Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 December	25 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Heir Up There[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage here. There's one good review, the rest is one paragraph PR-type blurbs (e.g. [1], [2]). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article about the person who created this mixtape, Chase N. Cashe, has been deleted repeatedly. If the artist who created the recording isn't notable enough for an article, the recording probably isn't either. (See WP:A9.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The subject matter does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and fails GNG with lack of reliable sources either in the article or elsewhere. Wm335td (talk) 20:58, 31 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Vasey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Only coverage is routine coverage generated by transactions. Little WP:SIGCOV, failing WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON, coverage of him from college isn't quite enough even though the story of him getting a surprise scholarship warms the cockles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he never played professional football (which fails WP:NGRIDIRON) and the sources here don't satisfy WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Undecided at the moment, but there is a surprising amount of coverage for a long snapper. Examples: this, this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 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 keep per the number of AfD participants here recommending to do so. However, (personal opinion) after reading through the article, I must admit that the article suffers from WP:REFBOMBing, and most if it just references plot, and not even always about this character. This makes the article a likely target for another AfD in the future, so I recommend thinking about other solutions for covering the fictional IT elements that span several adaptations. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Denbrough[edit]

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

This was at AfD and closed as a redirect in September, recreated a day later with more sources, and then has shuffled around between draftspace and mainspace. My initial reaction was that the redirect should be restored, but that has been done enough. There has been a number of new sources added since the last AfD, and so I think the best possible situation here is to have another AfD instead of boldly redirecting the article for the fourth time.

I'm also having a difficult time determining just which sources would demonstrate this character's notability. I'm happy to withdraw or change my opinion if those are clearly demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article is still not in the best shape it could be, I think there is enough sources present to prove notability. There are also many sources present in books avalable from Google Books which are not present on this page that go into more depth.★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @*Treker: Thanks for finding some more sources. At the moment I’m on a family vacation in New Zealand, so I don’t have much internet, but I‘ll add them once I get a chance to! - SeanTheYeti452
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage regarding real world notability to satisfy WP:GNG. Not every character in a popular book is notable outside the work in which they appear. But because the book is popular, there are going to be lots of stuff written about them in fan-related media.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's unfair to characterize all coverage of this character as comming from "fan-related media", I gave it a Google Books search and I have found coverage of the character in The Complete Stephen King Universe, The Shape Under the Sheet, Stephen King: The Second Decade, Danse Macabre to The Dark Half, The Moral Voyages of Stephen King, Dissecting Stephen King: From the Gothic to Literary Naturalism, Landscape of fear: Stephen King's American Gothic, The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape, The Stephen King phenomenon, Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women among several. Like I said above this page is not in the best shape, but an article not being great is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is fan-based discussion. I really respect what you do on WP, and I understand your viewpoint. I simply think that fictional stuff should have real-world notability, not simply in-universe or fan-based sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how all those books should be considered "fan-based". If one were to cite 10 published works on Poe or Lovecraft I don't think it should be disregarded as "fan based" just because they cover fiction when the author is a highly notable individual who's works have been disected a ton within literature. King may not be as big as the the two forementioned but he is a giant within horror and his work has been the subject of much analysis, that includes his characters. This isn't just some minor character of his either, its a main figure in one of his most adapted and acclaimed novels.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books about an author's work aren't "fan-based discussion", they're literary criticism. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources establish notability, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Deletion is disruptive, and this character clearly has notability. - SeanTheYeti452

