" to know if it is paid for by the author. Here are two examples: [19] and [20]. All of the Darren Shan hits in the Kirkus link I provided earlier are not part of this program (e.g. Lord Loss). (Again, none are on this AfD, either.)
All that said, each review still needs to be assessed individually since a showing reliability and notability are different. -2pou (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I am also not aware of any reviews of any of these titles in Kirkus. I still maintain other review sources are more than adequate to establish notability per Cool uner NBOOK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: Thank you for that info! I was also unable to find info on the Kirkus site regarding how to differentiate their reviews, but had not seen the Wikipedia noticeboard discussion. You're also correct that I did not even need to mention Kirkus in the nomination. While searching, I found the reviews of other Shan books on the site, but neglected to double back when writing my AfD to see that none of the books in question were listed there. Thanks for your comments.

@Barkeep49: My takeaway here is that I need to adjust my expectations of what depth is necessary to meet WP:NBOOK. I appreciate your comments as well. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the upshot is to keep this for now. Haukur (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Middle-earth Orc characters. Left history can merge at editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gothmog (Third Age)[edit]

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

As the article itself says, "The only reference to Gothmog in The Lord of the Rings is one sentence in The Return of the King", and "Tolkien writes nothing else about Gothmog — not even what race he belonged to". In Peter Jackson's movie, he appears as an orc, but he is still a minor character. Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's picked out as a significant film character in academic literature, and he even has a species named after him. I think there's a case for keeping this article, but, at the very least, a merge would be worthwhile; I am opposed to deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothmog (Third Age). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguments put forward in the previous AFD. The article references the single reference to the character in the books as a means to contrast the more significant appearance in the films; multiple non-trivial, non-primary sources exist, enough for the article to pass WP:GNG.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think you can inherit notability from a beetle. The GNG is that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". There is no "significant coverage"; there are only passing references. The character in the movie is mostly notable for his make-up. He only has a couple of scenes and has very little dialogue.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some thought. There are sources; there is real-world impact; there is some "stuff" to talk about other than just plot summaries. If an appropriate target can be identified, I may be willing to support a merge. It's tricky, though: not quite orc, not quite film only... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: Did you find any good sources? I looked and didn't find anything that impressed me, but if you did I'd be happy to review and reconsider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm basing this on the sources already cited and those mentioned in the previous AfD. They strike me as enough. Your judgement may differ, and that's fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If there are actually sources discussing the topic, it should really be explored in a wider format article before being split out again in the future should weight support it. There are plenty of FAs and FLs that can be made out of Tolkien's works, and, if there are actually sources, the context this article would provide most likely belongs in one of those. TTN (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced this is notable, sources in the article don't show anything but a passing mention at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into a new List of The Lord of the Rings characters. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. The reason such a list does not exist already is that all these were created as separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really support a merge into a newly created article - especially one as broad as this one. He's too minor a character to have a massive section in a list like that - and who's going to write the rest of it? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the rare fictional article that falls under the heading "overly promotional". It makes claims not actually justified in the source material, and basically tries to leverage beatle naming and extended scenes into something notable. Not every character in a film is notable. Gothmog does not merit mention outside of the film itself. Passing one sentence mention is not enough to show notability. Maybe for people, but not for fictional characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle-earth Orc characters. Gothmog's coverage consists mostly of brief references, not in-depth discussion. However, I think merging is a better alternative to deletion in this case, as Gothmog has some (rather limited) coverage. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight bark[edit]

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

This article is about a claimed type of dog communication (it is not about the Twilight Barking in The Hundred and One Dalmations), but there are no citations and as far as I can tell there is no such recognized type of dog communication. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. An "often-noted behavior in domestic dogs" which has no references at all. William Harristalk 08:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a look online shows lots of potential sources, especially in non-fiction books, poetry, and literature. On the other hand, they seem to be mostly mentions in passing. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something made up for a book that has no basis in reality. Reywas92^Talk 08:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnHerd[edit]

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

There is virtually no substantive coverage of this website by news RS, which means it's neither notable nor is it possible to write a well-sourced article about the website. A search of mentions of UnHerd at the BBC, FT and the Guardian reveals no substantive mentions of this website (only off-hand mentions and in op-eds). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cited sources such as New Statesman and the The Spectator are notable and reliable and give substantive coverage of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be enough to start the article. As a source it has been cited by others and a few articles have been written about it. If things don't improve over the next few years then I would support removal at that time. I would rather err on the side of keeping it and deleting it later vs repeating something like the Donna Strickland case where an article was created, deleted then recreated later. Springee (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments about the notability established by the sources provided by Jweiss (or others to come) will help to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting is an inappropriate suggestion made at a heated political moment. This is a reputable - if newish - political magazine. Substantive coverage was easy to find, I added an article from Vice to the articles already mentioned by Jweiss11. The fact that the Press Gazette, the British trade magazine covering journalism, covers UnHerd is dispositive. WidenerStacks (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bilyeu[edit]

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

Blatant PR for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Souce is bombarded with sources but none are good for GNG. Current sourcing:

1. primary

2. forbes contributor, not reliable

3. interview, not independent coverage

4. primary

5. primary

6. interview with wife/business partner, not independent coverage

7. primary

8. passing mentions only

9. huffpo contributor, not reliable

10. interview, not independent coverage

11. about the company, interview with him

12. by him, not independent

13. primary

14. sps personal blog, not reliable.

