Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 December	17 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 keep. Deor (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Darling[edit]

Does not meet WP:GNG, doesn't appear notable as an entrepreneur. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. A piece just on her in the Rolling Stone? Significant mentions in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal? Yeah, that's significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one article in one magazine does not notability make. There is not broad enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear that nominator did not do WP:BEFORE given the Rolling Stones article mentioned by NatGertler, NY Times article [2], Wall Street Journal [3], and VICE article [4] that are already cited in the article. If you can't read the articles because of the paywall, try clearing your cookies. It is also clear that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ARTIST, as a pioneer in VR porn, consistently cited in those articles. Look at this specific quote, "As the first ever VR Cam Girl, Darling’s ambitions of bringing VR pornography to the masses is truly passion fueled and is a demonstration of “roll up your sleeves” American entrepreneurship. Darling has built her own stereoscopic camera solution with stitching software and plans to offer it at a low entry price of $250, to allow easy access to cam girls who wish to enter into the market. The repercussions of this will be felt throughout the entire VR community: a steady stream of on-demand and fresh content. It’s one of the biggest complaints about VR so far, and porn seems to have a solution." [5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ,i found only 2 sources that are reliable ,the rest are debatable ,qualifies for WP:HEY Georgiamarlins (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCREATIVE (see here, here, etc). It is erroneous to assess the article's subject on the basis of criteria for porn entertainers: She's notable as an innovator in entertainment communication. The lead section of the article should also reflect this fact, and clearly too. -The Gnome (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it meets gng as an entertainer but depend upon her career it is too soon.. Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors (may be applicable for actress). Rocky 734 (talk) 05:33, 24 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) 23:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditmar Shehri[edit]

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

Despite playing 44 minutes in a second-tier league which would pass WP:NFOOTY, the references are mostly WP:ROUTINE which wouldn't be enough for passing WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, more important than only 44 minutes of professional play. Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less than an hour of play in a second tier league should not be enough to show notability. Our football notability guidelines are broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Georgiamarlins (talk) 20:17, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Green[edit]

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

I don't think that this organization meets the GNG. The sourcing in the article is almost entirely from the organization's own webpage. Almost all the sources I've found through a web search are passing mentions, rehashed press releases, or both; the best I've found are this, which reads like an expanded press release, and this, which is so full of puffery as not to be credibly independent. Note that they collaborate with Forbes (see [6]) so the independence of Forbes' writing about them is questionable. This is the best source that a gbooks search threw up, but it's short and uncritical. My Google Scholar search located only passing mentions. Wham2001 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG. There is not meaningful independent coverage (taking into account the above note about Forbes possibly being affiliated) that establishes notability of this org.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments' - this is truly a rare (IMHO) of a situation of Maybe notable or maybe not. My concern is that their primary rationale for notability is the list of former fellows - sort of a notable alumni list. I'd like to see more discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I largely ignored the list of alumni when doing BEFORE, because, as you say, notability is not inherited. I've just done a Google search for "Echoing green" "Michelle Obama" and I was surprised how little turns up - mostly recycled press releases that mention her in passing as a prominent alumnus. If there are independent sources on what she did with her fellowship I suspect they are only available offline.
I agree that the discussion would benefit from more participation. One problem that I had when looking for sources is that material derived purely from press releases dominates in searches; if anybody know of a more focussed way to search for sources in this field that would be particularly helpful IMO. There is a related problem that, if the article is to be kept, currently we have almost no non-primary material to source it from. Wham2001 (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .Spend almost 30 minutes trying to find independent secondary sources and i didn'tGeorgiamarlins (talk) 20:42, 23 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! 20:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KWANPEN[edit]

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

Small Singaporean company, coverage is routine for a corporate entity and non-substantial (a couple of passing mentions on google news in 2019). I do not believe this passes WP:COMPANY. Potential self-promotion issues too. Ashleyuwc595 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons outlined above. Notability is not established by the sources and article focuses heavily on product and store history Uhooep (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There do seem to be sources proving it is a high-profile luxury brand founded in 1938 with a niche focus. That said, corporations to show notability also need some critical coverage, and I'm on the fence if these articles apply. I imagine there may be sources that aren't in English that could push opinions one way or the other, but didn't look. I had assumed there would be content critical of alligator farming at large to add to that, but did not find any myself. An article on the farm where Kwanpen sources from contains only positive information, so hardly critical. I wonder if mentioning the brand on the page for alligator farming would be a better choice, with a redirect maybe.

70.240.207.189 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:29, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Syndicate (business group)[edit]

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

This page is of dubious notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Yoodaba (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references exist including several linked in the article that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - change !vote. I went back and double checked the sources that I originally believed meet the criteria. They don't. For example, I missed that The Verge article relies extensively on an interview with Jenkins, fails WP:ORGIND, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this promotional text, created by a couple of kamikaze accounts about a get-rich-quick-corporation, if it even exists. The sources cited are pathetic: An article in the South Utah St George News about a fraud case against Jeremy Johnson, containing not a pip about the subject; a pompous link to a Time report that turns out to be on "the myth of the millionaire college dropout", again without a single mention of the subject; some article that appeared on The Verge about Mitt Romney going to Scamworld and a similar one in PC World about the FTC cracking cown on internet scams, both unadulterated by mentions of our subject; then, some post by a blogger that's trivially dismissable; and so on. The reference to The Telegraph is about pick-up artists, online seduction and dating tips, with but a single mention of a person that's supposedly a co-creator of the syndicate, again without any mention of the syndicate itself. The article's subject is not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:26, 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) 22:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Thanga[edit]

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

How to pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Idolmm (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no pass WP:MUSICBIO.103.200.134.150 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. Besides the fact that much of the page's script isn't in Latin text, there's no evidence this person is anything more than an ordinary working musician; the reality shows don't count unless it's a win that can be documented in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 13:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Most of the references in the article are from YouTube and not acceptable. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , not even sure how the article was moved to the mainspace ,it fails WP:BASIC WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV WP:MUSICBIO Georgiamarlins (talk) 20:56, 23 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Bilodeau[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must accomplish something that counts as a valid notability claim (e.g. charting hits, notable music awards, etc.) and receive reliable source coverage about that -- but as written, this literally just states that he exists, and then jumps directly to listing his discography without even attempting to say anything about him that's even measurable against NMUSIC at all, and then sources 75 per cent to YouTube copies of his own videos and 25 per cent to a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media blurb whose core subject is other people, which means it's referenced exactly zero per cent to reliable source coverage about him. This is not how you demonstrate that a musician is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, per WP:NEXIST the quality of the sources presently in the article are not evidence of notability or lack thereof, so it is irrelevant what percentage of the current references are to YouTube and other junk. They can be easily removed. Otherwise, this musician does have a fairly reliable media profile at: [7], which is already cited in the article, and there is also a valid source already in the article verifying that he won a cash prize at the songwriter's conference. Alas, activities of that nature don't add up to enough notability, and otherwise it is true that other media coverage of the musician consists of brief mentions of him being present at some event. Perhaps it's simply too soon for this kid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator, I do agree that the article certainly did not start out strong (in fact, for the first citation I used the wrong link, hence why that page was not about the subject). It did not help that the French article, which I used as a starting point, focused more on various music festivals he had entered than his work. However, I do think that he fits muliple criteria specified by WP:NMUSIC. He has a gold album (see [8], enter "Émile Bilodeau" into the search field), won major awards ([9][10]), and has been covered in articles by multiple independent sources([11][12][13]). In my opinion, the solution is further research and editing, not deletion.
(PS: I have never commented on a AfD page for an article that I have created before, so this is all a bit new to me.) MSG17 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the musician is notable, or his album Rites de passage is [14], and as there is not yet an article about the album, this article should be kept. If/when an article about the album is created, a discussion about whether to merge/redirect the musician to the album could occur. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sources listed above by MSG17, some of which are SIGCOV in reasonable RS; notability is also underlined by RebeccaGreen's point re his album. Britishfinance (talk) 19:15, 24 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 Zhytomyr. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugyny Youth Centre[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given its location it certainly has some claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there certainly is a claim to notability, but it's barely notable, and a merger to Zhytomyr would provide some context. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 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. WP:SALTing is typically reserved for repeated recreations, so holding off on that for now. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karty[edit]

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

This looks like someone who has made youtube-videos, no noticeable effect, no outside sources. The original author may have had a COI problem: now it has become a "free for all" vandals. (He is listed as playing Mia Khalifa!) Huldra (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails WP:GNG, and based on this username change request by the article's creator (who has no other substantive contributions), it is clearly an autobiography. How this has lasted this long, I have no idea. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG, especially considering the conflict of interest mentioned above.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale provided by 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco & Kinu, Furthermore writing an autobiography isn’t advisable & even if he were to write his own biography he must be neutral & clearly scale WP:42/WP:GNG of which subject of article doesn’t pass/satisfy.Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Originally a dab page, this was hijacked by the self-admitted subject and SPA. There's zero proof this person is notable in any way. The user has a history of seven years creating bogus pages. We are a charity, not a web-host for you and your friends. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Kinu, and the redirect to Kart (disambiguation) as it originally was. A vanity/promotional auto-bio that lasted for too long. Salting it will lead to creation with other titles. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for writing a promotional piece. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 00:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of middle schools in Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Middle schools are generally not notable enough to have their own articles, so why a list of all of them? I can see the motivation for lists of school districts in Kentucky, or lists of high schools in Kentucky, but this list is basically just a directory. Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Middle schools are rarely notable. ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 20:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN, there are definitely enough articles on this topic to merit a standalone list as complementary to Category:Middle schools in Kentucky. Whether it should include nonnotable entries as well is a matter for talk page discussion there to determine, but there is certainly a good argument for it being made comprehensive. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf. This is exactly the sort of page our core readership uses: it gets at least 100 views per month. This is especially needed because Kentucky has so few educational resources due to chronic under-funding of their public schools. Lists are used precisely where only a few or many examples are notable, but the larger concept is notable. A category does not always replace, but can compliment a list. Why not both? Bearian (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this or other articles of its type found at Category:Lists of middle schools. To claim high schools are notable but middle schools aren't, is odd. There are enough blue links to articles about these schools to make it a valid list. Dream Focus 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what you should do to a list of junior high schools- see Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)#If it's not notable. Remember that in the wikipedia context Notable - means it should be noted - not that is is world shattering or unique. ClemRutter (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian and ClemRutter. Bookscale (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Looks like the consensus is to keep this page. I'm not going to waste any more of anybody's time here at AfD with this then. Hog Farm (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close this myself, as there was one other !vote to delete, but if an admin sees this, feel free to close this AfD. Hog Farm (talk) 22:56, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Sinha Guruji[edit]