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per *Treker; available sources establish notability well beyond fan-based discussion. The article needs improvement and will surely get it, but it clearly passes WP:GNG and should not be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 12:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if SportingFlyer and Onel5969 now recognize that many of the article's references, shouldn't be characterized as "fan-based", could you please return here, and say so? This would be in the best interests of the project, as it would allow an early closure, and thus save the valuable time of people who would otherwise read this AFD over the next six days.
If, on the other hand, you still think deletion is appropriate, could you make a more serious effort to explain what is wrong with the existing references?
There is a trend I have found alarming. For years now experienced contributors have been nominating articles for deletion, or endorsing deletion, based on their personal opinions that those article's topics aren't inherently serious enough to merit a standalone article. This is counter-policy. NPOV, VERIFY and NOR call upon us to rely on the opinions of RS. The opinions of RS count. Our opinions do not.
I have spent years covering controversial topics, where I personally disagreed with every single RS. So far as I am concerned, when one is considering working on a topic where our opinions diverge from those of RS, we have only two policy compliant choices: (1) do our best to keep our personal opinions to ourselves, and do our best to only contribute text that neutrally summarizes the RS we disagree with; or (2) opt out from covering that topics. Let other people deal with them.
SportingFlyer, your nomination doesn't actually give a specific justification for deletion. In particular, your second sentence sounds, well, like just your casual and unexamined gut feeling. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I typically switch between the older and newer pages in New Page Patrol, this was one of the older pages, and it said it had been recently deleted. I looked at the history to do a bit of research, and saw the article had been recreated and redirected repeatedly. After looking through many of the sources in the article, I didn't see any coverage of the character I thought significant enough to warrant a new article on. Instead of redirecting and turning this into an edit war, I thought an AfD discussion would be the best solution. I've looked through the books mentioned above by @Treker: and while the character's name gets mentioned several times, at no point does that coverage appear to be significant - for instance, in Dissecting Stephen King, the character's name only appears briefly on three pages, the Complete Stephen King Universe discusses what seems to be every character, the Shape Under the Sheet is an encyclopaedia of minutia about King novels, The Moral Voyage appears to be okay but it's printed in Courier New, the copyright of the book is flagrantly wrong, and it appears to have been republished (ie there's a chance it's not a reliable source.) The fact the article is source-bombed (there are 11 references for a single sentence) makes this very difficult to check and see if the sources in the article are both reliable and cover the subject significantly. I don't have any opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but I don't see how it passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm happy to let others direct me to those sources, and I'm not going to be keeping my opinions to myself. This needed to be discussed, and I'm fine if it's kept, but I would like to see actual significant coverage of this character. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your disecting of the sources seems flawed to me, 1) how many times a characters name is mentined is rather trivial compared to the information one can extract from the text, 2) claiming that because the book covers a lot of Stephen Kings characters that makes the coverage of this specific character less worthwhile is a poor way to reason in my mind, only thing that really implies is that King has written many characters with coverage, which is incredibly unsuprising considering his career and success, 3) I don't see how a book being republished is as issue (maybe I'm misunderstanding something here), 4) when deciding if a topic is notable one should not look at only the article itself as the shape it is for the moment, if we only did that then tons of articles on some of the most notable things in the world would be deleted, the best thing to do is to search for sources oneself (Im aware this take much more effort but it is the safe way to do it) and judge what you find. Those books I cited are only some of the few I could find within two pages of searching on Google Books.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least for me, the Google Books falls off by about Page 4. I don't think searching for the character's name within the text is a flawed way to search at all - if there was a chapter dedicated to the character I'd change my !vote to keep. The fact the character's only mentioned a couple times within these sources is a red flag to me. I have no problem with using the information found within encyclopaedias to flesh out the article, but using an encyclopaedia which covers every single character as the basis for notability is a red flag to me. The fact the book has been republished isn't itself an issue, but I can't find that much information about the book or author, and the way it's typeset doesn't look professional (looks like something self-published with a typewriter) which is a red flag to me. The fact the page is badly source-bombed is a red flag to me. I've even looked through Google Scholar, which has a number of mentions of Denbrough but I haven't found anything I would consider significant. I'm still not sure this character is notable enough for a standalone article. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems rather clear that you've already made up your mind, I'm not going to try to push you if this is simply the way you feel after looking at all the avalable sources. I've made my case and am happy with it, if we disagree then we disagree.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's on track to be kept anyways and there's nothing wrong with disagreement! I'm still happy to listen to a response as to why these sources demonstrate notability, as it's not obvious to me (or a couple others) - it may not get me to change how I feel about this particular article but at the very least it will make it easier for me to patrol the project going forward, as none of the keep !voters have discussed why the sources (or which sources) are significant so far. If you could pick what you think are the WP:THREE best sources I'd still appreciate your input, but no worries if you want to move on. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, you challenged the reliability of the 1989 book by King biographer Tony Magistrale, in part, because it was published in the courier font. I think that dismissal was premature, as a google news search on Magistrale supports his reliability. Geo Swan (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I looked to see if the book could have been self-published rather than looking at the author. It was originally published by Starmont House [3], a specialty publisher, and that link notes why the quality of the publication was so terrible. (To be fair, if the criticism had been published academically, I wouldn't have any trouble with the source at all.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, thanks for returning here.