Search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see notability here. WP:PROMOTION WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece per WP:PROMO this shouldn’t be on Mainspace.Celestina007 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source , WP:REFBOMB and obvious WP:PROMOTION castorbailey (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frecker Drive[edit]

Not a notable roadway; not in any sense encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete, absolutely nothing can be found on the web but trivial mentions, as you'd expect for a street like this. Backwater of Wikipedia to the fullest extent. ~~A7 it.~~ J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @User:J947, maybe I'm misreading the CSD criteria, and if I am, please point it out, but WP:A7 states that A7 only applies to articles in the listed categories, which are people, bands, organizations, events, websites, and individual animals. Hog Farm (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I forgot that provision. Corrected. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this subject is any more notable than one of the countless streets in the world. Hog Farm (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roads are not automatically notable enough for articles just because they exist — literally hundreds of millions, possibly even well into the billions, of roads exist in the world. So the notability test for a road is not met by describing its physical characteristics; it is met by including reliably sourced political, social or historical context for what might make the road important. But there's nothing like that here, and no evidence in a search for other sources that the requirement is attainable either. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG, a gsearch (although not the bee all for sources:)) reveals nothing for wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:MILL: 300 houses and a couple of businesses. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé listography[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

I brought this up for an informal discussion at WT:WPMU a couple weeks ago. These may be considered WP:LISTCRUFT by failing to meet WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. The most significant accolades are already found in the awards and nominations lists. If an album by the artist is ranked one of the top ten albums of the year, that factoid can be mentioned in that album's article. If kept, there's no reason not to have similar lists for everyone from Frank Sinatra to Billie Eilish. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you have to make up a fake word to describe your topic, it may not be a bright idea for a list. Are any of these actually covered in independent sources or are they all primary? Why would anyone think that being the 39th least annoying of 2012 according to amiannoying.com belongs on Wikipedia? If it's a notable ranking like Billboard, it should be on the respective song/album's article or her own article, as many of these are, but this is pure listcruft just for the sake of it, not because Buzzfeed ranking her music videos as the Most Incredible needs to be noted. Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A wild mishmash of rankings that nobody else would ever think of bundling together. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. This honestly feels ike a classic example of synthesis. It's relatively well sourced, but there's no organization or governing ethos that would group these seemingly random lists together. As Reywas92 noted, the notable honors and awards should be included (and as far as I can tell, are included) in Beyonce and Lana Del Rey. The rest are not notable enough to justify an article or do not necessarily belong grouped together under a single banner. Michepman (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for numerous issues, mainly WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE (apparently no criteria for the "place") and just overall WP:OR/WP:SYNTH of sources. Does not pass WP:LISTN as no source covers the groups as a whole like this. Does not warrant a WP:SPLIT because it would be trivia in parent articles anyway. The creator appears to be single-purposely making these award/trivia lists. (Disclaimer: the related articles were on my watchlist, because I previous encountered the author who made the now-deleted rejected Draft:Awards of Angel Locsin and copied it into Angel Locsin#Awards Received and kept reverting even after being contacted, although I didn't pursue this further at the time.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both In the current climate, with some sights (I'm death starting at BuzzFeed) thriving on creating meaningless lists all the time, being put on a list made by someone has no high value anymore. This is an indiscriminate list, that as others have mentioned violates all sorts of content and creation rules. It is a nightmare waiting to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Incredibly unnecessary. Any important list achievements are already covered in her Good Article. Leave this to IMDb. Trillfendi (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:LISTCRUFT. A huge indiscriminate collection of trivial media mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Atlas Comics (1950s)#Humor and miscellanea. Sourced presented do not appear strong enough to refute the delete argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homer the Happy Ghost[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. Contrary to the deprodder's thoughts, there appears to be nothing substantial about the comic. It appears in a small laundry list of titles associated with Stan Lee and nothing more. If anything substantial exists, you need much more than a cursory search. TTN (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it had its own series from a notable comic company Atlas Comics in the 1950s the precurser of Marvel, it's written by a very notable artist and had a rebirth in 1969-1970s so it would be surprising if its not notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, I assume it'd be in older print media, but there'd have to be at least some proof as to that existing to let this article linger in this state. There are plenty of series out there that just never received proper attention. TTN (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 07:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any more than a few brief mentions of this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nominator's thoughts, I find little difficulty in locating a detailed account of the comic. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that even count as a reliable source? Seems like so no-name blog. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I did some minor work on the article days ago [22] and found brief mention in the New York Times and elsewhere. Stan Lee is certainly a notable person. Finding any reviews of something from that long before the internet isn't really feasible. I'd say this publication was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Remember the notability guidelines are just guidelines not absolute law, they all have a disclaimer that ways "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Dream Focus 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit one is literally nothing beyond the name being mentioned and has no place in this article whatsoever. The Marvel one is primary and adds nothing. So we have a podcast and a blog. I don't know the standards under which a podcast is acceptable, but that blog really doesn't seem like it should count as one. This is hardly an IAR topic. It can be summarized in two sentences pretty much anywhere. TTN (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article about a lawsuit reads "Casper inspired a number of less successful comic-book clones, including Homer the Happy Ghost, Timmy the Timid Ghost and Spunky the Smiling Spook." So it is a valid reference to backup the claim this comic came about because of Casper. Dream Focus 02:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Atlas Comics (1950s)#Humor and miscellanea. The character doesn't appear notable at all, and the lack of sources on the work he appears in don't make for more than a WP:PERMASTUB. At least the Atlas Comic page mentions the work. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:PERMASTUB there is nothing wrong with a well written referenced permastub, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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