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

The coverage seem to be astrological observations. Assistant professor so no WP:PROF. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 20:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, no other indication of notability. --Tataral (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:MILL. We almost never keep articles about assistant professors, who are at the early phase of their careers, and there's no evidence this is any more than a run of the mill academic. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. No conviction that he might be notable. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 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 redirect to The Silmarillion#Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age. The subject is already summarized in the target section, but if there is additional material that editors believe should be merged there, the history is available. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age[edit]

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

One short chapter from a Tolkien work. We don't often have articles about specific chapters of works unless the chapters themselves gain significant independent coverage outside of the main work itself, like The Scouring of the Shire or Leviticus 18. This chapter does not garner that sort of attention. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a small amount of information into The Silmarillion#Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age Three of the other four parts of The Silmarillion redirect to the main article on the book. I see no reason why this one should be given the privilege of having its own article, as there does not appear to be any substantial discussion of this portion of the book. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Silmarillion. Very few books merit articles about their chapters, and no, Tolkien works do not qualify. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom and age-old prophesy: One Nominator to find them all and in the Afd merge them, in the land of Wikipedia where the articles lie. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is even less notable than the rest of the Samirillion which is truly saying a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?! There's a new book about Sam Gamgee? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to The Silmarillion#Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age, per Susmuffin. Goustien (talk) 06:58, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Babu Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable Film producer and minor actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 19:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been part of four films and that too as a Film producer, actor and writer. There are enough references cited showing that he is a notable personality. As mentioned in the article, he is also the founder and key person of Big Bang Entertainments which is an established Film production company. Minimal references is what you meant by non-notable? Celionite (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:MILL. Being part of a film production is totally ordinary. I have many friends, clients, and family members who have been in films. A human is not automatically notable because they were part of making a film, even if the move was notable or won an award. Millions of people work every year as assistants to the director, grips, dancers, film editors, costumers, producers, and executive producers; almost none are notable. We almost always have deleted articles about producers, who of those jobs listed, are specially run of the mill. Obviously, there are exceptions (a little person who sang one song in the blockbuster The Wizard of Oz, or an executive producer who lost $100 million on a box office bomb, an Oscar-winning key grip or designer). As an actor, the subject has only had minor roles. Please ping me if you can prove this person is an exception to the rule. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Celionite reached out to me but it confirms my mind that his notability, such as it were, is derivative. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 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 speedy delete per G5. (non-admin closure) IntoThinAir (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fx empire[edit]

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

Non-notable website that does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. Article was declined in AFC for this reason, but later moved to mainspace by the original author without any significant changes. A differently-capitalized version of this article was deleted in 2015 - see the discussion here. Although I can't see what content was in that original article (and so did not mark this article as WP:G4), the comments from the AFD discussion appear to still be relevant based upon the new article. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything except two citations is based on the company's websites or PR releases. The remaining two are 1)a press release from a different company that became vendor for Fx, and a directory listing of the company's president in the Jerusalem Post. This is the best I found when searching for other possible sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORPSPAM. All references are PR or non-independent. Note, in August someone attempted to hijack an existing article by adding identical content to the current article and moving the page to a different name: see [15] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the current article seems fairly different than the FX Empire that Jmertel23 mentions as having been previously AFD-deleted. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G5 of Telseria (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (SPI). As SpicyMilkBoy points out, Telseria's final version of the hijacked Řepice is a very close match. Cabayi (talk) 21:28, 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 Scapegoat (band). redirect nn album to band, as usual. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Dog[edit]

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

Noticed the existence of this page when doing the AfD of a Resident Evil article. This album appears to be similarly non-notable and fails WP:NALBUM. Lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scapegoat (band). Needs further review. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:04, 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 no consensus. Editors could not agree if if the topic had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Of course, merging or renaming (for an article refocus) is always an option, and should be considered ~~and~~ or discussed before another AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Dog (character)[edit]

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

I don't want to WP:BITE (no pun intended) the newcomers, but I'm not really sure how this article got through Articles for Creation. It is a relatively minor enemy type in the Resident Evil series, and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. All of the RS listed only have short mentions. We don't even have a list of minor enemies in Resident Evil and this is even more minor than that. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passing mentions and listicles do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor enemy in the Resident Evil franchise. Furthermore, there have been many different depictions of zombified dogs in fiction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Found one more article that focuses on the dogs in the game, in addition to two that are substantial that are already in the article. The new one. First decent one already in article. Second decent one. It was my understanding that there needs to be three decent articles to justify keeping something on here. The dog scene in Resident Evil 1 is probably the single most notorious jump scare in gaming history, so I feel like theres a place on Wikipedia for what caused that. The article as it is now has some pretty blatant errors however. If it ends up not getting deleted, then I volunteer to rewrite it. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The jumpscare in RE1 is more in the context of RE1's level design and how it sets up scares, the dog that jumps in is not particularly special in itself. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the RE1 article, not here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete, merge and redirect to List of Resident Evil characters. In particular the reception section is valuable, I don't think it is sufficient for a stand-alone article (rankings and ONEEVENT meme mention), but it should be PRESERVED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sources found by Bluedude588 prove this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that Bluedude588 has already found sources that indicate notability, and has volunteered to improve the article after the AFD, I believe it should be kept. If the efforts to expand the article prove insufficient, we can always revisited the discussion to delete later... — Hunter Kahn 18:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a creator. Many reliable sources are presents and those are literally not passing mention, especially to the reception. with Bluedude help, it will definitely be notable. 114.69.117.249 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with the sources is that they are all about a single moment from RE1, the dog scene. So much so that it would probably be better to write an article about Resident Evil dog scene than the dogs themselves. But we all know that's undue weight and it would be better off mentioned in the Reception section of Resident Evil (video game). There is no way the article could be improved that would remove this extremely narrow focus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources aren't really in-depth about this character, and show zero real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 23 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. It isn't clear how many sources found in the searches are really significant coverage, but given that all the participants aside from the nominator have favored keeping based on finding material that is at least reliable and non-promotional, I'm willing to accept their belief that adequate sources probably exist. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Sanctuary Association[edit]

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

It would seem reasonable to expect that an organization

set up in 1998
in the United States
that certifies other organizations for animal welfare standards compliance

would have a significant internet footprint.
Doing the required WP:BEFORE due diligence, I note that the Yellowstone Wildlife Sanctuary article links its accreditation via the http://asaanimalsanctuaries.org/ website.
It would appear to me that this article at best fails the WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:GNG tests for notability. At worst, it appears to be all kind of things that are not in the scope of this WP:AFD discussion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for keeping[edit]

(I'm the one that created the article)

Being the only American organization accrediting animal sanctuaries for animal welfare standards compliance creates some level of notability.
Notability guidelines tend to focus on organizations that directly work with large numbers of people. The ASA generally does not deal with the public at all. Since their mission is to accredit sanctuaries, they operate behind the scenes, which doesn't generate the in-depth coverage that notability guidelines may look for.
I will certainly accept blame for not searching out more articles and links. As someone who works in the animal sanctuary business, I made the unwarranted assumption that the association was better known. I will do some further research and attempt to improve this article in the next few days.

While Shirt58 correctly points out that the Internet footprint of the ASA is small, there are some valid reasons for that:

The organization has never had a tech-savvy staff member or board member
The ASA is funded through membership dues, so they don't have a fundraising presence
Their online discussion forum is a password-protected Yahoo group, so it doesn't register on search engines
The website is being redesigned. They currently have two domains pointed to their old site ( http://asaanimalsanctuaries.org/ and http://asasanctuaries.org/ ) and one to the new site, ( https://www.americansanctuaries.org/ ).