In the first couple of paragraphs of your reply you refer to checking the references in the article. Excuse me if I voice a concern over this approach. Topics that are notable should not be deleted when the current state of the article is weak. Rather, as per WP:BEFORE, don't those who call for deletion have an obligation to look beyond the references in the article? Don't they have an obligation to conduct an independent web search, so they could form their own informed conclusion as to whether the topic is or isn't notable. Maybe you did this, and just didn't mention it. But, if you don't do a web search, to reach your own informed conclusion as to whether a topic is or isn't notable, I would strongly encourage you to start doing so. It is what is best for the project. Unfortunately, in recent years, we see an increasing number of contributors nominating articles without complying with BEFORE. And we see an increasing number of people who take the nominator's claims about article's references at face value, and add a "delete" opinion, without even looking at the article in question.
Finally, a large number of our articles can't have the underlying notability of their topics confirmed or refuted by a naive web search. (1) the web search links at the top of an AFD can be almost worthless when an article's title is disambiguated; (2) naive web searches can be insufficient when a genuinely notable person has more famous namesakes; (3) naive web searches are generally insufficient when an individual played a role in a recent highly covered event. There were over half a dozen people who tried to get the newly created article on Chesley Sullenberger deleted - because their use of google was naive. I found, on that day, that, even though 99 percent of the coverage of Sullenberger was recent and repetitive coverage of his heroic landing, the remaining 1 percent included significant coverage of earlier events, so he wasn't a BLP1E.
With regard to significant coverage. A dozen references, or even one hundred references, that each report the same single detail, do not add up to significant coverage. But a dozen references, or even half a dozen references, that each only report one or two details, can add up to significant coverage, if they document a half dozen different details.
With regard to dismissing encyclopedias. I think we all agree that encyclopedia ar as refticles written by non-notable individuals, who aren't reliable sources, should not be used as references. But encyclopedias, or encyclopedia like things, written by reliable sources, should continue be used as references. I used to keep my copy of Isaac Asimov's Biographical Dictionary of Science beside my computer. I have used references to the Canadian Dictionary of Biography in dozens of articles.
Similarly, a blanket dismissal of "blogs" is ill-advised. Some online publications called blogs are highly reliable and highly regarded. Newspaper columnists who cover the US Supreme Court routinely cite the opinions voiced in SCOTUSBLOG. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: This is a bit of a unique AfD. I'm not actively looking to delete the article, but rather am attempting, procedurally, to see if restoring a redirect is the proper course of action. I almost always conduct a WP:BEFORE search (the exceptions don't include this article, but rather where the reason for deletion is obvious), and the initial search didn't bring up anything that I thought established notability beyond the sources in the article. I also focused on the difference in the sourcing between the last redirected article and the current article, as the current version contains over 20 new sources to go through, so I primarily looked to see which of those sources demonstrated notability The last AfD closed with the statement (quoting Tone: If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. (What's also interesting is no character section exists at the It (novel) article.) Since this AfD, I've also searched Google Books and Google Scholar. If you're insinuating I've missed sources, I'm happy to review any additional sources, but I simply do not understand which of the available sources are clearly reliable and clearly demonstrate notability. I'm also not suggesting encyclopaedias aren't reliable sources. I'm concerned the fact something was mentioned in an specialist encyclopaedia doesn't automatically suggest the topic notable enough for Wikipedia. Is every single King character notable since it was listed in The Complete Stephen King Universe? The Shape under the Sheet is an encyclopaedia which includes minutia such as "Forty miles an hour" (the speed Denbrough drove) and "United Flight 41" (the flight number another character flew in another book.) Ultimately, I'm interested in the question - what makes a fictional character notable, and which sources out there show Denbrough is notable enough for his own article per WP:GNG? And ultimately, I'm interested in answering the question through identifying which sources demonstrate his notability, which no one here has really done yet. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources show clear notability. Toughpigs (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking through the references in the article, I believe significant coverage in reliable sources has been achieved. Dream Focus 16:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looking through about ten of the sources, I'm seeing a mix of trivial mentions, no mentions at all, staff interviews, trivial pop culture articles, etc. I think shoving every single possible reference into it hoping they stick isn't really the best way to try to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the literature I've found.★Trekker (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, checking for references that support the notability of articles before AFD is one area where wikipedia contributors efforts routinely fall short. If you meant to suggest that those who contributed to the article should have been more selective, and used fewer but better references, you are correct. Note: this is an editorial issue - not grounds for deletion.
Your comment very strongly suggests you made a very common error - one I already warned about, in this discussion. It sounds like, instead of conducting your own web search, you merely looked at the article's existing references.
However, our policies are, and always have been, that the notability of a topic should not be evaluated on the existing state of the article. When we have a weak article on a topic that is nevertheless notable, policy calls on us to improve the weak article, not delete it. So, please, don't form your conclusions on the notability of topics based on the references currently in the article.
Is this more work? Sure. Is this a problem? No.
The wikipedia has a kind of auto-immune disorder. When humans have auto-immune disorders their immune systems attacks healthy organs. Well, AFD is part of the wikipedia's immune system. We made policy changes, and technical changes, that have made it easier to nominate articles for deletion. It is too easy. TTN, the efforts you made to look at references to support the notability of the Bill Denbrough character have fallen short.
Tony Magistrale is one of King's most respected biographers. His academic career has focussed on King, and he is widely quoted, and asked to comment by journalists. So, what does he say say about Denbrough?
King may have created hundreds of fictional characters, maybe thousands of fictional characters, in his many stories. I don't know how many wikipedia articles we have on King's characters. I would be very surprised if most of King's characters were~~n't~~ notable topics, were~~n't~~ the target of serious commentary from serious academics and serious literary critics. I would have no problem deleting or redirecting articles on King characters who haven't been the target of serious commentary. However, the Bill Denbrough character is, apparently, one of the small subset of King characters who serious academics and literary critics have identified as a character King uses as a surrogate. The Bill Denbrough character is one of the small subset of King's characters who are authors, like King. Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't explicitly say keep, above.

