Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 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. Closing slightly early, but it is unanimous keep with the nominator's comments suggesting even they have reconsidered. RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians and crime[edit]

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

I think the premise of this article is racist and misleading. The overwhelming majority of crime in Australia is committed by the dominant Anglo-Australian ethnic group (more than 60%) yet we have no page on "Anglo-Australians and crime", there is a disproportionality to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander offending, but it's far more complex than this article suggests. I believe the usable sections of this article should be carefully moved to crime in Australia and this page deleted. As it stands this ethno-criminal focus is undue and highly offensive (At one stage there was a photo in the article of three random Aboriginal people who we have no reason to believe were criminals). I think an article like this focuses unduly on Aboriginal criminality - in an explicitly racial manner - giving the impression that Aboriginal people possess some kind of inherent criminality. Looking at the early versions of this article I believe it may have been created with the intent being to demonise Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples, it has certainly been edited in such a manner at points. The article has been improved significantly by a number of editors, but I really think an ethnically focused crime page like this is unethical, undue and quite simply racist. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - although the article may have had problems with edits that are not from a neutral point of view at some stage in the past, the answer to that is to ask for administrators to keep an eye on the article and stop the POV edits. It isn't a reason to delete it - AFD is not for cleaning up articles. If you have a problem with the article, you are welcome to edit it and fix it up. There are considerable numbers of specialist resources, courts and programs looking at the relationship in Australia between first nations people and crime, so an article discussing those things is notable. The article is also considerably sourced. Unless you want to put forward a reason why, according to Wikipedia policy, the article should be deleted, the only proper outcome is for this AFD to be closed. Bookscale (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While the article would benefit from further work, it's in OK shape so there's no reason to resort to WP:TNT as proposed in the nomination statement. The topic is notable, and the article does a reasonable job of explaining the factors which drive crime and the many problematic aspect of the way in which Indigenous Australians are treated in the criminal justice system. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well referenced and does (try?) to address an unequivocably notable issue, ie the over representation of people with first Australian nations heritage in our legal and welfare systems. This issue is well and truly notable with endless high quality references available. The article's subject matter does need a sensitive hand when being worked on. (Disclosure - I dePRODed this.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough, thanks for the well considered feedback, I'll work on improving the article instead. Best regards. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the incarceration and victimization of Indigenous Australians is a subject that is well documented, and requires an overview such as this article, which is considered carefully, is not inherently racist, in itself as an article, it is the activities related to it might have a range of attitudes that are indeed racist. JarrahTree 05:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is the article isn't really framed in terms of the disproportionate incarceration and the victimisation of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples. The tone is more one of Aboriginal people being more criminally inclined than other people. I've noted the above comments which are all very fair and I now accept the article isn't inherently racist and should be kept. It needs massive improvement though to avoid further demonising Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I added comments on the talk page instead of here, sorry. Anyway, it's resolved now, I think with a reasonable outcome. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and thanks for the massive improvements you've made to the article. My desire to see the article removed or improved came from a good place, I don't want to see Aboriginal people tarred as criminals. But I now see was being over zealous. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis both of the subject's blatantly evident notability and of the improvements made to the text. I'd suggest, in case the article stays up, a reconsideration of its title. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankth[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails notability guidelines. Simply a song that took part in a song contest and didn't even advance to the finals, and sung by a non-notable performer. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Georgiamarlins (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Toffeenix (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Nothing about this song makes it more notable than any other song in Festivali i Këngës 58. dummelaksen (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NSONG. Our subject is a song performed by a non-notable singer, though this may not last since the creator of the text seems dedicated to uploading and amplifying articles exclusively about Albanian music. Not bad in itself, but merits some vigilance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree with the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominationGeorgiamarlins (talk) 22:13, 27 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 Woody Woodpecker. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wicket Wacky[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon episode. This gets a few Google books hits, but they are all brief mentions that do not establish SIGCOV. Note that the reference included, The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia, is not a book like it appears to be, but actually brings up [1] when I Google it. Looking around at the Internet Animation Database, I'm not convinced that this is an RS, or at least enough of one to serve as the sole source for an article. Also open to soft delete and redirect to ~~Woody Woodpecker~~Woody Woodpecker (film series) (better target Hog Farm (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)). Note that there are literally dozens of articles like this, mostly sourced to said Cartune Encyclopedia. Hog Farm (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article appears to have been created by now-blocked sock. Hog Farm (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody Woodpecker, since subject lacks independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to same target mentioned by nom and previous comment. Cannot find any significant coverage, and most of the article as it stands is just indiscriminate trivia. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on google it only has few mentions Georgiamarlins (talk) 22:18, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofocle Technologies[edit]

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

All sources that I could find don't meet the criteria of WP:ORG, with most self referencing. All articles in sources are likely paid mentions or trivial references. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage to support notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Edits have removed the article's previous uncited superlative claims. The various start-up awards are not inherently notable. I am not seeing evidence that this is more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ORG, it's look like spam.-Nahal^(T) 19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Good as a resume for the company ,bad as an encyclopediaGeorgiamarlins (talk) 22:22, 27 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) 12:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KJR Studios[edit]

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

Unknown production studio. None of the sources are about the studio. DragoMynaa (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCREATIVE. The article was created by practically a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The headline and a couple of sentences in this Times of India article do focus on this company, but I don't see that or anything else provided or found as sufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CarVertical[edit]

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

Although there are quite a bit of sources in the article, all of them fail WP:ORG in my opinion. Most are sponsored, and those that are independent are trivial mentions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bucher-Johannessen[edit]

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

Skiing doesn't have an SNG, so we have to go by WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:GNG here. I don't think there's enough sources available to meet GNG, and I don't think he meets NSPORTS on the basis of his athletic achievements.