Gary D Robson 23:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary D Robson (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick news search finds a bunch of sources that can be used. I also found 25 journal articles. Seems notable to me. --Nessie (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nessie. I have already used in the article one of the printed sources he found, thanks.--Darius (talk) 21:19, 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 Procedural keep. Participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and want the different embassies to be considered individually. RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG - embassies are not inherently notable. No sources given. CakalangSantan (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar decisions were taken for similarly length and sourced articles related to embassies (and consulates): Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo, Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Embassy of Germany in Palestine, Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan, Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa, Embassy of Colombia, Beijing, Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT and there are numerous others. CakalangSantan (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also similarly length and sourced as the diplomatic missions listed above. These articles were taken from "Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country" from the 'A' and 'B' lists. One course of action is to merge the information in the articles to their respective bilateral relations pages. Some listed below do not have such a page, however, they do have a foreign relations of ... page where the information could be merge into.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD is not for considering merge proposals. Just go ahead and do the merges as you think appropriate (subject to talk page consensus). Only come back here with articles for which merge or retaining as separate articles is not appropriate, Thincat (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would require separate discussions in 45 talk pages. My main proposal is still for the deletion of the articles. CakalangSantan (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am suggesting that we only discuss those articles you consider should be deleted after you have merged those that you think are suitable for merging. Talk page discussion would only be required when someone raises a specific problem with a particular merge. Merging and deletion are mutually incompatible. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was the consensus in the most recent AfD of a related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo. CakalangSantan (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Absurd amount of articles in one batch nomination. Some of these are historic buildings, like the Embassy of Belgium in Moscow designed by renowned architect Boris Belikovsky[16] or the Embassy of Belarus in Moscow which was the house of Pyotr Rumyantsev and was designed by Matvey Kazakov - Had the nom just look at over the the Russian Wikipedia page they would've seen so but this is an example of how zero WP:BEFORE effort was made with any of these. Vetting every one of these in a single nomination is a complete waste of time for editors. If the nom doesn't like embassies, they should start an ANI. Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) While the information of the building is well documented in the Russian Wikipedia page, it's counterpart in the English Wikipedia page does not provide details of the building's notoriety. 2) If the request was not done together, then it would just be 45 separate nomination requests. 3) I happen to be fond of embassies, I've started articles for Embassy of Indonesia, Berlin and Embassy of Indonesia, Beijing. CakalangSantan (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion policy and guidelines article content does not determine notability. It doesn't matter if something well-documented in another language WP article isn't yet included in the English language one. That's why WP:BEFORE needs to be done which it wasn't at all with any of these. If you feel that 45 articles are no longer worthy of inclusion, then start 45 separate AfDs. Do them over time if like, but this batch AfD is only wasting everyone's time. Well done on the creation of those two articles.Oakshade (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the opinions expressed above that these articles need to be evaluated individually. The Bulgarian embassy in London, for example, is the main setting for one of the most popular films in Bulgaria, which though not conferring notability, still means that it's got a place in the popular imagination and so coverage in sources is likely to be found if sought for. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these articles turn out to be non-notable, but this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and taking account of what the article could look like if expanded, not what it happens to look like at the moment. – Uanfala (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - AfD is not here to sort out masses of articles that need to be considered individually, when some are notable, some are not, and some are in between. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Bearian has said it well. If there was an accepted view that embassies are not encyclopedia worthy, a mass nomination would make some sense. Given that this is not the case, this is simply the wrong approach to take. Spokoyni (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong procedural keep Way too much and too many different specifics to be lumped into one AfD. At the very very lesast they all need to be listed appropriately, for example the Australian one/s in "list of Australia-related deletion discussions". I found this by accident. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 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 delete from article-space, but also userfy to User:Bookscale/List of births, marriages and deaths in Neighbours per User:Bookscale's request to explore other options. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Neighbours[edit]

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

Same as with the other AfDs on the subject, this is a fan article that belongs on a fan wiki. This does not establish notability for the topic as a whole in any way, so this isn't justified in any way. TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I think I'd prefer it to be redirected to the main article to maintain the history (perhaps to the storyline section?). I made sure that everything is sourced and attempted to make it more encyclopaedic, but I totally accept it is fancrufty and the information is already included in the relevant character articles. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This takes the source material more seriously than it takes itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails LISTN/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the recent flood of like-minded nominations. Wikipedia is not the Australian version of Soap Opera Digest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Yer flamin' galah! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - making that comment (Alf is in Home and Away, not Neighbours!) should be enough to disqualify your !vote - completely unAustralian :-) Bookscale (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the others like this as well. Absolute fancruft. (It looks like many more people die than are born, so might the thing die out naturally anyway?) !Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bookscale: FANCRUFT - fair enough. I could not find any reliable secondary reference indicating that the collation/synthesis of the BMDs for the programme is in any way notable in its own right, or a likely encyclopedic search term. At the very very best have them as expand/collapse lists hidden at the bottom of Neighbours (ie merged). Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoziwe. As you will see below, I agree there are issues about notability and suitability for WP. Bookscale (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no notability. b uidhe 19:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a reminder that "fancruft" is not Wikipedia policy, it's an essay that someone wrote. By all means claim a lack of notability for the page, or cite what Wikipedia is not as a reason for deletion, but citing "fancruft" by itself is not a reason to delete an article. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an interesting list that someone should copy and keep for Wikia or another website (the referencing and sourcing is good), but unfortunately it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Alternatively can it be transwikified to Wikia? Bookscale (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The real question here is whether or not this type of list is suitable for Wikipedia. I think to an extent it would only interest someone tuning into Neighbours and maybe the odd general reader. The list is really well sourced and in comparison to the other four lists, this is well researched and maintained. Acknowledging that this list is related to the television series Neighbours, which has been watched by millions of people worldwide, how can it not meet general notability? Maybe the weddings, births and deaths are worth note and already are already documented in the relevant stand alone articles or lists. Writing it off as not notable or fancruft. It seems like subject snobbery.Rain the 1 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I thought about that too for a while. But just because it is interesting to some people, even very interesting, is it really encyclopedic? These are not real people of historical value and-or have contributed to science, art, sport, etc. As indicated above, I would be okay with a merge. Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree Raintheone - the sourced content can be merged somewhere even if the article itself is not encyclopedic. Is there an editor that the article can be userfied to in order to make sure the sources are all put in a suitable article? Bookscale (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator - it's clear there is a consensus this can't stay as its own article, though I'd be interested in further time for this to stay open to explore potential options about what to do with the sourced material. Bookscale (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what do we do with the sources, though? Any constructive suggestions on that? Bookscale (talk) 06:30, 24 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itsagoal[edit]

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

COI problems (at least two obvious accounts), dependence on primary sources and questionable notability beneath all the spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - browser based games are rarely notable. This one is no different. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. I have tried to find something, anything that discussed this...but I failed. There is this bit in AdWeek [17], but is a very short mention and not significant/indepth. Forum discussions and unrelated results about a short lived mental health organization do not establish notability. The references in the article seem either WP:PRIMARY or unreliable (Softonic, BBGSite, Online Sport Managers, user reviews on Review Centre, a Yahoo web search listings (?!)).Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grunts (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: the current references are porn blogs (NSFW) and industry award rosters. Pornography industry awards are a dime a dozen. I looked for additional sources and found only promo and passing mentions; no significant coverage in reliable sources or other mainstream recognition. Cheers, gnu 57 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Oscars, Grammy’s, Tony’s, and Emmy’s are also “insider” and “industry” awards. Are they dismissed as well? This film seems to have a staggering amount of awards, the most of any porn film I’ve ever noticed, that would seem to make it one of the most notable porn films ever. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an Oscar, Grammy, etc. gets non-trivial coverage from multiple independent mainstream media sources. Porn award wins generally don't. That is generally true with most other mainstream industry awards. Porn trade mags like AVN promote the industry and get their revenue from the industry. They are not objectively independent. If this is one of the most notable films ever, it needs acknowledgment and critical commentary from credible sources. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Gleeanon409. There is no percentage in arguing that Oscars or Emmys do not confer Wikikonotability on a subject. -The Gnome (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above and the lack of evidence found to support WP:NFILM notability. The nominator's assessment of sources is correct. My own independent search for sources yielded only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not a film listing. -The Gnome (talk) 21:02, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Fresco[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A claim by the author that Fellowship of the American College of Surgeons meets criteria 3 of WP:PROF is false. FACS is a qualification open to all qualified surgeons after 12 months of successful practice in a locale and simply requires payment of the requisite fee. Without that claim, there is nothing else here to support a claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If so, every organization is required some kind of payment, even AAAS. Yet, we keep those articles. If this article fails WP:PROF then every other article that lists an academic as fellow of whatever, should be deleted.--Biografer (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no claim of notability here. Per this source, the American College of Surgeons has 82,000 members. WP:PROF #3 is clear that the organization needs to be "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", a standard that is not met here. In the absence of in-depth sources showing that Dr. Fresco is notable, the mere fact of being a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons meets no standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn: Correct me if I am wrong, but we can also say that AAAS who employs 10 million academics, is also a not so "prestigious". Our guideline at WP:PROF 3 says that: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Yet, because it doesn't say only, the confusion arises as which ones are prestigious. For example, we have articles on Guggenheim Fellows, but it doesn't state in WP:PROF #3 criteria. Not to mention, majority of academics have no so notable societies and prestigious ones. We do require to list them in the awards section as long as they are not in-house awards (or fellowships) as in such case. However, I personally don't know the difference between a prestigious society, and not so much. To me, a fellowship is a fellowship.
- Returning to the FACS: Every person there is also elected as a fellow, they don't automatically appointed, which contradicts statement by @Velella: FACS is a qualification open to all qualified surgeons after 12 months of successful practice in a locale and simply requires payment of the requisite fee. The have elevated, valued, all kinds of fellowship ranks, which are no different from IEEE for example.--Biografer (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- According to one of the primary sources, the subject is also a member of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons. The problem is, is that with FACS, I can retrieve the information with ease, and the source is good when it comes to birth year. The other societies that I found she is a member of, requires membership, which I don't have. So, in conclusion, she is notable, but Wikipedia just don't want to buy the proof. :(--Biografer (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biografer, if you're trying to use Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as the pathway to notability, it appears that you are mistaken. The guideline refers to academics, which are defined as "someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." Dr. Fresco is a physician, not an academic
    Criteria 3 states that "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Dr. Fresco has not been elected to a highly selective society, a standard that the American College of Surgeons does not meet. This is intended to be a selective subgroup, while being an FACS means that you are a surgeon like virtually all surgeons.
    Criteria 3 doesn't apply and it's clear that none of the criteria are even close. The laundry list of memberships does little to support a claim and if the FACS is being used exclusively for the ease of access, that's a weak claim of notability. If Dr. Fresco had extensive in-depth reliable and verifiable sources talking about her as a surgeon, you'd be on far firmer ground. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Alansohn....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for academics. The groups she belongs to are not exclusive groups for top ranked academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a non-notable surgeon that fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Pala[edit]

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also could not find reliable sources to support the page. Too soon, Delete. 70.240.207.189 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need much better sourcing to justify an article on a 16-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to have a page for Pala when the very organization for which he is supposedly notable for, Kids4Community, does not have one and would not meet WP:ORGCRITE. His marathon running times are also irrelevant castorbailey (talk) 06:03, 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 keep. Tone 10:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Dirk Nijkamp[edit]