The article needs a new lead paragraph. The Tony Magistrale book, prematurely dismissed above, explains why the character of Bill Denbrough is more notable than the hundreds of other characters King created in his books. In some of his books King creates characters who are writers. Denbrough is one of the much more limited set of characters King created, who are writers, who King uses to covertly reply to his critics, or to comment on the life of a writer.
The lead paragraph should state this as the character's primary notability claim. Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Strictly on a procedural level, how did we even get here? I can understand this getting to SportingFlyer with the recent removed redirect triggering a potential review, but how did this get to ZI Jony where the redirect was recently restored in the first place? It looks like the page was restored here after the AfD concerns were believed to be addressed (3 edits prior was Draftspace → Mainspace), and I see that CAPTAIN MEDUSA is also a new page reviewer. Does this mean that carrying out a History merge as a technical request does not include marking a new page review on the new page curation log? I'm guessing that's the only only way it would remain on the pending review list... Should the steps that go into a move/merge like this include a "new page review" before its carried out and rejecting the request if it's not satisfactory? Or are the two just entirely separate processes with no bridge between the two unless someone carrying out the request goes above and beyond? (This is just a question that could lead to potential process improvements.) -2pou (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: As far as I can tell, any time a redirect is removed, the page gets flagged for NPP oversight. It generally works pretty well. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right for the redirect, which then came to you. What I didn't understand is if it was sitting with a NPP flag after after the history merge, and why bother with the merge in the first place, if it wasnt going to pass a NPP review later. -2pou (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE reveals sources WP:NEXIST. Pontificalibus found a few. this was my !vote in the last AfD and it has not changed. Wm335td (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bergman's bear[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of RS coverage. Current article is, and has always been, sourced to a writeup on cryptozoology.com. BEFORE search returned only fringe sources and a few unrelated books by Bear Bergman. –dlthewave ☎ 22:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The bear has been the subject of considerable scientific interest as mentioned in the CryptoZoology article and sources may not be easily accessed because they are not recent, and therefore not online, and may be in Russian. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cryptozoology.com is not a reliable source and does not cite any reliable sources. If you're aware of Russian-language sources, please list them here so that we can evaluate them; otherwise this is just "there are probably sources out there" hand-waving which is not a valid Keep rationale. –dlthewave ☎ 14:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding a number of sources, certainly appears in various works as an example of either a possibly extinct animal, or a notable instance of confusion over subtypes. Clears GNG with RS coverage. BEFORE search was perhaps not quite as thorough as it might have been. Spokoyni (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've added did come up in my BEFORE search, but most were dismissed per WP:NFRINGE ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents") or other reasons.