There are several dozen events with dozens of competitors at each FIS Nordic World Ski Championships, and the 2019 event was no exception. Bucher-Johannessen has participated in exactly one world cup event, and he didn't even crack the top 10. His rankings as summarized at the German article (de:Thomas_Bucher-Johannessen) aren't much better - he's 108th in World Cup ranking, for example. At best this is WP:TOOSOON given his age and the fact that he only started competing in 2019. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has finished 13th in the World Cup. "Didn't even crack the top 10" is a preposterous argument. Now it would be a different thing if he finished 50th or 70th, and Wikipedia has its fair amount of articles about skiers whose best results are just that, but every top 30 skier collects World Cup points which is the undoubtful benchmark in this sport. (World Cup has a higher standard than the World Championships or Olympics, since the WC and OG also is filled with South American or African skiers.) I'll even rake up more coverage but can't promise I'll do it before this evening. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He finished 13th in one event of several at part of the World Cup, it's not like he finished 13th overall through the whole year's World Cup. His actual World Cup ranking is 108th, which isn't that high in the grand scheme of things. In any case his ranking is technically immaterial given that there's no SNG for skiing that would rely on it (there ought to be one, but that's not a discussion for here). Instead we have to rely on coverage under GNG, which if you have any, by all means present it. What I found on a search were some articles in Budstikka (a local paper covering 2 municipalities) and a stats page on Langrenn.com (a cross country skiing website with limited audience). There just isn't enough breadth of coverage on the guy for a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 21:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and I don't believe an overall ranking of 108th meets any criteria at WP:NSPORTS. His highest ranking is 70th in distance events, again nothing to show WP notability. Although not a WP notability criteria, I think career pro prize money earnings of 600 CHF says something about his pro success. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal snake bites in Australia[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial to all people who died a particular death, especially to people who individually don't meet the notability requirement, and a lot of unnamed people. Also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcollett, Nat965, Ccccchaton000, DPdH, Weedwhacker128, and Dianeatribe: Pinging other editors that have edited the content of this list article in 2019, or who have edited this article in the past and are still active editors in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/partial merge per nom. Snakes of Australia or Epidemiology_of_snakebites#Australasia would be a great place to provide statistics about snakebites, but I don't think such specific details of people's names in the news is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list how often people in that nation have died from snake bites and list the date and other information. The information wouldn't all fit anywhere else. Listing how they got bit is something of value to learn from. Dream Focus 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Surely there are better sources to provide encyclopedic content relating to snakebite deaths rather than a list of people with accompanying news reports. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ajf773, incorrect. If a reader draws a conclusion from the information in an article or list, then that is their own conclusion. Only if the wiki editor writes a conclusion would that be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Normal Op (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable, not noteworthy, Wikipedia:Listcruft. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~WP:NLIST~~. WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, explain how this passes WP:NLIST please. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: informative information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERESTING. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst (with correction to LISTN). Article is sourced and meets GNG. Bookscale (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will add to the comments for my !vote that Normal Op has substantially improved the article. Bookscale (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bookscale, thanks for noticing. :) Normal Op (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Collecting a bunch of unnotable people without articles (plus Kevin Budden, whom I am going to nominate for deletion) serves no useful purpose. Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile, but that would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except it's not a list of people, it's a list of events when people were bitten by snakes. The notability derives from the unusual events, not the people themselves. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The events themselves are just as non-notable as the victims. For more clarity see WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - But they are notable together as a list of unusual events, that have more than routine coverage collectively, and are sourced. Bookscale (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend, re: "Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile"... Put all the entries in one long table, standardise how the snake names are listed (which I started doing), make the table "wikitable sortable" and the reader will be able to click on the snake column and see the entire list sorted by snake. Problem solved. Normal Op (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This list article is well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, is informative, has good criteria where the list entries are associated and the list is neither too long nor too short, and it relates well to other wiki articles without being a content fork nor duplicated content. This list (as are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of snake bite deaths over time, to show which snakes have had deadly contact with humans, which areas have been most affected, and give a brief introduction on how people are bitten and how deadly these snakes are -- showing that many did not even perform first aid, though some still died after seeking immediate treatment. Anyone thinking such a list as this is a memorial should clear up their misunderstanding of the word "memorial". Memorials would be focused on either one person, or a group of people dying in the same event. Chronological lists or collections of deaths by similar manner are NOT memorials to the various and unconnected people who died that way, but are bodies of information of interest to those researching a topic by manner of death. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements," where "such requirements" refers to the notability of the article, not the individual elements of its content. Nom's original statement is additionally confusing when he/she claims that the list is a memorial but then complains that some of the entries have no names; that is an illogical argument. Normal Op (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing is a single news report (in some cases more than one) which only covers the actual event, as I mentioned earlier probably would not pass WP:NEVENT and the victims themselves would not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of the list does not offer any encyclopedic depth of snakebite deaths. It is really just a collection of deceased people and accompanying news reports. The only piece of content worth retaining is the foreword, which actually contains some well sourced content and this could be merged to another article or recreated elsewhere without the full victim list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The controlling notability policy here is WP:LISTN, not WP:NEVENT. From LISTN I quote: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." What I have discovered, and apparently some have yet to seek out and discover for themselves, is that snakebites have been a regularly, repeated and well-covered subject in Australian news over a significant period of time — oh, like 150 years! I have seen and read numerous articles across multiple decades on the frequency of snakebites in Australia, the frequency of snakebites in particular areas, lists of fatality victims, lists of snakebite victims that did not die, the fear of snakebite incidents, first aid treatment of snakebites, their clinical treatment, which methods worked, the snake collection efforts for venom research, venom collection methods, the advances of antivenom and treatments, etc. Apparently, snakebites are on the minds of Australians, and have been for over a century! According to several reliable sources I read, Australia is considered the leading expert on the subject of venomous snakes and the treatment of their bites. Perhaps that is because of the emphasis and coverage in news media during the last century, and efforts of Australian snakemen, herpetologists and medical researchers. Normal Op (talk)
Keep I think with a bit more work, it could become rather nice. It is definitely a mess right now, but has reason to stay considering the other articles similar to it have been here for years/it is well sourced and a useful topic. It has potential. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly a strong argument for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ccccchaton000, I did a significant amount of work on the article in the last few days. Take a look at it now. Normal Op (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Addressing each of the other policies Nom mentioned (that I had not earlier addressed):
- WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, I quote: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. That is done through the lede paragraph and the comments section on each list entry.
- WP:NOR, I quote: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. No such conclusions are evident in the article. I find no OR, nor has Nom pointed out any specific instances of it. And had he/she found any, it would be more appropriate to tag or edit/correct or remove such content. If such violated content exists or existed, it is not a reason for deletion of an article. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
- WP:GNG General notability guideline includes 5 subcategories (Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, Presumed), all 5 of which are in compliance with this list-article.
- WP:SYNTH was already addressed above.

— Normal Op (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of people who died in traffic collisions (surely this one is just way and way beyond it?), Crocodile attack, and I have not looked further. As the current AfD stands is looks like LISTCRUFT, but it is is well referenced. I would suggest the encycolpedic value for this article is not about the people (sorry) but rather the Epidemiology as per, for example, Lightning injury. I would support a keep if the incidents could be sorted by age, gender, snake species, activity type, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The traffic collisions article is clearly defined to those who meet the notability requirements. I would expect the same for any list of deaths by cause, regardless of the size of the list. Ajf773 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Aoziwe, I agree that the list would be more helpful if it were sortable by snake species; the other criteria are probably not of interest. I can certainly do that, but I will enquire on the article's Talk page before making that drastic a change because it would require removing the "decade" sections and slapping them all together in one big table. Normal Op (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Op You could experiment along the lines of User:Aoziwe/sandbox/sorting? Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced article, notable topic. Samboy (talk) 19:37, 12 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)} 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced and encyclopedic. The allegations that the article constitutes WP:SYNTH may have been accurate as of the nomination timeframe (back in December 5, 2019) but it is far from true today. The article deserves to be kept because it falls squarely within Wikipedia policies. (Also, a hearty trouting to the person who tried to get rid of related articles in order to strengthen the deletionist case. That's dirty pool.) Michepman (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article has enough signs of notability and is well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced and enyclopedic. Snake bites are important in Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just looking at the victims for individual notability 1867 Drummond Police Magistrate has potential https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=drummond+rutherglen+&l-state=Victoria&l-decade=186 , theres two people who died because of Rocky Vane Snake show, individuals might not be but the show will be. 1920's & 1930's I count 8 out the 20 related to snake handlers and shows including one show at the Adelaide Zoo, all potentially notable incidents. That would make at least 10 people or events in the list notable in their own right. Gnan garra 07:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic content. The assertion that this shows general trends has no actual basis--there is much more likely to be selective reporting. There may be a frew individual incidents that are notable , but that does not justify the lsit. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it sounds like you haven't even read the article. The article has been substantially improved since the start of this AfD and your comments make no sense - I refer you to WP:LISTN that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Bookscale (talk) 22:17, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mealtime Showdown of AWESOME[edit]

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

Note how this article is dependent on self-created and user-generated sources. I can find nothing else in reliable sources, and all sources found are circular discussions about how the video went viral because people talked about it going viral. This article merely repeats that process. If anyone thinks the title is a valid search term, the article could possibly be redirected to The Key of Awesome. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both Epic Meal Time and The Key of Awesome both appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements, but this specific video does not. Secondary sources do not appear to significanlty discuss this video or its impact. XVDC (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The video generated over 2 million views and marks the only collaboration between hit YouTube channels The Key of Awesome and Epic Meal Time. It was also listed among Top 2011 YouTube Food Videos by Eater now owned by Vox Media. The page has since been updated with new references and information. Granted, it was not as viral as their other video Crush on Obama, but marks a highly significant crossover between two of the biggest channels on YouTube at the time (note: this happened almost 10 year ago). Being listed as a viral video has been removed as well. That should fix the issue in place so as not to be removed, but hopefully improved as the content and topic is still viable and significant. Thank you. ---EXTREMERX520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 21:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find any significant coverage of this video by any reliable sources. The Eater article is one paragraph long and is basically just a five video playlist of the top five Youtube food videos of 2011. And many of the current references don't even mention the video, they only mention either Epic Meal Time or Key of Awesome. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:44, 27 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) 06:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megacities in Judge Dredd[edit]

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

All JD locations save for Megacity One have been or about to be deleted, so what to do with this list? Merge to/with MO, or just delete? On itself it is a usual list of fancruft locations, failing WP:NFICTION/GNG, pure WP:PLOT, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 5 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} 14:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be WP:ALLPLOT, unencyclopedic list that fails WP:LISTN_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of fictional minutia that doesn't establish notability as a whole. TTN (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously can be improved, but still valuable. As for notability vs. fancruft, Judge Dredd and its megacities are cited in academic discussions of urban growth/sprawl (i.e., Evans, M. (2015). The Case against Megacities. Parameters, 45(1), 33; Canton, J. (2011). The extreme future of megacities. Significance, 8(2), 53-56; Edwards, C. (2017). The grey and the green [resilient built-environment infrastructure]. Engineering & Technology, 12(6), 70-72.), law (i.e., Glancey, R. (2015). I am the law teacher! An experiential approach using Judge Dredd to teach constitutional law. In Graphic Justice (pp. 68-84). Routledge; Greenfield, S., & Osborn, G. (1999). Film, law and the delivery of justice: The case of Judge Dredd and the disappearing courtroom. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 6(2), 35-45), and pop culture (i.e., Stasiowski, M. (2016). Film and the urban nightmare: Pier Vittorio Aureli’s city-archipelagos as urbanities woven from media images in Pete Travis’s Dredd and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises. Filming the City: Urban Documents, Design Practices & Social Criticism through the Lens). While Megacity One is the primary location shown and cited, the in-universe existence of other megacities and the brief description of them provided in this article helps give the reader greater context about the setting and it's implications. (I'd also note that I ended up discovering this AfD only because I ended up on Wikipedia today looking specifically for the information in this article.) Carter (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mentioned only briefly. Nothing in those source suggest we need more than one sentence mentioning 'large cities are shown in this fictional universe' in Megalopolis#Megalopolis_in_Fiction, which I'll note already does so pretty adequately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm admittedly inclusionist. I find the article useful (or potentially useful with some work) and think there's value in keeping it and improving it rather than deleting it. Carter (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Just a lot of plot. The concept of Megacities is already explained in the real-world Megacity, and Mega-City One can cover any additional in-universe info. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mega-City One. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 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) 21:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of mention in secondary sources does not merit more than a mention of this issue in the general article on megacities. That is the proper encyclopedic way to approach this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 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) 06:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Already deleted at previous title: Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1970). Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another of User:Dolovis' many hundreds of fast ones, for which he was community banned both from new article and redirect creation. Wasn't notable then, isn't notable now. Ravenswing 03:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, subject fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that this article survived for six years shows we need better monitoring of article creation. On the other hand, some Tolkiencruft articles have existed for 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not close to meeting either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:42, 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 Scuderia Ferrari#F1 team sponsorship. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Ferrari's 90th Anniversary[edit]

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

A stub-length article about a single anniversary event that seems to have received little press beyond the auto aficionado scene. Sourcing is mostly to Ferrari's PR and articles that more or less parrot said PR, and it's just a list of events and featured cars. This should, at best, be a section in Scuderia Ferrari (I imagine the length would be WP:UNDUE given the not-that-notable nature of the event).