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

Non-notable sprint canoer that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does the article have any references or sources with the exception of a brief sporting profile on a fringe website, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some additional citations, but they competed in the 1992 Olympics and meet WP:NOLYMPICS. -- SamCordes^talk 08:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not near enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want this to be construed as a WP:WAX argument, but wouldn't WP:DEFACTO (which I admit is not a WP:PG) apply here, where I believe it's been accepted that all Olympic athletes are notable? Here are the events that Nijkamp participated in, and each athlete listed currently has at least a stub similar to this one: K-2 500 and K-2 1000 -- SamCordes^talk 21:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- JPL's opinion is in clear violation of WP:NEXIST. He attches these "votes" at a speed of 2 per minute, making them meaningless. For example, he claimed that Germany's most decorated actress should be deleted after he saw no references in the article. This is not how AfDs should work. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't agree with the suggestion that meeting WP:NOLYMPICS automatically qualifies the subject for GNG. The Olympics are only an event, just as a league or cup football match is an event. Merely taking part is not enough for GNG. There must be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This man does not have that. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear from this opinion that a thorough search for sources was conducted. gidonb (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SPORTBASIC says that "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Coverage of Olympic athletes from the Netherlands in 1992 is likely to be offline (although some is online, such as this in Trouw [18] and this in Het Parool [19], and there may well be more) so we can't say that sources don't WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS having competed in the 1992 Olympics, and also has at least some online sources and probably many more offline. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG as well as the professional standard, WP:NOLYMPICS. I have added just a few of more than 150 press sources that I could find. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article's coverage is not overly impressive, I suspect that there's more out there if one has access to Dutch newspaper archives. Meanwhile, I'll defer to WP:NOLYMPICS. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 24 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. Was deleted as G7. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puja Sharma[edit]

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

Non notable model who allegedly won a non notable award and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. She fails WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable model winning a non-notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:38, 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 keep. Deor (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tilsley[edit]

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

Local councillors fail to meet WP:NPOL and are routinely deleted. Neither being a Lord Mayor or having ~~an MBE~~ a CBE get you notability either. Fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a CBE which grants notability as per the evidence I set here. @Bondegezou:, you wouldn't mind withdrawing that, would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraclepine (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that he has a CBE as well. Apologies for misstating that above. However, the closing statement of the AfD to which you link noted that "This close does not decide whether [...] being awarded a CBE (as opposed to an MBE or OBE), [is] sufficient to confer encyclopedic notability". There is no consensus that CBE gets you automatic notability. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bondegezou: But he was a deputy leader of an even more prominent city council and it was also stated that it is a permissible basis of finding notability to find that both factors contribute substantially to reach such a conclusion in combination. ミラP 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it can be taken into consideration. Of course. That keep decision concerned the leader of the council. Tilsley was the deputy leader of a council. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Bondegezou: Globalization and World Cities Research Network lists Birmingham as a Beta- global city, two levels higher than Leeds, which should also be taken into consideration. ミラ P 16:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not aware of anyone other than yourself feeling that what the Globalization and World Cities Research Network says has any particular relevance to how to interpret WP:NPOL...? Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guess what - a single person closing a TfD does not get to decide that "being awarded a CBE [is not] sufficient to confer encyclopedic notability". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - They don't, no. That is up to the community. However, there is no consensus on Wikipedia that I can see that a CBE does confer notability. If I've missed something, please let me know. As far as I can see, the matter has been discussed on a number of occasions and some people think a CBE should confer notability and others don't, but we've never collectively reached a conclusion. I note that the vast majority of people with CBEs don't have Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Both Lord Mayor of Birmingham and CBE offer notability. He was also deputy leader in a coalition, making him effectively the joint leader. Keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also how Bondegezou stripped most of the content from the article just prior to nominating it. It's quite clear that WP:BEFORE was not done, or he would have found citations for most of that material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pigsonthewing: Most of the unsourced contribs were actually from a person with the name "Paultilsley", implying WP:COI issues. ミラP 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have had multiple discussions recently that have all agreed that Lord Mayor, being a ceremonial post that just rotates between councillors, confers very little notability in itself. A CBE is, yes, of some note. The question is whether it's enough.
    - Deputy leader in a coalition is not the same as joint leader. It depends on the relative strengths of the parties how much actual power there is. In the absence of a reliable source saying that Tilsley's role was effectively that of joint leader, we cannot assume that.
    - There was a lot of material in the article with no citations supporting it. It had been like that for over 5 years. I removed it. It remains a basic tenet of Wikipedia that material without support can be removed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deputy leader in this coalition, was effectively the joint leader. As I said, WP:BEFORE was not done. I note that you do not claim otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - They were, nonetheless, both accurate and sourceable in the main. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy. I don't know what you were trying to do with my mark-up...? It seemed fine to me as it was -- why did you change it? Anyway, on to the article: I did not see good material to support this article existing. Local politicians always get plenty of mentions in local media, but this is generally WP:ROUTINE coverage. I didn't see significant coverage of the individual in the national media that would meet WP:GNG. If you've got some, let's see it.

If you have a reliable source saying that deputy leader in this coalition was effectively the joint leader, then that would be pertinent information.

I did not go through the material I deleted in detail trying to source each line. When a large amount of unsourced text has been added, by probably Mr Tilsley himself, it is simpler just to chop it. I don't believe I have to defend following WP:V and WP:BLP to you. By all means, feel free to restore with sources added. Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always regarded a CBE and above as meeting the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1 at AfD. Not one has ever been deleted as far as I remember (and I remember quite a number being nominated in the past). That is a clear consensus. It would be nice if this was taken on board and these nominations ceased. They're a waste of time. I've started this list to illustrate the consensus. I have omitted nobody I have found in a search thus far. All have been kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for compiling that list. In most of them, the conclusion is not "has CBE so notable", although one has a close saying that. In most of them, the keep decision (and there's at least one "no consensus" decision in there too) is stated as being for other reasons (a higher order received, sources added etc.). Most of the !votes in the discussions don't talk about the CBE, but about other issues. And, as I've said before, the vast majority of people awarded CBEs do not have articles. This does not suggest to me that the consensus is as clear as you are arguing. Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that no people with CBEs have been deleted. And contrary to your statement, many people in those AfDs have opined that the honour makes them notable. The closer has naturally taken that into consideration, even if it's not explicitly stated in the closing statement (it's not the closer's job to state that someone is notable because they have a CBE - that's the job of the contributors; otherwise it would be a supervote). As to most not having articles. So what? Wikipedia is a perennial work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now complete. And speaks for itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be cases not on that list, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigadier General Edward Morton CBE (deleted), and I note that there are articles in your list that were deleted, as well as those that were merged or where the result was no consensus. So some people with CBEs have been deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: The delete was on grounds related to WP:V. ミラ P 17:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's likely that was a hoax, so I didn't bother listing it. The three that were deleted were all in 2007 (before consensus had been established on Wikipedia) and all created by the same person who seemed to be creating a raft of genealogical articles. In fact, these should not have been deleted by our modern standards, both because of their honours and because all three were general officers and therefore meet WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) as an AfD from August that was closed with no consensus. There is plenty of discussion there to the effect that CBE is not an automatic pass of ANYBIO, contrary to your claim that it is. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article was not deleted. Other than the three in 2007, no article about someone with a CBE or higher has been deleted. I'm really not sure why you're so determined to argue against this. We have articles on people who had a minor pop hit or played a single professional football match or served a few months in a legislature (all pretty much automatically kept under notability guidelines), yet you want to delete articles on people who have achieved so much that they have been recognised with a high honour by their country (and also meet a notability guideline). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Owen Snodgrass, you argued the person had an honour higher than a CBE and they were still deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: It was overturned to no consensus here. ミラ P 17:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As the closer ignored the honours arguments and focused only on the arguments relating to diplomats not being notable, which they gave undue weight to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So: I think a CBE is covered by WP:ANYBIO as generally indicating notability. It doesn't (and shouldn't) guarantee inclusion, but it's a strong marker of notability, and if there's enough RS coverage of somebody to write an article about them, and they have a CBE, then they should probably be included in the encyclopedia. Ralbegen (talk) 14:04, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Osborne[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of enough significant press coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist -- especially in small towns (pop. ~2K), the notability bar that the mayor has to clear is that they can be shown as significantly more notable than most other mayors of small towns, by virtue of writing and reliably sourcing a substantive article about her political importance. But this just documents that she exists, and is referenced to just three pieces of local coverage and a press release from her own political party, and that's not what it takes to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is mayor of a place with less than 2,000 residents. If it had 10 times that many people it would still be a slam dunk deltion. If this article is kept it will open the flood gates to an uncontrolled number of articles on super hyper local political leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article ticks about every box required for deletion. She is a small (minute) town mayor and a local politician (Fails WP:POLITICIAN). She is not very notable and has not received enough press coverage, despite being a Green Party mayor. If she was the party's first or only mayor, that would've been an entirely different story. (Fails WP:GNG & WP:NPOL). LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:7C07:2600:F936:CC:F2B7:68A0 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she has not received WP:SIGCOV outside her town, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, and she does not meet any WP:SNG. I did find some coverage in The Globe and Mail [20] (but that is quoting her on the topic of the article, not about her as a person/mayor,etc) and the CBC [21] (but that is not SIGCOV, it's really only one sentence about her). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 23 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. Tone 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethyl Smith[edit]

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

Non notable “model maker” who fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book she was featured in only seems to mention her in the acknowledgements as far as I can verify. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Achaea (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I found a few mentions of her as long-time and respected hobbyist, but really nothing significant. There's a writer with the same name, who isn't notable either. Bearian (talk)
Speedy Delete Should be deleted using A7 criterion of speedy deletion. Don't really see why she is important. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asen Albayrak[edit]