Cryptozoology A-Z is written by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, both fringe cryptozoology proponents.

Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology is written by George M. Eberhart, another fringe proponent.

Bear Conservation doesn't cite any sources and appears to be lifted from Wikipedia. Compare the April 2019 archive (last updated 16 September 2017) to the December 2016 version of our article. The archive doesn't go back far enough to be conclusive, but in my experience the use of "alleged subspecies" is a dead giveaway. I've never seen anything called an "alleged species" outside of poorly-sourced cryptozoology-related Wikipedia articles.

This leaves us with one good source, The Eponym Dictionary of Mammals, which points out that the proposed species is based on a single specimen and its status as a valid taxon is uncertain.

We're down to a single paragraph in a single source, which might carry enough weight to merit a mention at Subspecies of brown bear. –dlthewave ☎ 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All papers I can find referencing subspecies piscator are clearly about the Kamchatka brown bear [4][5][6]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make that into a !vote: Merging one sentence based on the eponym dictionary source to Kamchatka brown bear would seem sensible; it's an interesting taxonomic footnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the alleged species, "Ursus arctos piscator", is Kamchatka brown bear which is not extinct; see scholarly articles: [7]. "Piscator" is one of the variants of the species name, per the Kamchatka bear article. In any event, the sources in the article are either not RS or insuffient, such as www.bearconservation.org.uk, fringe cryptozoology books, and so on. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kamchatka brown bear.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kamchatka brown bear. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Bergman Sten (May 1936). "Observations on the Kamchatkan Bear" (PDF). Journal of Mammalogy. 17 (2): 115–120.
- supposedly in Domico, Terry (1988). Bears of the world. Facts on File. can't find anything online and probably not a good source anyway
Delete Wow, how little it takes to spawn a cryptid.
Malaise has told me that on one occasion he saw the skull of a gigantic bear of the black kind; its teeth were perfect, and hence it could not have been that of an aged individual. On another occasion he also measured and photographed a bear's foot-print that was 37cm. long and 25cm. broad, so that the animal must have been a veritable giant. There is much, then, that speaks for the existence in Kamchatka of a quite black, gigantic bear, in addtion to the ordinary brown type; but this question must remain an open one.

almost as bad as the guy that fell in a river and saw a bat or something. removed from Bergman's article.—eric 21:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Normally for actual species I'd support a rename or merge but it seems that the few sources that could be reliable don't agree with eachother. Other sources are so far in-universe. —Paleo Neonate – 06:45, 2 January 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gassama Alfusainey[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at the barest minimum i cannot see WP:GNG satisfied here.Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Wm335td (talk) 21:02, 31 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Mary Crowley[edit]

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

Non-notable non-combatant in Irish Civil War/War of Independence. I have raised (and re-raised) concerns with this article's author (who has seen other similar submissions deleted recently on similar grounds), but in short this:

Article is effectively a "family history" piece, republished as a Wikipedia article. Problematic under WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and related guidelines.
Content is a near verbatim copy/paste from the subject's military pension application record from the Irish Military Archives. The pensions department received 100s of thousands of such submissions. And issued nearly 70,000 pensions to people who were involved in these conflicts. Not only are not all of the subject's not automatically notable, but the content of these records is not automatically appropriate for republication here. Not least because those records are copyrighted. Problematic under WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:COPYVIO guidelines.
Subject is not notable. Bridget Mary Crowley was one of 10s of thousands of members of Cumann na mBan. And one of 100s of thousands of people (on "both sides") involved in the Irish War of Independence and Irish Civil War. There is nothing to indicate that this person meets WP:MILPERSON or WP:NBIO or any other notability guideline.