Pinging users involved in the redirect edit war: @Teratix, SSSB, JalenFolf, 82.52.57.90, Boneymau, and 87.18.132.135: Ytoyoda (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scuderia Ferrari#F1 team sponsorship, where the specific anniversary is mentioned. The section redirect can be a placeholder until a proper section about the event can be made, should reliable coverage exist for it. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold A world event of a car manufacturer attended by thousands of people and fans must be ignored for whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.22.221 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — 87.13.22.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notabillity is not determined by how people atteneded a given event.
SSSB (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Jaden Folf, the sourcing is not sufficient to justify any more than a sentence or two in the parent article. – Teratix ₵ 02:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The centenary will be by far much more notable; this is just a logo and certain ceremonies that took place during big races, along with automobile releases which are better noted in their appropriate articles. Like all the film studio anniversary releases, this is only notable to Ferrari fans, by far. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, this anniversary simply hasn't recieved sufficent coverage and the anniversary is therefore not notable and the article shoud therefore be deleted. I fail to see how redirecting to any page is useful, espically not Scuderia Ferrari#F1 team sponsorship which has one sentence on the subject burried deep in the text and is only present because the team were banned from using Mission Winnow. It could just as easy be redirected to Ferrari SF90#Background or Ferrari SF90 Stradale#Top which give as much detail on the subject, next to none. I think the best course of action would be to simply delete this page and in the unlikly event that someone finds enough secondry sources to write a section on the anniversary in Scuderia Ferrari we can recreate this page as a redirect there. Until then there is no benefit to having this redirect anywhere.
SSSB (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect may not be very useful, but it's cheap. Doesn't really matter either way. – Teratix ₵ 12:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but based on the fact that multiple locations give the same level of detail to different parts of the subject it should be redirected to Scuderia Ferrari not any specific part of the article.
SSSB (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the article must be expanded and completed. But you realize that it bears the name of two cars one of Formula one and one road as well as an imposing ceremony near cathedral of Milan.

At this event there were drivers from the present and past from Ferrari as well as numerous present audiences. But an event to become an article must be the third world war or a biblical hurricane!

This is an event that has involved millions of spectators and many hundreds present !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.115.67 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — 87.13.115.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am suspicious that this comment is from the same person under a different IP address. As stated above, notability is not determined by attendance. See WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that no-one is claiming the event cannot be covered at all, merely that there is not enough sourcing for a standalone article. It can still be covered in related, broader articles. – Teratix ₵ 23:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: and @Teratix:, given the IP addresses stated "Hold", I bring up a previous AfD for Turbo Launcher in which the same terminology was used for an article created by Peter39c. I think a CheckUser is warranted. – The Grid (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An IP user likely associated with this article’s creator, Peter39c has created a copy-paste duplicate at Draft:Scuderia Ferrari's 90th Anniversary. I’m not sure what the purpose is, but it’s unnecessary, confusing and disruptive to have multiple versions of the same article. Please let the AfD process complete before creating a draft of an article that already exists. 16:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that it is a crime to put an article in draft, it is not pornographic, there are simply many reliable sources that talk about this sport event. The article can be expanded. There are thousands of articles from smaller car manufacturers, but nobody deletes them.

We need to enrich the encyclopedia not to impoverish it.

Why can't there be a main article and a secondary one in which the events are further detailed, does it cost money to put another article? I do not know.

I never proposed to delete an article from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.122.34 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No notability has been established for a separate article to exist. Also, your competence is required as this encyclopedia does have policies for editwarring and especially sock puppetry with logging out of your account and using an IP address. I want to assume good faith but I'm surprised this is still an issue. – The Grid (talk) 18:06, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 07:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Armageddon Network[edit]

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

per WP:BK, I can't find evidence for criteria 2-6, ~~and I can only find one independent review of the book [2]~~. Potentially another source referring to this book is [3], as it does refer to some of the same events as the book, but I'm pretty sure that is referring to something different. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Now I see the second source (missed it when nominating this), so I'm changing my decision to keep.[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as more reviews of the book have come up in the discussion that I wasn't aware of while nominating. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator found one review. [4] Here's another: [5] Two is enough per WP:NBOOK. Haukur (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now proven to pass WP:NBOOK and by extension GNG. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 03:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh. I missed the second one. Now I agree with above. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727: Do you wish to withdraw the nomination? Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 04:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-- sorry, I had something that came up. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:42, 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) 20:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma Womens MATS[edit]

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

(Contested prod.) Non-notable medical assistant training school. —Wasell^(T) 20:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete no third party reliable sources. Same user tried to create 'Trauma Nursing Institute' and 'Trauma MATS', clearly promotional. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found on google, and no reliable sources in article, So it's non Notable topic / medical institute. This article should be deleted.-Nahal^(T) 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 17:45, 26 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) 20:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry On Top (group)[edit]

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

As the article demonstrates, this short-lived group had two minor releases that did not chart. In an attempt to search for more information about the group, I found a petition at a blacklisted site called ThePetitionSite.com stating that the group was apparently abolished by management with no notice to the few fans that had been gained. If they broke up or were discontinued with few people noticing and with no word from agencies, who are rarely silent about such matters in the S. Korean pop scene, this indicates a lack of notability all around. All other sources found are typical industry listings and unreliable blog commentary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The petition site can be found by searching for "K-Pop Girl Group, CHERRY ON TOP Disappeared!" ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This group fails the criteria at WP:NM, and with it being so short-lived, and with so few fans/followers, with no charted music, the notability is minimal. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only two singles that were uncharted they came and went without causing much impression on reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Dudley[edit]

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

Article subject does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Additionally the article's subject, pursuant to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE has also requested, via OTRS, that that this article be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just editing to make clear I performed a typical BEFORE to make my GNG/NACADEMIC assessment. So I am arguing lack of notability in addition to the requested delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(nomination is impeccableXxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at subject's request. No notability found anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both because this is a reasonable request of someone who at best is borderline notable, and because I couldn't find even that borderline level of notability through either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Nothing suggests the individual is so notable that the deletion request should be overridden. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests they are notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Barkeep49’s explanation above if subject has made such demands then this is a no brainer. A delete is most appplicable here.Celestina007 (talk) 016:19, 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 delete. Tone 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Sulik[edit]

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

The third-tier Russian Professional Football League that Sulik played in has been removed from the list of fully-professional football leagues WP:FPL since the first nomination, after a discussion. Therefore he now does not pass WP:NFOOTY anymore, like he did during the first nomination. Geregen2 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator who was also the article's creator. Would a Russian wiki want this though? Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails all applicable guidelines. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails general notability guidelines and WP:NFOOTY. Celestina007 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 04:22, 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. Tone 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthijs Otterloo[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion as it does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria for notability as per Wikipedia:Notability. Otterloo's involvement in Cycleswap may be better noted on it's own page. I am also nominating this as I am alleging it is largely autobiographical due to the edits by User:Platflyer. Posted by User:MelloNFortnite 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. I note the AfD template has been removed a couple of times, I too suspect a strong autobiographical COI. Ifnord (talk) 21:35, 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 speedy delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. MER-C 10:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Mali Foundation[edit]