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

Football referee who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Works in Turkish women league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She officiates in the Turkish yop-level women's league. CeeGee 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a former footballer, fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). Otherwise, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 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. Tone 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhika Venugopal[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Apart from social media, the only references are to some scandal. We are not a scandal rag. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 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. Tone 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letago Madiba[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text Notable enough. She plays in the Turkish top-level women's league. CeeGee 09:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 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. Tone 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Raesetja Sebati[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in the Turkish yop-level women's league. CeeGee 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:53, 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 redirect to List of The Closer characters#Main characters. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Raydor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of real world significance (reception, etc.). A few mentions in passing on the web, not seeing anything that goes beyond a fictional bio summary. Her death did generate a bit coverage ([22], [23]) but it is rather ONEEVENTish, through better than I expected (so I am skipping PROD and taking it straight here, deserves a discussion). As usual, no content would be lost since this is already covered at https://majorcrimesdivision.fandom.com/wiki/Sharon_Raydor _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All primary sources, fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows several articles about this character, including this from the Edmonton Journal in 2012 [24] and the Boston Globe the same year [25]; this from the Los Angeles Times in 2013 [26]; this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2014 [27]; this from 2017 [28], in a newspaper from Virginia, sourced from Variety - and no doubt there's more, but that is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. I will try to add these to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - While the character is discussed, it is in reference to the show. There is no real world notability established. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting WP:GNG? RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, RebeccaGreen. There is no hard and fast rule regarding "real world notability", but when all the discussion about a character is "in-universe", other guidelines, such as WP:NOTPLOT apply. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, although it's a very powerful guideline (imho). I like to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and tend to look at articles on fictional subjects in that light: is this an article or is this a piece of fan fluff. If there is no real world notability then my feeling is that it is fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_The_Closer_characters#Main_characters is consensus is against keeping. ミラ P 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Closer characters. It's WP:ALLPLOT, but deletion is too harsh for a main TV character. Sources can and should be be added there. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I am disappointed that it seems that no editors have engaged with the sources I referred to. Perhaps no one who has !voted since has access to them, and I know I should WP:AGF, but it does seem as if the responses are to the existing article, rather than to the secondary sources which WP:NEXIST. I do agree that, as written, the current article is totally in-universe. The secondary sources I found from 2012, when the series was about to start, discuss the series creator's decisions in choosing to start a new, spin-off series, rather than have this character be promoted within the old series; the difference between the lead characters in the two series; that the old series was regarded by fans as a one-woman show whereas, before it launched, the creator saw the new series as more of a group view of the justice system with a captain who insists on her detectives following the rules, unlike in the old series, and so on. One of the 2012 articles makes the point that the new captain is good at making deals with suspects, avoiding the cost of trials. This article goes into quite a bit of details about her making deals, but doesn't mention critics' perception that this was to save money. As I said above, in my opinion, there is enough secondary coverage of this character (from subsequent years too) for her to meet WP:GNG, but if no one else agrees, I don't want to waste time editing a fictional character's article when there are so many articles about real people that need improving. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012. Per WP:WAF and MOS:TV, the logical order for article creation on TV characters is or should be: (1) cover the characters in the show's main article, and if that gets too large, (2) create a list of characters, and if that gets too large, (3) create a stand-alone article for specific characters. Findings sources at AfD is all nice (really!), but it doesn't fix the article. In its current state, nothing would be lost to wikipedia if this article was deleted, because plot is unimportant in itself; it's only there to give context for the present conception/design/reception real-world info (of which there is 0% in this article). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: In answer to your legitimate question: Most people would argue that there is no use in a character article that passes WP:GNG but is only three lines long (which this one would be if the unnecessary PLOT was removed). It makes more sense to WP:TNT-delete it or cover the character in a parent article until it passes as a WP:SPINOUT without violating PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:50, 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) 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Model Degree Colleges (Boys-Girls)[edit]

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

Chain of private colleges fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, miserably fails WP:GNG and the article is basically a directory listing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom, Clearly Fails WP:GNG Shubhi89 (talk) 11:27, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Home and Away[edit]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages, and deaths in Coronation Street, this article is an explicit fan-based article with no general encyclopedic merit. The topic of "births, marriages and deaths" as a whole would need discussion for this to make any sense. TTN (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such indepth analysis of a soap opera is not a justified response to the genera. It belongs on WIkia, not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails LISTN/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the Australian version of Soap Opera Digest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Yer flamin' galah! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the others like this as well. Absolute fancruft. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps merge and have them as expand/collapse lists hidden at the bottom of Home and Away. Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 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 redirect to University of the Punjab. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Law College[edit]

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

Newly established private professional school. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of the Punjab, its parent institution. It's too new to have any notable alumni, nor more than a few even admitted to the bar, but a redirect for now is cheap and easy. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., Ryerson University School of Law. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of the Punjab per Bearian; couldn't find any RS to meet GNG for this as yet. Britishfinance (talk) 18:35, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aytürk Kıyıcı[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Played in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. Worked as a coach for youth teams and as an assistant-only in a senior NT (per sources). --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is manager of the Turkey drmior women's national team and took part as such in many UEFA international matches. GNG is met by at least three reliable sources, Turkish nation-wide newspapers Milliyet, Habertürk, Fanatik. CeeGee 12:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Antrenör" translate more closely to "coach", "manager", or "trainer"? —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we're looking at this reference, Google translate says she's an assistant manager [29], while Turkey women's national football team page (extensively and almost exclusively edited by CeeGee) suggests the same--BlameRuiner (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The staff of the Turkey women's national team listed at [30] are, the "technical director" (Teknik Direktör), which can be considered as the head coach, "manager" (Antrenr), which is the coach of the team, and "assistant coach" (Yardımcı Antrenör), and "goalkeeper coach" (Kaleci Antrenörü). Manager (association football) defines different titles in different countries. On the other hand, what about the GNG criteria for the person? CeeGee 09:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)?[reply]

The three stories are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of her. So based on those, she does not pass GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golnoosh Khosravi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in the Turkish yop-level women's league. CeeGee 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:53, 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. Tone 20:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. Vijayalakshmi[edit]

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

did not meet WP:PROF. Iundweartand theh uman interest of her personal story, but this is an encyclopedia, and devoted to NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article had issues with promotional tone, which I've tried to tamp down. However, I think notability is established, as her biography was published in Lilavati's Daughters, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences. I will continue looking for other sources to shore up claims of notability, but feel that article is up-to-scratch with GNG. Enwebb (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is noted at least in India for her efforts in her career despite her struggle with cancer as the sources say, and has a documentary made about her by a noted media personality. I checked for more reliable sources, even in regional languages, but there are almost none other than the ones already in use. I feel the existing sources suffice to establish her notability. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Enwebb's edits, I feel the NPOV has been improved. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 09:50, 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 redirect to Ragtime#Revivals. Tone 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mississippi Rag[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have any references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note that another editor has added some sources since the Afd was created. A search of Google Books finds that articles from this magazine are often used to verify research on the history of ragtime and its performers. I submit that this qualifies for notability for an old publication under WP:DEFUNCTNEWS, which says "a more common sense approach which considers whether the periodical has been widely cited or written about." The article does need to be cleaned up however. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Based on the book source, a mention and a redirect in the main article on the magazine's role in ragtime revival would be appropriate. Otherwise, delete. As for standalone notability, the book does not go into any depth, The Syncopated Times is unreliable (no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy), and if all that can be found on the paper is some details in a local obituary of the publisher, that's not significant coverage. The publisher's article could be a redirect target too but that's going to end up deleted. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Czar's suggestion is useful as the relevance of this newspaper is on the research field which it documented; I have added a paragraph with the discussed references into that page. (Some mention at Trad_jazz#Later_revivals might also be useful, not least to reduce the anglo-centrism of that article, but that would need specific refs.) AllyD (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, see the discussion which another editor has opened at Talk:Ragtime#Periodicals_/_Newspapers_/_Magazines:_Revival regarding this proposal. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2 is the most appropriate alternative to deletion at this point in time. A quick check of the sources verifies Czar in-depth findings. ~riley (talk) 11:15, 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. I see the redirect and keep arguments, but the keep one does not present any specific independent sources and there are three redirect targets with no clear priority. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth wars and battles[edit]

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

This is a summary of wars and battles that occur in Tolkien's fiction. In this, it is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a duplicate of the plot summaries included in articles about those fiction works. It is also a duplicate of the many articles which cover those wars and battles. There would be a case for merge, but there are too many targets. It has relatively few citations, almost all of which are primary sources. It openly describes itself as "in-universe". It is a big piece of fancruft which should be deleted. Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. WP:ALLPLOT and written in an in-universe style, as if it were an encyclopedia in Middle-Earth itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. Alternatively, ship off to Wikia? ~riley (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure there's commentary here and there about individual battles, but I don't think there'd be anything cohesive enough to make this a topic on its own. Any such commentary belongs in the original works (which are somehow some of the poorest articles I've ever seen for such a major work). TTN (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole article is built around treating LotR as if it were a real work of history, not a fictional work. This multiplying of articles instead of inproving the articles on the works themselves probably explains why the articles on LotR are not up to the level of what we would expect. Well a secondary reason is probably in fans and not scholars dominating in this field. However there is much potential for good work to be done here, but having articles like this misguides and misdirects the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Tolkien fan, I've actually read and used this article. But I have to agree that this isn't Wikipedia material. It's Tolkien Gateway or some similar source material. The relevant information is included in articles about the individual books themselves. This topic lacks impact and importance in the real world, so it really shouldn't be here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Shippey may have argued that Tolkien was the author of the century, his fictional battles were not the battles of the century. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkiencruft with no evidence of real world analysis or such (fails GNG, LISTN, etc.). On pl wikipedia I am still fighting an uphill battle to merge such events into a compound list, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over 120 kilobytes of nothing but plot information, sourced only to the original books. JIP | Talk 11:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains a lot of sourced information that is presented as a list, and it seems encyclopedic to my read. Per the reason provided for the deletion, I believe the first aspect of this per the policy "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" could be fulfilled by adding additional sources. Deletion is not necessary. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It beggars belief that amount of work that went into this article when there are bio articles, e.g. doctors that saved 10's of 1000's of life's and and don't have articles. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda or Timeline of Arda. Goustien (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-Earth. This article is a bloated mess filled with nothing but primary sources and described from an in-universe point of view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:52, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Clark Matthews[edit]