That we are relying *entirely* on primary and family sources makes it very clear that WP:GNG is NOT met. By some distance. Guliolopez (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Spleodrach (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the primcipals of Wikipedia not being a memorial site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At one time I was so sick of Wikipedia's presentist bias that I resoilved to not vote to delete any biographies of dead people. However it is articles like this on people without even a shred of notability that have shown to me all parts of Wikipedia need creation monitoring and pruning. Of course I do not think anything is worse than the glut of articles on names that were randomly dropped in the Silmarillion. All the more so because that book probably should never have been published, it was never anywhere near ready to go to press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't see a valid rebuttal against the indiscriminate and unmaintainable argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shortland Street episodes[edit]

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

Indiscriminate and incomplete list of a series spanning 18 years and over 4000 episodes. For what content exists, there are just basic TV guide plot summaries. WP:NOR and covered already in plenty of Shortland Street fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Being incomplete is never a valid reason to delete something. Nor is its size. All notable shows have articles for episode lists. It is not indiscriminate because obviously it has a set requirement, must be an episode on that television show. Dream Focus 07:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. Long running soaps such as Eastenders, Coronation Street, Neighbours, Home and Away, etc, do not have any episode lists. Episode lists are standard for shows where there is a limited number of episodes spanning a few seasons. The amount of original research used to try to justify one of this nature is all the more reason why it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above examples Ajf773 has provided of other soaps aren't to me sufficient as they are not even WP:GA. I'd like to see an example of a GA/FA soap article to see how they do stuff. From what I can tell, there are very limited, if any, real GA+ soap articles, so we can't base the fact that these others don't have episode lists to any term of standard. I will point out however, that the maintainers of this article have incorrectly used the episode template and are showing the airdates as episode names, and are unnecessary using Aux1 and Aux2 instead of the correct parameter names. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While writing my comment and looking at the article, regardless if it should be deleted or kept, it's not ready for mainspace. It has the template issues above, too many empty sections, sections with comments that shouldn't be in an article ("able above needs to be updated."), or a weird season 27 situation. So atm, I'm supporting moving to draft, while I might support deletion if presented with good arguments. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and WP:SOFIXIT. We've always held that list of episodes of TV shows are inheritably notable since time immemorial. ミラ P 14:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in that essay link that states episode lists are always inherently notable. If you want to fix it, then you can volunteer, take it as a draft, but honestly, there's nothing worth fixing. This is fansite material, not encyclopedia material. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 6900+ episodes? The Simpsons gets a pass because many (all?) of its episodes have articles and there aren't as many of them, but for long-running soap operas, it doesn't make much sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: So does Gunsmoke and they had 635 episodes none of which have articles. ミラ P 16:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Episode lists are fine as long as only one ep airs per week. But daily soaps? No way. Their story format is one drop per day to keep the audience hooked, and they don't have any artistic ambitions per episode, story- nor development-wise. Listing them all would be INDISCRIMINATE. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Bowling the Movie: The Great North Pole Elf Strike[edit]

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

Apparently a low-budget movie made in some guy's basement that never seems to have attracted any coverage in reliable sources of any note. Only one source currently in the article can really be considered a source. There's passing mention here, but I don't have really much else to offer. It claims to have a number of notable people as voice actors, but I've got no real source for any of it. Claims to have a 6.5m budget, but I've got no source for that either. GMG ^talk 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are plenty of YouTube reviews, including from the notable Channel Awesome and I found a review from a blog here: https://tedium.co/2017/12/25/elf-bowling-movie-review/ While these are technically not reliable, they do seem serious enough. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and slightly expand at Elf Bowling#Film adaptation, where a shorter plot summary and history should go. And we need better sources for this than sites which just use it to elaborate on the thesis 'it sucks' for 10-15 minutes. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTube and blog reviews are not reliable sources for gauging notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 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. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Jet Traveler[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:TheLongTone, who offered no rationale. My read is that the article has no sources to indicate notability, and none are apparent in my searches. Further, the tone of the article suggests an attempt at promotion, which would fall afoul of several of our guidelines. I'll message TheLongTone to come here and provide additional commentary on their rationale. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fat finger syndrome. Notability (both sources self published).TheLongTone (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good - that's why we have WP:BADAFD. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:25, 31 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) 20:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Amadour[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The sources cited either do not mention this person, or just mention his name, or were published in the Daily Bruin, a newspaper published by UCLA where this person is alumni. This primary source interview has some detail, but primary sources do not establish notability. I'm just not seeing enough accomplishments or bio in reliable sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed as above. Tacyarg (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any indepth coverage on this individual. Maybe in a couple year, but now it's WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources give mere mentions, or don't mention him at all, except dailybruin.com. The most attention he received was for a widely ridiculed dress he designed for a 2017 Grammy award ceremony. The article describes that as "going viral". There is no significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla Tribune[edit]