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

This article is about a charitable organisation lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article are from the organisation's web site. My own search turns up a couple of passing mentions but no substantial coverage. Whpq (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 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. Tone 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate justice (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Redundant disambiguation, all other articles contain at least one disambiguating word, without parenthetical disambiguation. Brandmeister^talk 18:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 18:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A textbook example of WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there no ambiguity in "Climate justice". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 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. Tone 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parrish Gaines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played professionally and was not a notable college football player. Only sigcov I can find was this, which is a "local player tries out for local team" human interest article you see whenever a non-drafted local player tries out for their local NFL team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline, leaning delete. Gaines was a four-year starter at defensive back for a Division I FBS program (albeit not Power Five), and he did receive some significant coverage. E.g., (1) "Navy never at loss with Parrish Gaines at safety", Capital Gazette, 12/6/14; (2) "Smyrna's Gaines trying to make Titans roster", The Daily News Journal, 5/17/15; (3) "Navy Co-Captain Parrish Gaines: 'We'll Prove Ourselves This Year'", Pressbox, September 15, 2014 (not sure if Pressbox is a reliable source); and (4) "Parrish Gaines: Always Striving To Be The Best", Navysports.com, 11/9/14 (probably not regarded as independent). Because the last two sources are questionable in terms of a GNG analysis, we are left with the first two, and both of those are from mid- to smaller-market publications. Also, not finding any significant coverage of him in major metropolitan dailies (e.g., The Baltimore Sun) or regional/national outlets (e.g., ESPN.com). If other/better examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources are found, I could be persuaded to switch to a 'keep' vote. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NCOLLATH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. I also don't think the coverage meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:44, 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. Tone 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Gardens, Arizona[edit]

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

In spite of its listing in the GNIS as a populated place, this is a mobile home park and senior center in central Mesa which fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND #1. See [6] and [7]. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources establishing notability. Mobile home parks are a type of housing development and are not automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 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} 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another NN trailer park. The GNIS entry is cited to "yellow pages". That does not confer legal recognition despite having been put in the GNIS database. This location must meet GNG per GEOLAND#2. MB 04:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mobile home parks are not notable per WP:GEOLAND. Additionally does not pass WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Warfield[edit]

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

Seemingly NN actor. Only claim to notability seems to be the alleged winning of the Drama-Logue Award, which seems marginally notable itself and I haven't been able to verify that he actually won it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have only had minor roles and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Lacks multiple significant roles. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:48, 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. Tone 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Jubouri[edit]

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

Since creation 13 years ago, this sub-stub is essentially unchanged. There is one WP:RS, an interview with this "rebel leader" at the time leading a group of Iraqi "insurgents" in the Washington Post but that seems to be the full extent of coverage. All WP:BEFORE are references to that one interview, some mirrors of this article, and a handful of propaganda videos on YouTube and other social media. Lacks WP:SIGCOV or any evidence of continuing influence beyond the forces resisting one operation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one nespaper interview is not enough to show notability. In this case it also basically leads to a violation of the not news principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear if he satisfies WP:SOLDIER #2 or 5 Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 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) 06:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Carrozza[edit]

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

It's so hard to sort through the cruft here that I'm nominating this on the basis of WP:TNT because aside from a few cool things on his resume, I fail to see how he is notable as he's lacking in actual coverage. It's sourced to absolute nonsense as sources (tumblr, deviantart, geocities and imgur of all things!) and interviews. If I were to remove all of the unreliable/crufty stuff, we'd be left with a lengthy unsourced article. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, There are lots of sources, and some are used often, especially twitter. Here's a sorted list by number of times a sources was used:
10 twitter.com
6 comics.org
5 youtube.com
3 facebook.com
3 animationinsider.com
2 wixsite.com
2 tvskyle.net
2 imgur.com
2 fantasimation.com
2 deviantart.com
1 voice123.com
1 tumblr.com
1 tubefilter.com
1 tmbw.net
1 thetechnodrome.com
1 soundclick.com
1 sequentialtart.com
1 registerstar.com
1 ratemyteachers.com
1 patch.com
1 needlejuicerecords.com
1 livejournal.com
1 kickstarter.com
1 imaginarynumber.net
1 geocities.ws
1 geocities.com
1 blogspot.com
1 bandcamp.com
1 awn.com
1 atomicavenue.com
1 2000inch.com Vexations (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lord only knows if this person is notable, as the article is so packed with puffery and junk sources that it is impossible to tell. TNT or delete seems the only solution. I did trim some of the offending sources (IMGUR, Facebook and Youtube), but realized quickly that it would take many hours to get to the bottom of it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is my conclusion, shortly after removing "ratemyteachers.com" used as a source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I clicked through the sources, and as far as I could see, they are all junk, nothing usable at all. I did find one reliable outside source[8], but one source isn't enough. Willing to change my vote if additional good sources emerge. Curiocurio (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mighty Magiswords. Pburka (talk) 04:24, 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. ~~And salting.~~ Actually, the recreation was the result of a refund after a soft delete (rather than an aggressive recreation) so I'm not salting at this time. I'll watchlist and G4/salt if it gets recreated again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banbouk Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not a notable DJ, fails WP:NMUSIC. Oh, and these all should probably be salted based on the fact that this is yet another WP:UPE trying to push a non-notable person through: see Mohanad Banbouk. Praxidicae (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom , this article on a non notable disc jockey has been deleted and recreated severally. Makes one wonder if there’a vested interest / financial stake in the creation of this article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it is already deleted earlier shows lack of notability. Pokai (talk)
Keep Hi.Friends Banbouk Music should not be deleted.I have added lot of new information in it.Please recheck it before deleting it.He is a notable musician and Follows WP:NMUSIC
He has joined Dubai Radio and Radio one Dubai and playing there every Thursday 11-1Am,8-10Pm
He is voted Dubai No.1 DJ by Music Magazine in its annual Top100 DJs readership poll consecutively for three years from 2016-19,he was awarded by Anghami with the golden bar for hitting 200,000 plays in 1 day,his song Alepp was played on every radio in the UAE also it got to No-1 Techno hit by Dance FM UAE.
He has collobrated with famous DJ like DJ Bliss,DJ Snake.
He is one the most popular DJ of Dubai.
His work published in many newspapers,magazine, online version of print media

And I don't have any conflict of Interest in it{{Sourav tiwary (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

Sourav tiwary really? Perhaps then you can explain how you uploaded a selfie of the subject and made a declaration that you took the photo and own the copyright? Praxidicae (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this photo in the street of Dubai few years ago.He was in the car. So I own the copyright of the subject {{Sourav tiwary (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

That's quite the magic act you've got, Sourav tiwary considering it was very clearly taken with the subjects own hand.Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 27 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 Deleted per G11 by Materialscientist (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Kekoo[edit]

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

Promotional article about a game. It's borderline G11. No claim of notability and no independent reliable sources to help establish notability Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In case G11 doesn't go through (and I think it will because this is shamelessly promotional to the core right from the 2nd sentence in the article). The subject fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find any reliable source talking about this mobile game, let alone anything in-depth. This isn't a place WP:PROMOting your video game project! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 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. Tone 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health Coach Institute[edit]

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

Promotional article about a for profit "school" (really, a company) with no independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Praxidicae for your thoroughness in adhering to Wikipedia standards. I can assure you this is a passion project for me, and my only request is you allow me to cite some more secondary sources and independent coverage. My biggest mistake was pride/ego related in wanting to create my first page (of which I hope there are many!) without adding in the expanse of independent sources out there -- just to see it live and feel that sense of meaning that comes with creating something new and offering it to the world. I had planned on adding the independent/secondary sources over time, and chipping away at it. Please give me some time today to round off this page with these citations. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I never intended for this to look like a commercial exploit. I hope to offer many more pages around health/nutrition/literature/comedy that meet Wikipedia standards.KelseyLProudman (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Csgir (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable , and also very highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no independent coverage and it also very highly promotional article.-Nahal^(T) 18:59, 27 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 seems to be that this concept has been insufficiently described in reliable sources apart from the works by one author, C. J. M. Drake, which means that we have not enough sources to base an article on. Sandstein 12:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative terrorism[edit]

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

Clear and present bias in name and content. More easily accounted for in Right-wing terrorism. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could merge, but recently "right-wing" and "conservative" have drifted apart. Modern "right-wing" is more likely big-government interventionist surveillance state, antithetical to conservatism. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup The sources do seem to make a decent distinction between Nationalist terrorism, Right-wing terrorism, and Conservative Terrorism... But I’m not sure that the article as currently written accurately reflects those sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup - The article definitely needs a lot of rework, but it does seem to have reliable sources that use this term (which admittedly I had never heard of before this). 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, since conservatism is the underlying political current in Domestic terrorism in the United States, Anti-abortion violence, and the far-right Militia organizations in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dimadick, there's already an article on right-wing terrorism, which covers those types of groups. TFD (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to appropriate sections. i.e. KKK or Domestic terrorism in the United States and Command of Communist Hunting. This looks too much like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We do not keep such articles. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup The article looks woefully anemic and lacking any direction but the sources are there. Trillfendi (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smacks of someone trying to acore poltical points or right great wrongs. Michepman (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This appear to be a valid encyclopedic subject based on these references in academic books and other publications [9],[10],[11],[12]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mostly passing references to Drake's article. "The Phenomenon of Conservative Terrorism" (1996). Can you point to any other article or book about the subject? TFD (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. For example, the book Terrorism: A Critical Introduction By Richard Jackson, Lee Jarvis, Jeroen Gunning, Marie Breen-Smyth (first link) describes this as a distinct and separate sub-category. That alone justifies creating such page here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It briefly mentions the concept in passing on page 157. Passing mentions do not create notability. Can you point to any other article or book about the subject? TFD (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Checking Google Scholar [13] shows a number of additional academicsources, such as

this ("Within the framework of conservative terrorism lie the actions of colonial states (colonial terrorism) to maintain their domination"),
this ("There might also be an increase in what Drake (2007) called 'conservative terrorism.' This term arose in a debate related to loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland."),
this ("Conservative terrorism can be considered as terrorism carried out in order to defend the existing social, economic or political order or to gain a reversion of an earlier arrangement."), and so on.