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

100% non-independent or unreliable sources. His own website, or Facebook or YouTube. I find no independent coverage myself. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Approx. 20 of the sources are his own website. Performing an in-depth search using the AFD Find Sources toolbar, I am unable to find independent coverage either. The individual is no longer active and it is unlikely that future sources will appear so Draftify is not appropriate. ~riley (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More research is required, but he is listed in the credits for Polar Express at IMDB[31]. --В²C ☎ 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is not a reliable source. The appropriate user editable website to cover John Clarke Matthews (character animator) is https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0560066/ He has multiple credits in movies, and is listed at IMDb. He has not been covered by third party reliable sources, and so does not get a Wikipedia article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. One of the songs attributed in the article to him was music entirely written by someone else. I found zero news online, zero newspapers articles, and passing mentions in kids' books. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Likely another case of someone using Wikipedia as a means of boosting their professional profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:02, 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korova Milk Bar[edit]

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

Fictional bar. I don't see any in-depth analysis or such. The article is mostly a list of places / groups which name "might" have been inspired by this bar. Seems to fail GNG/NFICTION/etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. Fictional bar in a novel, not significant enough to redirect to novel. ~riley (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Clockwork Orange (novel)#Part 1: Alex's world All discussions of this topic are merely descriptions of its role in the plot of A Clockwork Orange. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every setting in a novel or film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parcel2Go[edit]

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

I was the author of this article but in 2 years it has failed to be expanded beyond a stub. The references that it contains admittedly largely revolve around crowdfunding, and the sale of a stake to a private equity firm, in addition to routine coverage in industry publications. In conclusion therefore I am no longer convinced this passes WP:NCORP. Uhooep (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the person who tagged the article for notability, I concur. Outside of the stories about the company's funding and sale, the coverage popping up on the news is a couple entries in The Guardian's consumer complaint column. Such entries say little about notability, as the criteria is apt to be more "interesting complaint" than "vital company worth discussing". --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator/Afd nom please confirm they have no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with Parcel2go. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I confirm I do not have a COI with this company and never have done. Uhooep (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhooep Thankyou. While there was a couple of small indicators that made me feel I should ask the question they could far more probably triggered randomly. Thankyou for your answer which I totally accept and hope I did not offend. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can usually spot people with a COI trying to promote certain businesses or other articles a mile off on here, and if the article is clearly non-notable I promptly nominate them for AFD also. Uhooep (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based in the UK the name triggered a 'click' ... I know that name. I probably have used their website for parcel comparisons and may or may not have booked parcel courier through them with more chance that I have done. The article has been improved towards start class with an attempt to show this sustained company/website progression. One of the founders may also qualify for a spin off article as it happens. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single reference that meets the WP:NCORP standard. Moneyweek is the only comprehensive article, and it's an interview with the founder where he says whatever he cares to. That doesn';t make an independent article. Everything else is a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Robinson, Winifred (2017-09-04). "Parcel2Go: Why some You and Yours listeners feel let down by the parcel delivery service". You and Yours. Discussion about Parcel2Go happens from 28:10 to 33:55. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Brignall, Miles (2015-11-28). "How dare Parcel2Go sell insurance cover for 'no compensation' items?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Hayes, Cathy (2014). The Easy eBay Business Guide: The story of one person's success and a step-by-step guide to doing it yourself. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-1-84528-524-1. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Matthews, Dan; Collier, Marsha (2006). Starting a Business on eBay.co.uk For Dummies. West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-99763-4. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Moules, Jonathan (2010). The Rebel Entrepreneur: Rewriting the Business Rulebook. London: Kogan Page. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-0-7494-6482-0. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Sutherland, Mark (2011-12-10). "Special delivery: making a packet from Parcel2Go". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Mahamad, Saipunidzam; Sulaiman, Suziah; Leng, Wong Yi (2018). "An Integrated Courier Services Application: A New User Experience". 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ic3e.2018.8632652. Retrieved 2019-12-14 – via IEEE Xplore.

Sources with quotes

Robinson, Winifred (2017-09-04). "Parcel2Go: Why some You and Yours listeners feel let down by the parcel delivery service". You and Yours. Discussion about Parcel2Go happens from 28:10 to 33:55. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
A partial transcript of the BBC episode:
Winifred Robinson: "We've had complaints about a parcel-delivery service called Parcel2Go. It's an online site that gives you price comparison for couriers. You choose one from the site but you don't book it directly. Parcel2Go does that, promising to take the stress off your shoulders by communicating with your chosen courier. Parcel2Go also describes itself as a cheap alternative to the post office. But big problems seem to arise when things get lost. That's what Sean Levin found when he used Parcel2Go to send some clothes and stationary from his old home in London to his new address in Madrid.
[commentary from Sean Levin]
Winifred Robinson: "Well, we checked, and as Sean says, there are scores of complaints online about things that have been lost using Parcel2Go."
...
Winifred Robinson: "Stewart Higgins is an online retail expert at LCP Consulting. Stewart, scores of complaints about Parcel2Go. But is that any different from any other courier site?"
Stewart Higgins: "Well, I think we have to recognize that these couriers are shipping millions of parcels a day, often from one of the country to the other. And typically to do that, they need to go through a series of sortation centers, trunking vehicles, local service centers, and delivery vans. And it is inevitable that in some instances there will be some damage. And it is also inevitable that there will be a degree of loss. In the case of Parcel2Go, as in the other carriers, barcodes are used to track the product as it goes through the courier's network. And if a barcode gets lost or damaged, then actually the courier completely loses track of what that product is or what that parcel is."
Winifred Robinson: "Now Parcel2Go is advertising itself as a cheap alternative to the post office. How cheap is it?"
Stewart Higgins: [answer]
Winifred Robinson:" Is that part of the deal then, that you might not get such a great service and you'll pay a lot less for it?"
Stewart Higgins: "... The majority of their pricing is without any liability for the product. ... Other carriers tend to factor in a level of product insurance into their pricing and that tends to raise their pricing slightly compared to Parcel2Go."
[More discussion]
Brignall, Miles (2015-11-28). "How dare Parcel2Go sell insurance cover for 'no compensation' items?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The article notes:
Parcel2Go claims to “take the work out of bulk parcel delivery” and acts as a middleman between customers like you and the standard courier firms it subcontracts the work to. It has built its business around the need for eBay purchasers/sellers to move items around the country. However, it is also a company that is almost impossible to contact by phone – it relies entirely on live chats – and one that features a very long list of exclusions in its terms and conditions.
The “no compensation” list goes on and on, and includes such items as concrete, hampers, pewter figures, posters – and virtually anything else that you might want to receive after shopping on eBay. In fact, the list is so long that we have come to the conclusion that one of the few items it will actually cover is a book – and only then if it’s not an antique.
Perhaps more worryingly, the company is collecting insurance premiums to cover items in carriage, even though it knows that its T&Cs mean it will not pay out for any damage, only if the item does not turn up.
We made a dummy booking this week and it was quite happy to accept an insurance payment for a “no compensation” item. This, in our opinion, is misleading.
Hayes, Cathy (2014). The Easy eBay Business Guide: The story of one person's success and a step-by-step guide to doing it yourself. London: Constable & Robinson. ISBN 978-1-84528-524-1. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Parcel2Go