My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that goes beyond a definition. You can't just provide a definition, say that some writers say it describes Loyalist terrorism, then cut and paste stuff about loyalist terrorism into the article. You would need to explain why some terrorism fits within the concept. TFD (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I do not have access to other sources, but the second one [14] tells:

There might also be an increase in what Drake (2007) called ‘conservative terrorism.’ This term arose in a debate related to loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland. Drake (2007) argued that ‘pro-state’ terrorism, whereby terrorists carry out attacks in order to eliminate threats, which they believe should have been eliminated by the state's security forces, is more properly seen in the wider context of conservative terrorism. Some signs of it may already be on the horizon since the executive vice president and CEO of the USA National Rifle Association has recently stated that academic and media elites are “America's greatest domestic threats.”

...

It is conceivable that conservative terrorism along the lines of Drake's (2007) writings may increase as a reaction to what may be seen as “over-the-top” political correctness and tolerance of views seen as contrary to those of the “ordinary people”. In other words, political correctness may be interpreted as the implementation of morally rotten policies in our social lives. As a consequence, social institutions - including universities, which are perceived to promote or tolerate such “dissenting views” - might become targets of terrorist attacks.

This is significant discussion. And the Scholar shows a lot more similar sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that none of the sources tells this is a variety of Right-wing terrorism. Therefore, the suggestion to merge (or an argument about content fork) would be not justified here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conservative terrorism is a concept developed by CJM Drake in his 1996 essay "The phenomenon of conservative terrorism." The concept is briefly mentioned in The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism,[15] The Northern Ireland loyalists Drake mentioned are normally described as ethnic nationalist terrorists. That is they are motivated by supporting their ethnic community rather than the status quo, although the status quo supported their ethnic privilege. There are insufficient secondary sources for an article. TFD (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "conservative terrorism" contains the same level of political name-calling as does a term such as "liberal terrorism." By definition (one could look up all the relevant Wikipedia entries), liberals are not extreme left wingers, while conservatives are not extreme right wingers. Terrorism is an extreme practice and a practice of extremist ideologies. Non-extremists do not engage in political terrorism as that would make them extremists. Q.E.D.

The term "conservative terrorism" can be and has been used in the sense of "terrorism by people who aim to protect the status quo" but for each context there is a diferent, specific notation, e.g. in Northern Ireland those who engage in terrorism in order to protect the status quo are denoted as loyalist terrorists (Ulster Volunteer Force, etc). It should be evident, and to your humble, non-conservative servant it is, that having an article on "conservative terrorism" amounts to violating, for starters, WP:NPOV for politicking and WP:PEACOCK for loaded language. Everything worth keeping in the contested text should find a place in the respective articles about the variants of right-wing terorrism. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Yeah... So the is opposite of conservative terrorism is progressive terrorism not “liberal terrorism.” Nor is progressive terrorist a synonym for “extreme left wingers,” groups such as Al-Quida are progressive but certainly not liberal or leftist. You also incorrectly conflate conservative terrorism and right-wing terrorism, those have never and will never be the same thing. Maybe learn the basics before casting such ridiculous aspersions at your fellow editors? Not only do you look like a fool but its just rude. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, when you change your ways and follow a civilized method of discourse, you could perhaps provide us with evidence for your assertion that Al Qaeda is a "progressive" organization. In the meantime, please refrain from personal attacks -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the content in this article appears to be based on Drake's definition, the rest seems to be describing different views on what the term could mean but does not specifically speak to "state-loyal" terrorism (which is what Drake defined it as). With such contradiction, and very little coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions, I cannot see a true policy backed reason for us to retain this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Right-wing terrorism. Too much overlap and the case has not been made that anything here can't go there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Coffee and TFD. None of the other sources appear to be using Drake's 1996 definition of Conservative Terrorism, not even the 1998 Drake ref. A quote from Claessen is a major part of the introduction, but it has been taken way out of context; he described the ETA and IRA as "conservative nationalist movements" as opposed to "extreme leftist organizations like the German RAF... or Italian Red Brigades". Can't imagine anything further from Drake's definition of "state-loyal terrorism". All the other sources seem to be using conservative as a synonymy for right wing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coffee With Market's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:55, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tathva[edit]

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

Questionable notability, advertisement. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I have decided to keep this AfD. This article appears fairly normal in the lede, albeit with questionable notability, but the further down you scroll the more promotional it becomes. First off, the very next thing in the article is a very large list of events, sorted by category. This isn't too bad until you reach the Wheels section, at which advertising language appears, with language like most exclusive line up and adventurous and thrilling. Under General, it reads more like it's giving taglines for events instead of short descriptions, and under Blitzkrieg it is just pure advertising for every game listed.

All coverage of the event appears to just be routine coverage from exactly 1 source, with insignificant content. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:20, 6 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 // 08:03, 12 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)} 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article meets WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic ; no notability except in very lcoal publications. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to go towards delete and have it mentioned in the college page as a passing by. I am not in favor of college fests being pushed as standalone articles unless it is a very big event to pass notability. There are 47+ reputed govt colleges (IITs and NITs) in India and many private colleges also which has these fests and of the same magnitude. If we remove the adverts and promotional content, there won't be much to keep anything. This can easily be accommodated in the parent article and a small paragraph highlighting the important points. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significance except very local publications, fail WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 18:56, 27 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) 15:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auxesis (festival)[edit]

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

Reads like a press release. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I have reviewed this article, and decided to keep the AfD (I'd elevate to CSD, but i'm not sure that's doable) It is pure, undersourced advertising language. I honestly don't think I need to say more.

Auxesis has reached the zenith of success through a widely acclaimed and famed series of competitions, workshops, shows, presentations and pro-nights.

Because of its variety and richness, this event enjoys a great audience which just keeps on increasing year after year.

Each categories includes number of exciting events.

Six years ago, some young minds came up with a brilliant idea to inspire innovative minds in order to create exemplary technical ambience within the entire Upper Assam. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:04, 6 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 // 08:03, 12 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)} 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text does appear to be that suitable for an event webpage. Text such as that quoted above can be subject to normal editing - I deleted some of it in an edit earlier today. However, for an article to be sustainable it must have a foundation of verifiable text and indication of notability, and that is where I am finding problems. Searches are finding brief notices of the event, passing mentions of bands who have played at the Battle of the Bands, etc. (Note that there is a similarly-named inter-school festival in Kolkata.) But I am not seeing the depth, duration and diversity to meet WP:COVERAGE or even to pare this down to a sustainable referenced article. AllyD (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable event, and promotional article as well . DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable event to have a standalone article. Can be mentioned in the parent article after removal of promotional content. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:25, 27 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) 18:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Art (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:26, 27 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) 18:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Craft (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:26, 27 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) 15:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Road to G1 Supercard[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator here. HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 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. Tone 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Mayhem (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:27, 27 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 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Hysteria (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nomination-Nahal^(T) 18:53, 27 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 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night At Center Stage (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:27, 27 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 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honor For All (2019)[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Lack of third party sources (some of them, just WP:ROUTINE), but most are Primary sources. No deep coverage of the event before or after it happened. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Wrestlepedia. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 18:52, 27 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 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitla (cryptid)[edit]

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

Non-notable purported species based on a single sighting. –dlthewave ☎ 13:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "There are certainly species of the smaller animals which so far have not been recorded in the text-books – the "mitla," for example, a black mixture of dog and cat." That's literally all we've got. Who tf thought that's the basis for an article? Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete due to lack of notability, lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 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 delete. Tone 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese gray wild dog[edit]

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

Sourcing consist of firsthand accounts, speculation, etc; the purported species fails WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and does not seem to have been given significant scientific consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 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. Tone 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bad Girls cast members[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Data dumps of blue- and redlinked actor names where IMDb might do a better job, and WP:NOT#DIR or WP:LISTN might apply. (The category equivalent is WP:PERFCAT.) All(!) of these lists either have a separate "List of characters" for their respective show, or a sizeable "Cast and characters" section in their show's main article. This is a test case how to deal with comparable lists in Category:Lists of actors by television series. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't delete it because you think something else would be better. The lists would be better if they had columns for listing which episode/s the actors were on and their character name. Perfectly valid lists though, too long to fit in the main article. Plenty of blue links to justify them being valid list. If you could find all the names at character list such as List of Bad Girls characters without anyone left out, then you could just redirect there. Dream Focus 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEL-REASON states WP:CONTENTFORKs (creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject) as a common reason for deletion. Seeing that MOS:TVCAST doesn't differentiate much between Cast and Character listings, I'd say it's pretty clear we're dealing with content forks here. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to each's respective parent article. None of the list articles follow the MOS:TVCAST format and there is no criteria in each list denoting the importance of each cast member in the shows. The lists may have potential (thus the history should be preserved) but are of no real value to readers as they are now. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these lists have any reason to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - John Pack Lambert says it all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Trivial lists lacking actual utility. TTN (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- WP:NOTDIR. Reyk roaming (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. all, as per nomination. WP:NOTDIR.-Nahal^(T) 18:50, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frommbach[edit]

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

One of a whole run of stubby articles on watercourses in Germany. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a minor stream with no claim to notability. The German text is longer but consists almost entirely of infobox and a text description of the course of this creek which surely sprang fully formed out of the head of the WP writer as Athena was born from the head of Zeus. I do not accept the assertion that merely naming the feature on a map constitutes meaningful notability, and I can find precious little other mention. And while I'm at it: this article along with its many kin styles this a "river". the very name belies that: bach connotes a stream or brook or other minor flow, and the picture suggests the same. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) all of these small rivers into either Felchbach or even further into Swabian Rezat. The many standalone articles are overkill, but they are better than not covering these bodies of water at all, so I oppose outright deletion. (Ideally I'd like to see a list that contains the coordinates, which are the most useful piece of information on these substubs) —Kusma (t·c) 09:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a LOT of German river short stubs, a lot of them are really only streams. I have no objection to redirecting the entirely of the stubs created into a rabled list which conveys the same info. Very few people on here are actively working on German geography.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions vary on whether to retain the data, and there has not been enough discussion to make a determination on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Siegel[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD. Individual clearly exists but I don't see notability. There aren't reliable sources talking about him in any significant depth. He currently airs a radio program from 10pm to 1am, not exactly a prime time slot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It only needs a few more references. These [16], [17], [18] & [19] may help. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 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) 15:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WisR[edit]

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

Article about a non notable organization that might have been written by an employer per editor user name. Fails WP:NCORP and lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:DEL-REASON (8). Fails WP:ORG. Krakkos (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very self serving article. I think this should have gone into Austrian rather than Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teraplane hey thanks for the observation. It was an oversight/error on my side.Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Nom. Csgir (talk) 06:20, 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 keep. Tone 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kamon[edit]

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

Fully unsourced bio. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV when performing a WP:BEFORE search. Most available content refers back to the Wikipedia article, the rest is WP:UGC. Unless somebody finds bona fide WP:RS coverage of this person, the article should be deleted for notability failure. She can still be mentioned in Phil Ramone's biography as his wife and occasional singer on his productions. — JFG ^talk 05:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I searched under her maiden name, Karen Ichiuji, and came up with three reliable sources, New York Times, a google book, and an academic journal article, but they are not WP:SIGCOV as they are all between one and three sentences on her, the rest is on Karen Carpenter. Not enough to establish notability at this time, unless something more substantial is found. I did not search under her married name, Karen Ramone, tho. Netherzone (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching Newspapers.com finds an article about her, "Singer Karen Kamon started as a roadie", from AP journo Mary Campbell in 1987 [20]; a review of her album Voices in the New York Daily News, also in 1987 [21]; she was mentioned in several reviews of Flashdance in 1983 - the "music is a wonderful mix of people we've heard from before .... coupled with some not-so-familiar names: Karen Kamon's super-charged "Manhunt" [22], "By itself, the music isn't good. Cycle V's "Seduce Me Tonight" and Karen Kamon's "Manhunt" might stay with you ... the rest is music to be played while something else is going on" [23]; "hot-blooded numbers like "Manhunt" by Karen Kamon" [24]; a 1984 episode of the TV show Solid Gold "features a salute to the Grammys with Karen Kamon ("Manhunt") ...." [25] - it was apparently nominated for a Grammy, according to an article in the Australian newspaper The Age [26]; a couple of reviews of her debut album Heart of You in 1984 [27], [28]; an article about her husband which has 3 paras about her and says how they met (contra the assertion in this article) [29]; etc. Apart from anything else, she meets WP:MUSICBIO#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", with albums on CBS Records International and Atco Records. There are certainly more sources, and more info, that could be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the numerous reliable sources significant coverage idenified above which includes articles about her and reviews of her works shows that WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) are clearly passed and deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.as per :Atlantic306.-Nahal^(T) 18:47, 27 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 Pop (British and Irish TV channel). Editors were unable to find reliable sources for the subject, but identified Pop (British and Irish TV channel) as a viable redirect target. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky (TV series)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced for a long time. The show doesn't appear to be very notable, and has very little coverage, which is mostly in YouTube videos and iMDB. Perhaps since the mascot was brought back for Pop for a few years, perhaps the article could redirect to there instead of being deleted? What are you guy's thoughts? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:37, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no sources (if the external are supposed to be sources, then they are blatantly unreliable) but since they reused the mascot, this should redirect to another article that mentions him (perhaps Pop as the nominator suggested) and merge applicable information there. Otherwise delete as a second option. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@James-the-Charizard - I totally agree with what you have to say. If we do redirect the article to Pop, should we add a few sentences mentioning Tricky/Rory's past? He is currently not mentioned at all on the Pop article, as he was previously, but the info was removed due to being original research. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxnpichu, We should if it happens, but also try starting a discussion on the talk page if it gets removed again. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 22:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@James-the-Charizard - Sounds like a plan! Foxnpichu (talk) 22:58, 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. Tone 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Dagga[edit]

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

Subject cleary fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The article was twice speedily deleted two years ago, per WP:A7 and WP:G5. Dagga does not appear to have increased his notability since then. Krakkos (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 10:06, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:45, 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midhun V[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:24, 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. Tone 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kellogg[edit]

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found nothing but passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Kellogg's interviews of other or stories she has reported on but do not cover Kellogg in detail. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete journalists are not default notable, and there is not enough coverage here to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalists/TV personality.-Nahal^(T) 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Kotarac[edit]

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

Can't find any significant coverage of this player, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 09:31, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Dujardin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, not a notable soccer player yet. Fram (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't read the sources, but he's pretty clearly WP:TOOSOON (if soon ever happens.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of the article at this time fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The creator of the article should track his progress and if in the future he deserves an article, they should recreate another one for him. But for now, it is a case of WP:NOTJUSTYET. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Can't decide on WP:GNG (it would be long debate on it is in-depth coverage or not for his ethnic background and news report that contain some part of an interview, is primary or secondary source or not) . Matthew hk (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:23, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya Behara[edit]

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

Non notable singer who fails WP:SINGER and does not satisfy WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Should be deleted using G11 criterion of speedy deletion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per reasons presendted by Nnadigoodluck. Krakkos (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:MUSICBIO.-Nahal^(T) 20:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 27 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color magazine[edit]

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

One legitimate entry, one definition and a hopeless redlink, so there's no need for a disambiguation page. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: now a legitimate disambig page, following the creation of colour supplement. -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now a good disambiguation page. PamD 23:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following useful edits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:02, 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) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pence-Brown[edit]

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

Piece appears largely promotional. Most links are not WP:RS. Links describe a FB group/following of less than 1500 people, and "honors" are a small local event with 50 honorees. Would need far more sourcing to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re one of the noms below, I didn't speedy this as it's been deleted & recreated repeatedly, and this time around someone else had speedied it & it was declined. Per Wiki rules that means it had to go to AfD. If it's deleted on consensus this time it should probably be salted. JamesG5 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a seemingly promotional article about a person who appears to be failing WP:N. Supporting deletion per WP:DEL-REASON (8) and WP:DEL-REASON (14). Krakkos (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The article should be speedily deleted using G11 criterion of speedy deletion because it's totally written like a résumé. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't have any significant, in depth coverage aside from local puff/press releases/unreliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. "Body-image activist." M'kay. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks indpeth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale provided by Nnadigoodluck and Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 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) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leah N.H. Philpott[edit]