This is a one-stop shop for door-to-door courier services. Parcel2Go will be able to provide you with the service you require to deliver items ranging from small packages up to full pallets, in the UK and worldwide, at a competitive price. It offers a selection of service levels, using a variety of suppliers: [list]
Parcel2Go offers a wide range of services to cater for all your requirements. All services obtain a proof of delivery, and are fully insured and tracked. A 'Live Help' service is availale for any queries or questions relating to your consignment. Terms and conditions vary from carrier to carrier.
The book notes:
Parcel2Go is probably the cheapest and most reliable way to employ the services of a courier currently available. With several different carriers and service levels to choose from, they will have an option to suit your requirements.
Matthews, Dan; Collier, Marsha (2006). Starting a Business on eBay.co.uk For Dummies. West Sussex: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-99763-4. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Specifically designed with eBay.co.uk in mind, Parcel2go features a small, manageable range of key services. Unlike Royal Mail, which has features coming out of its cars, Parcel2go offers just four options: Next Day Delivery, 2- to 3-day Delivery, Jiffy Bag packages, and International Deliveries. These services are designed to keep costs down, but you can add insurance to next day deliveries.
Prices range from £6.99 for standard Jiffy Bag delivery to £18.99 for high value goods that have to be there tomorrow morning. Remember to add on VAT when ordering.
[more details]
Moules, Jonathan (2010). The Rebel Entrepreneur: Rewriting the Business Rulebook. London: Kogan Page. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-0-7494-6482-0. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The book notes:
Richard Adams-Mercer has proved himself in the world of commerce, and he thinks that price and value go hand in hand for a business owner. His company, Parcel2Go, provides door-to-door delivery using seven of the world's biggest courier groups — and aims to provide clear, simple pricing information to customers. ...
Richard felt he could do better, especially since Parcel2Go, like other delivery companies, uses its own reserves to cover loss and damage. So he got his IT team to set up a system on the company's website that could offer a bespoke insurance quote to customers, based on a description of the item being delivered. Not everything can be insured. For instance, Parcel2Go's system will recognize a phrase such as 'computer monitor' and say that it can insure such a delicate item for loss but not for damage. However, such openness and clever use of price has won over customers, according to Richard. In the first six weeks of the service being offered, take-up of insurance cover increased 25 per cent. The business, based in the northern cover increased 25 per cent. The business, based in the northern English town of Bloton, in 2010 turned over £50m a year, handling in excess of 100,00 transactions a month.
Sutherland, Mark (2011-12-10). "Special delivery: making a packet from Parcel2Go". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
The article notse:
And getting things from A to B has been the cornerstone of his Bolton-based business empire, which employs about 140 people across its many divisions. The phenomenal success of parcel2go.com, Britain’s largest online parcel delivery service, means it now moves more than two million parcels a year and attracts 18,000 new customers every month. Partnered with most major couriers, it is the first port of call for many small businesses and eBay traders, meaning the chances are that at least one of your Christmas presents will arrive under its auspices, contributing to a turnover that hit £17.5 million in the year to April (up from £12 million the year before), and is forecast to top £22 million next year.
Mahamad, Saipunidzam; Sulaiman, Suziah; Leng, Wong Yi (2018). "An Integrated Courier Services Application: A New User Experience". 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ic3e.2018.8632652. Retrieved 2019-12-14 – via IEEE Xplore.
The abstract notes:
With Parcel2Go Mobile Application, the problem of inconveniency of the customer and the inflexibility of services that have in the current courier services will be solved as this application will ease the people who wants to deliver their parcels.
The article has a "System Architecture for Parcel2Go Mobile Application" diagram and a few paragraphs discussing the architecture. The article notes:
The respondents gave positive responses towards the application. Generally, the user interface of Parcel2Go Mobile Application is user friendly and it helps the user to get the estimated quotation of their items that needed to be delivered from different courier services in addition helping those who wants to earn while travelling. The analysis was done gathering the customer’s feedback and personnel’s feed-back respectively with Likert Scale of five-point scale where used which is 1 signifies strongly disagree by the users and 5 signifies strongly agree by the users.
The article notes:
Courier services applications are widely used in the era of rapid technology advancement. The developed applications, Parcel2Go has become important for people who frequently want their items to be delivered, especially for people who are conducting online businesses. The application be able to generate the quotes of selected courier services in one application and enable a price comparison services. The conducted usability study analyse of respondents’ feedbacks shows positive interest. The integrated courier service application implements the concept of service innovation to solve inconvenience of courier service users of getting quotation and the need to travel to post office to drop their items. With the Parcel2Go Mobile Application, the system generate the quotation from different courier services whilst matching up people who needs parcels to deliver from their doorstep to another and people willing to help them and earn while travelling.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parcel2Go to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 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) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina (painter)[edit]

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

This biographical puff piece about an unremarkable Greece-based artist qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD X2, but speedy deletion was declined on the rather curious basis that it's been cleaned up by two editors, although not, as of the time of nomination, into comprehensible English. I don't see what's notable about this person and I don't see what's reliable about the sources. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage seems to be in Mykonos guidebooks and various blogs. It does not amount to anything even approaching WP:ARTIST. From what I read, she hangs out in the harbour in Mykonos painting landscapes and selling them to tourists, so none of the traditional artist notability indicators apply (major exhibitions, critical commentary, awards, etc). I could not actually find one exhibition or independent review of her work, so using our usual artist notability criteria is pointless.

GNG-wise, it is very weak. The coverage is mostly trivial or in unimportant publications.

Example coverage from the cited source greecetraveller.com (a blog) reads: At the top of Matoyianni Street, in front of the Kessaris jewelry store, on summer evenings you may find naïf painter Carolina Wells (though she’s often down on the harbor when it’s not windy). Her paintings, which have got international acclaim of late, but have been dear to locals for decades, sell like hotcakes for around 100 Euros apiece.

Overall, I think she is mostly a sort of local celebrity. I don't think we need to cover local celebrities in the absence of good independent in-depth coverage; the guidebooks have that sort of thing covered.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reading the story about her, it explains that Karolina sells four types of paintings: the Blue and White Painting, the Red Painting, the Restaurant Painting, and the Red Boat Painting. The Blue and White Painting sells the best, but painting all that blue is a lot of work. It's a story, so you have to allow some leeway for artistic license, but I think it's indicative of what we're discussing here. Curiocurio (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a fact: The artist is not Greek as the proposer wrote, she is an American. As for notability: She has coverage in Greek national press (Downtown magazine) and main TV channel (Skai TV, "one of the largest media groups in the country" according to the relevant article). She has been an inspiration for a short story by Peter Selgin as well as for a poem from artists which are not local to Mykonos, she is mentioned in travel guides. As far as I am concerned these are enough for a person to be considered notable. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Downtown Magazine piece is quoted in the article as "did you see the Karolines' which were hung by the entrance? And, of course, I have now learned to recognize the masterpieces of the great painter of the island..." It is trivial coverage. Being the subject of fiction or a poem is not particularly important either. What counts is in-depth SIGCOV, which is missing here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have written "Greece-based" rather than "Greek".—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We cannot be entertaining the idea that we can uses sources like karolinasmykonos.com, which is operated by the subject's daughter , who writes "Carol Wells was unique from the beginning of her life. Born on Christmas day in 1939 into the highest strata of Boston society, she was blessed was(sic!) talent, intellect, beauty, and independence." No. Additional comments: [32] isn't used as a source for anything except her name and education and is written by her daughter. Not an independent, reliable source [33] is a travel guide, not accessible online, the nearest library with a copy is more than 6000 kilometers away. [34] is the website of a travel agent, not an independent, reliable source [35] is a dead link [36] lists a number of local shopkeepers (none of whom appear to be notable BTW)and makes the claim that her paintings have got international acclaim of late, but provides no evidence of such acclaim or even an indication of what form it takes: exhibitions, awards? [37] is a video on the website of Skai Group which is cited to support the claim that "The life of Karolina has been presented on Greek television". I couldn't get it to run. It seems a bit odd to mention that she's the subject of a documentary, but not use that documentary as a source for the content of the article, and instead highlight the fact that a source exists,even though we don't get to find out what it says. [38] is fiction, and definitely not a reliable source[39] is a poem by Zen Cowboy Poet & Freelance Philosopher Neil Meili, whose relevance to me is unclear. In summary, the sources are so poor that it is no possible to verify anything. This is not just a failure to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, it fails WP:V Vexations (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

Exhibition in Mykonos 21 - 31 October 2019
Same exhibition in Athens, so moving out of local to national level

--FocalPoint (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link one (koinignomi.gr) is a list of artists in a show: "Under the title "Contemporary Mykonos Painters", they present their works, along with the work to be printed in the diary, by Armacola Georgina, Lydia Venieris, Veronis Petros, Galatis Giannis, Karolina Woellipi..."

Link two is a derivative of the first article, with her name listed but no commentary. So both sources are trivial coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of article does not meet notability criteria, nor are there reliable sources in the article or online after a search. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable, and much written about, as local personality/artist, although missing the grade for notability as an artist as such. Potential to expand from the Greek wiki article (I don't read Greek, but have linked with an "expand" tag). PamD 12:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: could you point to two or three reliable sources that have more than a paragraph on her? I checked the Greek article and it has no RS that can be verified-- just blogs and the like. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD has expressed it better than I did. Indeed, the notability of Karolina is as local personality/artist, not for notability as an artist as such. I have selected both for the Greek and the English articles easily accessible material. I have more references to add, however, they are not on line and I will add them during the next 6-7 days. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is the point: she might be locally notable via trivial coverage in travel magazines for selling paintings at the wharf.... but we are a global encyclopedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing time for User:FocalPoint to add the offline sources they found to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refs: 1. primary source (artists website) does not contribute to notability; 2. Unverifiable; 3. Non-reliable source, blurb in "Hideaways Aficiando Club" travel blog; 4. Unverifiable; 5. Unverifiable; 6. Non-reliable source - blurb in travel blog "Elizabeth Boleman-Herring's Greece"; 7. Unverifiable; 8. Travel Blog entry - human interest story; 8. Non-reliable source - mention in a poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2019 (UCD) (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in-depth coverage. She may be a local celebrity (a hint for notability), but this not supported by third-party reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:18, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure). The article has now been improved by the creator. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kafa Al-Zou'bi[edit]

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

Article of a Non-notable author who does not pass WP:GNG NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the author seems non-notable to you! Being shortlisted for the International Prize for Arabic Fiction seems sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO to me, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." This prize is also called the "Arab Booker Prize" and is similarly prestigious, with simply being shortlisted being an honor in itself; the other shortlisted candidates consistently have articles. Al-Zou'bi received wide coverage as a shortlisted author, I just didn't cite all those articles because they only said the same few things and I was trying to flesh out her biography. I'd like to improve the article rather than delete it: can you tell me more about why she seems non-notable to you? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 06:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article and its sourcing, focusing on sources that are not about the prize to show the breadth of discussion that there is about Al-Zou'bi. I think the two sources which best show her notability even beyond being shortlisted are these: 1, a response by a literary critic to a panel discussion by two other critics discussing her representation of gender and 2, an hourlong televised interview discussing her entire ouvre of work, including questions from the poet Khaled Abu Khaled, the scholar Dr. Hayat Al-Hweik, and the journalist Diana Jabbour, all of whom are clearly familiar with her work and consider it important.

Together I believe these show that her novels have been considered notable by a substantial number of critics, satisfying WP:AUTHOR: "4. The person's work (or works) has... (c) won significant critical attention".