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

Non notable actress failing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE I conducted shows gross non notability. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve. Passing NACTOR is not simply a matter of listing roles — if it were, then every actor who exists at all would always automatically pass NACTOR, because having acting roles is literally the job description. Rather, passing NACTOR's "notable for having had roles" criterion is a matter of reliably sourcing the article to some evidence of significant coverage about her having had roles. The sources here aren't doing that, however: #1 is an article whose core subject is the filmmaker who directed a film she's in, and it's paywalled so I can't verify whether it contains any substantive content about her or just trivially namechecks her existence; #2 is a blurb in the "alumni announcements" column of the newsletter of the acting school she attended, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all; #3 just verifies a stray fact about another film she's in while completely failing to even mention Philpott's name in conjunction with it. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to support an article if you're going for "notable because she's been in stuff". She may get the kind of coverage it takes in the future, given that her most potentially notability-making roles are in future films that went into production this year and haven't actually been released yet — so an article can certainly be recreated if and when that happens, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe the planned role will amount to something, but nothing shows notability yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP #1 is an article that mentions Philpott by name as one of three starring in the film (which is being distributed by Lionsgate, and also mentions her work on American Honey. #2, The Actor Factory Memo, is a newsletter written by Chris Freihofer, CSA, a significant casting director for film and television in the south region of the United States. The Actor Factory newsletter frequently includes casting calls for major SAG productions and other film related news. This is most definitely a reliable source. #3 Is simply supporting a fact in relation to "street casting." Philpott's Extras Casting credit on the film is noted on IMDb. Cranston Snord (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article has to do more than just mention her name to support her notability, so #1 is not enough all by itself. An article has to be from a reliable source to help establish her notability, so #2 isn't doing anything. And an article doesn't support her notability at all if it's just verifying stray facts without even mentioning her name at all in conjunction with them, so #3 isn't doing anything either. Which leaves us with #1, which, again, is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
#2 is a reliable source. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it not reliable or well known and respected in the film/television and acting community. Look up Chris Freihofer, who writes the memos. Cranston Snord (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing means media outlets and books, not the self-published websites of organizations the article subject is directly affiliated with. Reliability, for the purposes of establishing notability, is not a question of the parent organization's "respect in the film/television and acting community" — it's a question of whether the website in question is or isn't a media outlet, independent of the claims being made, doing third party journalism about a person whose career it does not have a vested interest in. By the same token, a person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article just because she has a staff profile on the website of her own employer, or her own self-published website about herself: those aren't likely to be inaccurate about the details of the person's career, but they're not notability makers, because they aren't independent of the subject's own self-promotional web presence. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Bearcat.-Nahal^(T) 21:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete Insufficiently referenced and no independent sources to supplement the present references. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 13:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ageha100%[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Article is unsourced and I could not find any independent sources. Japanese Wikipedia page is a stub and also not sourced. lullabying (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:01, 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 WP:CSD#G4 - rebuilt on the same sources. Wily D 11:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anagha Janaki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Subject of article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. "Anagha Janaki" has only ~2500 results on Google. The image is taken from subject's Twitter account and likely is a copyright violation. userdude 06:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G4- the previous AfD ended as Delete 3 days ago. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4) and salt: Recreating an article three days after an AfD decision to delete a previous instance indicates an inability to accept community consensus. RebeccaGreen's rationale in the previous AfD applies equally to the current instance. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Note that the WP:SPA article creator has also created another instance as Draft:Anagha Janaki in the review queue. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. And the photo in that article was copied from Twitter as stated by User:UserDude, I've tagged it for speedy deletion at Commons and it has been deleted. The article itself should be deleted using G4 criterion of speedy deletion, since a delete discussion just ended 3 days ago with delete. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of As the World Turns characters#Damian Grimaldi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Grimaldi[edit]

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

No evidence of passing GNG/NFICTION. Pure PLOT. Old prod from 2011 by User:George Ho, declined with no good reason (WP:ITSIMPORTANT by a short-loved account which seems like an SPA created to deprod several articles (see early edits from User:Casanova88... a good list of articles I'll revisited and AfD in the near furure), the article hasn't improved since then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 20 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} 04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one sourced Casting info to List of As the World Turns characters#Damian Grimaldi. ALLPLOT doesn't make it worthy of a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per sgeureka. Not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 26 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) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant anaconda[edit]

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

Article is based solely on unverified reports of very long snakes. This is by definition a fringe point of view and is not supported by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Does not appear to be well sourced, but am dubious about AFD's shortly after gutting an article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. Enwebb (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What there is in the way of reliably sourced length estimates is provided at great depth in the description section for the largest species, Green anaconda. That includes quite good coverage of speculations, too. So while this is a topic of perennial interest, we've already got it covered in suitable format. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why anyone thought this should be a separate article in the first place; anything worth salvaging can go to anaconda or Green_anaconda#Current_estimates_of_maximal_size. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green anaconda#Current estimates of maximal size. Not sure why this needs to have a separate article. Hog Farm (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking fact-based reliable sources, the topic is pure-fiction. There is a good film about this but in the real everyday world no reliable evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 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) 09:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc D. Grossman (attorney)[edit]

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

None of the references apart from possibly the local Long Island article cover him significantly, or are not reliable per our notability guidelines. Also written promotionally. At AfD because PROD was declined on wrong speedy deletion grounds. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grossman does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N and certainly does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Grossman fails to meet the requirement as he "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." (Emphasis added). Dr42 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Pretty obviously promotional, either likely paid someone or is an autobio. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, and the article is a mere WP:RESUME. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said on the talk page, I believe Marc Grossman is notable and has received significant coverage from reliable sources, but I am also still learning so I may be mistaken. I recognize the original version was flawed, but both I and other editors have improved the page significantly in successive versions. Today I expanded his legal career section to better capture Grossman's newsworthy and noteworthy lawsuits in a manner that is (hopefully) more appropriate. And I added a section on his ownership of the Mets de Guaynabo, a defunct Puerto Rican basketball team that is restarting for the 2020 season. Grossman has been the subject of significant Spanish-language coverage in Puerto Rico and will likely continue to be as the team is in the news. I am not connected with Marc Grossman, I've never met the guy, and I wasn't even aware he existed until a few weeks ago. I thought he would make a worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia. If that's not the case, so be it. I believe the page is significantly improved and I would love any advice for how to keep continuing to improve it. -JoeyHarmon (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article that are actually about him that are not independent of him; and the references that are independent of him are not about him. Is there something you can point to that actually backs up your claim of notability?

Your comment above seems to be an argument that you believe he ought to be notable, i.e., ought to be getting third-party independent coverage; but if he isn't, that's not particularly material to the issue. Wikipedia is not the organ for achieving notability. TJRC (talk) 03:02, 26 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) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bilaal Rajan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, seems like a promotional article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that I removed a lot of dead links from that article 9 months ago. You can find the links in the history.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Abrasives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in 2008 on the basis of "it has Google hits" which is simply not enough to pass the newer, more stringent requirements of WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.

The sources in the article are insufficient to keep this article. The first reference is to the Hermes website, so that's not independent. The second is the narrow, industry focused publication The Manufacturer US, which fails WP:AUD. The articles in Wood & Wood Products and Tooling & Production are dead links, but again, publications with such a narrow audience are hardly an indicator of notability. The German Wikipedia article has no references at all, so we're actually ahead of the game on them and we're still not at CORPDEPTH.

On a search of news, both "Hermes Abrasives" and "Hermes Schleifmittel" (the company's German name) bring up only trivial mentions, no feature stories. The 18 Google Scholar hits waved at the last AfD are also trivial mentions like this: "To reduce surface defects on the platelets the steel plungers of the die-pressing device were polished with SiC grinding paper (WS Flex, Hermes Abrasives Ltd., Virginia Beach, USA) with a grit of p2500." Really riveting stuff.

I did find two case studies in business textbooks that looked not so bad at first, however... per the index, the first the first is only two pages long, which isn't that impressive. The second looks fabulous untill you look two of the four contributors and see that they are employees of Hermes, so it's hardly independent coverage.

Overall I don't think we can keep on the basis of what's available. I'll offer my usual caveat that I only speak English so was only able to Google Translate search for German sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm with PMC on this, references are poor and I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 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) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FFAStrans[edit]

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

non-notable software/tool. No coverage anywhere. Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: Software for broadcasters is in deed special interest and from perspective of the WWW most of it is not "noteable". It is my believe that in the area where this tool plays, it is in deed noteable due to it's number of forum topics. It is mentioned in all relevant "noteable" relavant, independent forums like Doom9 and such (do you need more info on that?) Please know that i am not affiliated with the software owner Emcodem (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emcodem: No idea, how about asking the user who nominated the article for deletion instead? Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Being new here is sometimes not so easy :-) I was working through the new article guidelines now and before and it seems to be a matter of discussion. This software has a couple of hundred or even thousand users according to their forum, also please read my wrongly placed reply to Shellwood above. Thanks for taking the time! Emcodem

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Can't find any independent sources that cover the subject Bait30 ^Talk? 03:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found passing mention, otherwise no other RS. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 20:42, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Marashi[edit]

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

The purpose of this is advertising for a cosmetic surgeon. His scientific contributions are trivial--much is made of a single case study. The references are mostly or entirely PR, as is typical for cosmetic surgeons.

Cosmetic surgeons of all specialties rely on advertising. They've discovered their most effective medium (next to local newspapers & talk shows) --Wikipedia I'm trying to delete the 90% of their articles that do not show some unmistakable basis for notability, such as president of a national society or editorship of a national journal (Tellingly, almost all people who do meet normal non-promotional qualification do not have articles, and those that do are not prarticualrly promotional .)

The article is written by one of our declared paid editors, much of whose work ins on marginal figures. It is part of the evidence why we should not accept paid editing at all in Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. Has extensive sources including from the New York Post, Allure Magazine, and Gold Coast Bulletin. It could use some rework but it doesn't warrant deletion. Michepman (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a tricky one because there are some decent sources here, and I'm not sure you can write them all off as flat-out PR. However, I'm landing on delete because in my view even the best sources (probably the three mentioned by Michepman above) are not really about Marashi. They are about vaginal cosmetic surgery, and Marashi is used as a useful quote and to add colour to the piece. And one of the reasons for that is almost certainly because he has a very effective PR operation, not because he is actually notable by any reasonable standard. Hug^syrup 11:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having examined the article thoroughly, I will say that it reeks of total PR in whole and not necessarily because the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a means of advertising. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are third-party sources, in the end it's a promotional piece right down to the smarmy-looking publicity photo. The medical procedure, which itself is more notable, is being used to prop up the article subject. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per compliance with WP:NOTPROMO, which states information "must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery", the article does not meet the WP:DEL-REASON criteria for advertising (WP:G11 or WP:ADMASK). If editing is needed to achieve a more neutral tone, the article can be improved as there are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources (Refinery 29, Allure, and Gold Coast Bulletin) to demonstrate notability via WP:BASIC. In addition, the subject's co-authorship of a case report selected for publication in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal (established in 1840) meets WP:ANYBIO section 2 as the "person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Per WP:FCOI guidelines, the article was approved for publication via the Articles for Creation process. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the article's talk page and on my user page in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. E-Stylus (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are not aware of it, but case reports are the most trivial form of biomedical publication. The standard you are proposing would let anyone who had ever been a co-author of a scientific publication have an article in Wikipedia (which essentially means anyone who has ever receiveda PhD in science), and analogously the author of a single published short story or single poem.

Gold Coast Bulletin and the other publications you mention are an epitome of what are NOT r eliable sources for the accomplishments of physicians. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BMJ is one of the world's oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals such that its authors' contributions would be more "widely recognized" than other publications in general. The subject and the case report were covered by Health, Fox News, and the New York Post. If the subject falls short of WP:ANYBIO, he still meets WP:BASIC which states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This guideline applies to all individuals, not to a specific profession. The references from Refinery29, Allure, and Gold Coast Bulletin are published secondary sources that provide coverage of the subject and his work. These sources are reliable due to the publications' editorial oversight. Each article includes independent commentary. E-Stylus (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're seriously considering Refinery 29 as a reliable source in this discussion? Good heavens. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:39, 25 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 Adil Najam. This is probably a merge but given that it has effectively already been done, redirecting it alone should be enough. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistaniat[edit]

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

Dormant since 2011. Weak coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website is still useful in gathering references while editing Wikipedia despite the fact they are not adding much new material to it lately. I have been using it. Still they have a lot there that can be used.Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ILIKEIT. Störm (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For you User:Störm, I can similarly say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Seriously though, in fact, I said above that the website is still useful to all Wikipedia editors because of what is still available on this website. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ Merge: In addition to the one reference on the article, I found another reference by BBC Monitoring through Factiva (Factiva BBCSAP0020071111e3bb00439) and one on the Boston Globe here. Unfortunately you need a Factiva account to view that one. ~~I'm new to deletion discussions, so I do not know whether this would be considered trivial coverage per WP:WEBCRIT~~. So in my opinion ~~keep if this is non-trivial coverage or~~ merge with Adil Najam ~~if it is trivial coverage~~. Bait30 ^Talk? 04:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my previous statement and have decided that all the mentions of Pakistaniat in reliable sources are passing mentions of the subject. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the references mentioned above by Bait30 , I took the time to add another 4 following references today:

Hope this helps. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that I am also in favor of redirect/merge. Störm (talk) 13:47, 28 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 Virgin Mobile. Tone 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mobile Australia[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. No significant content for 5 years, now defunct, no historical value PabloZ 00:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I am having trouble finding reliable sources. Also, organization is not notable solely as a part of the "Virgin" brand (WP:INHERITORG). However, even though WP:BRANCH applies to non-commercial organizations, it still seems like it makes sense to merge this with Virgin Mobile since this is like a local chapter of that company. Also as a comment, I would like to point out that the second half of the nomination is not a valid reason for deletion because it reads like WP:NOTVALUABLE. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Virgin Mobile Australia to Virgin Mobile. it's Doesn't meet WP:CORP.-Nahal^(T) 18:32, 27 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) 08:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Orion[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG - nothing more than a local radio personality. I'm actually not even convinced that the one reference listed is even about the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero third-party coverage. And yep, the only "source" therein was completely unrelated to the subject. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article describes him as an "amateur American radio personality", which is a synonym for "not notable", unless there exists powerful evidence to the contrary. My careful Google search reveals no such evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur radio personality. Completely fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No secondary sources in the article. Can't even seem to find one either. _SUPER ^ASTIG 00:42, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as nominator While this artist has received some media attention for her novelty, she fails to meet notability standards established by WP:ARTIST. If Scott invented the concept of finger-painting, I would reconsider, but as it stands now, she is not notable. KidAd (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree that the subject does not meet WP:ARTIST, the coverage she has received does meet WP:GNG, which is enough to establish notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a boatload of coverage in reliable news sources from many reliable sources between 2017 and 2019. GNG is clearly met. The fact that the media sometimes promotes banal artists is a media problem, not a notability problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing to delete. I am persuaded that although there is coverage, it is most cases not in depth, and more imporantly it is not critical coverage of her. If she is an artist, then we need some critical coverage and not just puff pieces about how cool finger painting is.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Citations meet WP:GNG, but article needs cleaning up.~~ Changing vote to Delete. After exploring the sources in depth, they don't work in establishing notability. Primary sources from art blogs/magazines and her own site, a Forbes puff piece written by a "contributor" instead of a staff writer, and no content in the USA Today article. American Art Collector link is dead. All citations are dated March 2019, meaning the shock value of her work has long since worn off. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although not necessarily meeting a more specific notability criteria ie. WP:CREATIVE, there is plenty of coverage for Scott to meet WP:BASIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, as seen in USA Today here and WCBS-TV here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WCBS piece is a whopping two minutes long and is basically the average puff material saved for the very end of a newscast. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just voice my complete disgust with stating, in Wikipedia's voice "best known for pioneering finger painting to achieve media recognition and commercial success". The sources are terrible: a Forbes "contributor", a 5 photo slideshow without commentary, one dead link, amazon.com (REALLY?), an editor called wenn.com, a press release, a blog, her gallery. Delete. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very happy to see this artist deleted, but a news search turns up many good sources. For example Smithsonian Magazine has this item, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a ten minute interview. Here is a decently sized NYPOST article. And here is a 13 minute interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and an article on CBS New York. This is one of those situations where following our notability guidelines means we have to include gimmick artists who have little artistic originality, but have amassed SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I don't think we have to rigidly follow some rule that says, that anything that CBS or the CBC or ABC covers is automatically notable. To me, what matters for artists is serious critical attention by professional critics, art historians etc. The kind of coverage Scott has received belongs in the human interest section, it is not serious criticism. I suppose that just means that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but those paintings make me want to rip my eyeballs out. I do recognize that we have, on occasion, accepted a newpaper's gift guide as a reliable source, just because it appeared in the New York Times, and we apparently have a "rule" that says that anything that gets written about there is somehow notable. If we accept that, then there's no need to discuss anything anymore. All we have to do is count sources, and see how many of them are in the (soon to be published) list of pre-approved sources. I think that's a terrible idea, but I am possibly not aligned with the consensus of the editing community here. Vexations (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: I concur with you on the eyeballs. There is perhaps an argument that could be made here that she should not be included as there has been no critical coverage of her work. The coverage has just been "hey, cool!" I Might be bending towards delete, although we have kept many terrible artists in AFD discussion based on uncritical coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, yeah, I'm really torn. Our own judgements should not play a role in deciding to keep or delete. And often, keeping some distance from the subject (disliking the work of artists we discuss) is beneficial. I have done a lot of work on Florine Stettheimer for example, whose paintings I actually don't like very much, but I've never written about artists who I really like. One approach I like is to look at the sources, see if we can write an article based on (only) those sources. So in Scott's case, the USA today article [30] cited by User:Nnadigoodluck as evidence of easily passing WP:GNG is completely useless, because it's only text is "A finger painting creation by Brooklyn-based artist Iris Scott", "Shake it off!", "A deer peeks through fall foliage.", "Take me home country road? Iris Scott with her painting "Whispering Wheat."", "Iris Scott stands in front of "Jake the Giant." The canvas is 128" wide." You cannot write an article based on that source, so it should be dismissed. Then there's Cindy Hsu's reporting, [31] who during her reporting, gets to experience some fingerpainting herself. Meilan Solly's piece for Smithsonian magazine is a bit harder to dismiss as trivial. Most of the sources seem to be written in response to a single exhibition at Filo Sofi arts, which was supposed to run from May 4 to June 7, but is still listed on the Gallery's website. You can apparently still visit it, but by appointment only. None of this seems to amount to sustained coverage. I question the claims about the prices her work commands (claims vary from $30,000 to $45,000). Did the show sell? Or is she selling “Hand Embellished” work [32] to tourists on the High Line? Vexations (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations You have moved me to the "D*lete" column.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an analysis of the sources makes it questionable this actually passes GNG, and nothing even close to passing the notability guidelines for artists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vexations. The sourcing is much thinner than it originally appears. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:53, 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.