I am of course open to the idea that there is more work to be done! I will admit that the hourlong interview is challenging to my mediocre grasp of Arabic, and the literary arguments presented are complex (I've learned enough about Al-Zou'bi now to know that she writes the kinds of books I don't like much...) but I could certainly read it more carefully to write in more detail about each of her novels and how they have been interpreted. There are more articles about her that I haven't read yet, too, so I am open to suggestions for other aspects to research as support for notability. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 08:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now shows clear evidence of literary significance of this writer. PamD 12:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won a major literary prize is sufficient for notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 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 redirect to Tuen Mun District. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuen Mun Town Centre[edit]

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

Classic set of box-in-a-box (in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box...and so on) . Ok there is Tuen Mun District, Tuen Mun New Town articles already, which they have legally/regulation defined boundaries. We also have Tuen Mun as article title, which don't have boundaries in legal sense since it is an non-administrative area but rich in history which predate the new town and the district . We also have Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) which should only cover the political seat at the local council. So, for this article and article title, it seem overlap to some degree (content can be entirely cover in Tuen Mun article for the sake of navigation), but more importantly WP:OR (currently no WP:RS too) since there is no definition of the "town centre" is located and the extent of it . Matthew hk (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, There is no such place "Tuen Mun Town Centre" (upper case Town Centre) but only "Tuen Mun town centre" or Tuen Mun Town Hall. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the zh-wiki counterpart also unsourced. And by their OR definition, their "town centre" also cover another electoral constituency Siu Tsui. Matthew hk (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Underwaterbuffalo, you stated a source finally.[40] But A. it is a primary source (a Government website about the Town Centre [sic] it partially owned and urban planned: the Town Hall and other public facility ). But B. it just one paragraph long. It amused me that did San Hui consider as part of the "Town Centre" or not, due to the very close proximity. Matthew hk (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment. Glad that you are amused. Hope you can end up making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic standard of a wikipedia is have some citation. In 2019 wiki standard most unsourced article could be boldly drafting it. Also, "Tuen Mun Area 10", "Tuen Mun Area 11" "Tuen Mun Area 34" are more readily have source by HKU Press and Town Planning Board and designed as a town centre. But did it equal to the "Town Centre" ? It seem so much WP:OR for the boundaries and inclusion and exclusion criteria to creates articles for southern Tuen Mun, northern Tuen Mun, eastern Tuen Mun, western Tuen Mun, and for this Afd central Tuen Mun aka Tuen Mun town centre or Town Centre [sic]. Or per WP:overlap, should it better presented at Tuen Mun New Town? It seem sick to have a dozen of articles for neighbourhood that the boundaries are concentric circles, and some boundaries are even fork defined. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article 8 years ago by taking out content from the Tuen Mun District article that was way too long at that time. Obviously the requirements for articles in 2019 are higher than in 2011. Good that you spotted it. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No RS never a reason of Afd. It is OR and GNG. Instead, i digged out source that suggest area around San Hui are considered as most valuable but Area 11 house the "town centre" [sic] (And San Hui and Area 11 are just next to another). For the sake of overlap, should i tagged the residential landmark is located as San Hui-Tuen Mun Town Centre, Tuen Mun New Town, Tuen Mun, Tuen Mun District, a total of 5 articles, plus Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) when they vote? Unlike place that named after nature bay. Did it sounds too much navigation to have 6 articles that at least some should be trimmed to be sections of some articles? (For San Hui, now it is not different from other high residential area of the town, thus the article did merit to trimmed already to describe the history of the area as market town.) Matthew hk (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK forgot to state Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Tuen Mun Town Centre or Tuen Mun town centre is totally lie on the category Populated places without legal recognition (Tuen Mun Town Centre (constituency) had legal status but voting boundary is not based on neighbourhood in general; aka accused of gerrymandering). And further dig out the source, the government building complex such as Town Hall and the residential block that considered by media as "major" blocks of the town centre, opens in 1980s, but the residents of the new town already lives there since 1970s. So, a town without a "town centre" for a decade, or what is the definition of "Town Centre" again? Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tuen Mun District. This is the commercial zone within an actual defined neighborhood; does not need a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or to Tuen Mun which is more specific. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Tuen Mun" had no defined boundary. Tuen Mun New Town (Tuen Mun Town) and Tuen Mun District have defined boundary. I had opened a Rfc to solve this overlapping issue of Tuen Mun Town v Tuen Mun. Or another example Tai Po New Town v Tai Po. Matthew hk (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tuen Mun seems like a good solution. BD2412 T 04:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tuen Mun per above; most sensible solution. Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 24 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulistan Shah Abdul Latif School Karachi[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two references one from the news and second from business recorder where they have mentioned about school , slowly slowly page will be better with reference.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it fails my standards as having only 4 out of 10 factors. I'd like to see more information on the size of the student body, age of the building, and professionalism of the teaching and staff before agreeing to keep this. Ping me if these concerns can be remedied. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was improved after the nomination. Now it has 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there are two notable alumni, my other concerns have not been addressed at all. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 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 merge to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons Grove, Arizona[edit]

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

There is not much to be seen here on a map. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with several other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." And was part of a U.S. Geological Survey as per the GNIS source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There was a cabin there, it's noted by a couple newspapers [41] [42] and as a stopping point for wilderness adventurers. Probably just scrapes by. SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - SportingFlyer, The Tucson Citizen article is referring to a bus stop on a WWII emergency inter-city route between Tucson and Marana, so that must be a different place. Parsons Grove looks to be at one end of Parsons Canyon in the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. Satellite images do show what appear to be two dilapidated structures. No evidence this was ever a populated place, apparently it was listed on topographic maps as a reference point along a road cut through the mountain ridge above Parsons Canyon. Insufficient coverage for GNG as required for Geoland#2. MB 16:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(post-relist response) That's fair, it looks as if Parsons Grove is a separate location between Marana and Tucson on a re-read. I think this is an exceptionally marginal case, probably still just scrapes by. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge (which will result in a redirect for anyone searching on the name). Several of the new sources are just blogs, but there is still enough info to add a mention in the wilderness area article. MB 20:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - with three clicks, I was able to find five sources about recreation in and around this small hamlet, and added them to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness, as the grove is located in the Aravaipa Canyon Preserve, allowing for limited recreational use only. Sources [43] and [44] as well as those found by Bearian indicate that this is a site in a protected area where someone once had a cabin, but there is not evidence that this "is a populated place", nor that any of these sources are significant coverage. The added "The area around Parson's Grove" refers to this Preserve and Wilderness, where coverage of the recreation opportunities belongs. Parsons Grove is not a hamlet, and not every point mentioned in AllTrails or HikeArizona needs its own article. I have updated the page accordingly. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - based on Reywas92's arguments and edits, I am going along with a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, why are you deliberately putting false information into the article? There is zero evidence that this "is a populated place", nor evidence that it should have the "Municipalities and communities" navbox, nor that it should be in the Populated places in Pinal County, Arizona category. WHO LIVES HERE? You said "as per source", I assume referring to the GNIS, but you are purposefully ignoring the fact that the GNIS also classifies former towns with "populated place"; see for example Cochran, Arizona [45], an actual ghost town about which we have useful sources. A single abandoned ranch is not a ghost town and the sources we have found with actual content do not support this version of the article. Another source I found is the 1986 National Gazetteer, which lists it as a "locale", the same as schools, malls, and mobile home parks, rather than "ppl". Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why are you removing sourced information is the better question. Please take a refresher course on WP:VER. The source clearly states it is a populated place. You, and other editors have been ignoring valid sourcing and !voting, based on assumptions and your own interpretation of the sources, rather than what those sources actually say. GNIS is the definitive source on places in the US, and is clear on the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true - I've done a lot of research into these places and whether they meet WP:GEOLAND, and improved the ones that do (or meet WP:GNG). GNIS is the definitive source on place names in the US - the GNIS does not in itself convey legal recognition in the same way incorporation would. The GNIS also hasn't been updated all that much since 1984, so I would hardly say it's definitive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are are you telling me the infallible GNIS is correct that Cochran "is a populated place"? That people live right here because this database says so? GNIS standardizes uniform names, it doesn't mean every word and classification is 100% correct, up-to-date, and flawless in light of other sources, as I have shown elsewhere. So you're saying the USGS/BNG National Gazetteer (more recent actually) is the one that's wrong then? If you think someone lives within the access-restricted Aravaipa Canyon Preserve just because this database has this classified wrong, that a couple abandoned buildings make a "populated place", one that needs its own page here, I cannot believe you are editing in good faith. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the GNIS source it's not impossible people once lived there, in which case it would satisfy WP:GEOLAND #1, but we've got nothing showing that's the case at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 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 delete. Consensus is that this does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND #2. Deor (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belaire Manor, Arizona[edit]

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

Mobile home parks are not inherently notable. This one fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A NN manufactured-home subdivision. Does not meet GNG as required under GEOLAND#2 (subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, etc.) This is clearly not a legally recognized populated place (GEOLAND#1) despite having a name in GNIS. The GNIS citation is to "YELLOW PAGES". Having an entry is the yellow pages does not bestow legal recognition, even if parroted in GNIS. No reasonable target for a redirect. MB 04:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mobile home parks do not pass GEOLAND #1 on their own if they're part of a larger community like this one is, and this mobile home park does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Mobile home parks are not legally recognized populated places merely because they are listed in a database of places on a map. Reywas92^Talk 09:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:13, 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 is that this "place" does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Deor (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Place, Arizona[edit]

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

Non-notable place which fails both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." And was part of a U.S. Geological Survey as per the GNIS source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird coincidence that right after accusing someone of making bad-faith AFDs you immediately make a bunch of AFD for articles started by that person. ApLundell (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why/how/for what this location is named. It is in the Galiuro Mountains. Searching turns up one hit (after disregarding all the useless ones just based on it being in GNIS) related to mineralogy - apparently Cryptomelane can be found there (Mineralogy of Arizona). Definitely not a populated place as meant by Geoland#1. Not nearly enough to meet GNG under Geoland#2. No place to redirect unless enough info can be found to justify adding a mention in Galiuro Mountains or somewhere else. MB 06:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Looking at the coordinates in GMaps shows how unfortunately lazy it is to mass-produce sub-stubs because it is obviously false to say it "is a populated place". Reywas92^Talk 09:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. The only keep arguments presented above essentially boil down to WP:Aspersions and assumptions of bad faith on the part of the nom, which if true could be a behavioral issue to be litigated elsewhere but do not in and of themselves make this place notable. Michepman (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 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):