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

Non-notable online news portal per WP:NMEDIA. First source is owned by the same group, Second is an unrelated piece written by its publisher and the forth one is just a passing mention. Usual searches are also ended up falling WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources exist. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 22:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CASE Ukraine[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CASE Ukraine is a prominent think tank. For example, in 2016 it ranked 3rd in terms of impact, according to Thinktwice.ua, a website that covers Ukrainian think tanks activities. --Shulha (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on its funding from the Open Society Foundations, it has done considerably notable work. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete though it have some coverage but i would like to go with the nom, clearly Fails WP:NORG. Shubhi89 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prominent think tank and is notable. WP:ATD The article could use an editor. but WP:NOTCLEANUP. Wm335td (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2020 (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. After two re-lists, no consensus to Delete, and RS presented that show GNG is met was upheld and not challenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chappell[edit]

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

Not notable outside of Tom's of Maine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honorary degree meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Deleting standalone biographies like these undermines the project's goal of presenting the sum of human knowledge. Jokestress (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not because of an honorary degree from Colby College. That's not "a well-known and significant award or honor". He has, however, received a significant amount of media coverage: an article in The New York Times Magazine, a Bloomberg article, an interview on NPR with Guy Raz, a Forbes article, etc., so WP:GNG is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in the independent reliable sources identified by Clarityfiend. The subject meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 1 January 2020 (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) 20:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight W. Reynolds[edit]

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

Appears to have been a successful doctor. Not a notable one though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls short of WP:ACADEMIC requirements for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor article. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:14, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne Knudsen[edit]

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

GNG fail. Single source. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing special. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what people explained me here, that if a persons' position is named after a known professor, that person have a right to have an article. I might be wrong though.--Biografer (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is one indicator of notability that means she may likely be notable. However, there is not much else here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Named professorships are typically endowed positions, which just means that they are specially funded. They are typically given to professors who rise above their peers at their local institution, but that does not mean that they are notable by Wikipedia's standards. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Really? I thought that Full Professor or any endowement establishes notabolity per WP:Academics #5? See: this.--Biografer (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The wording of that criterion is completely at odds with the spirit of WP:GNG; it essentially allows a rich donor to purchase "notability" for academics. Johns Hopkins University alone has 483 endowed professorships! That's more professors than there are players in the entire National Basketball Association! But I try not to get involved in WP drama, so I'll bow out of this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and departments are thrilled to have endowed chairs because it does not come out of an annual operating budget that fluctuates. She does have an endowed chair, but I cannot find anything else she is notable for. Ergo the nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding coverage of her outside of UW internal news, does not appear to pass NPROF. Thanks to Jonesey95 for showing the absurdity of using named professorships toward notability; it's a widely used method of funding for both senior and junior faculty, not necessarily an indicator of a researcher or professor's impact or significance. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should perhaps look into changing that. A named professorship is one of the things a Dean can dangle in front of a candidate during the hiring process, and it is not linearly connected to notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS citations to her work too small for WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Provided citations do not establish notability. No prejudice against later recreating the article if additional sources are located. ElKevbo (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although she appears to have an endowed professorship, this speaker profile from 2016 indicates that she was given it as an associate professor. Therefore, it is unlikely to be the sort of endowed professorship given for extraordinary scholarship above and beyond the level of a typical full professor, and WP:PROF#C5 (which should properly be about only that kind of endowed professorship) should have no bearing on this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that WP:PROF#C5 is inapplicable here. That criterion is about recognition for a distinguished career, above and beyond tenured full professorship. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Weak Keep She meets WP:NACADEMIC#5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research", as she is the Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor of Environmental Law [8]. WP:NACADEMIC states that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." This is not the place to discuss changes to WP:NACADEMIC. For those who are not familiar with it (not all editors commenting here, I am well aware), it explicitly states "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline .... failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline." And it also emphasises that only one of the 8 criteria needs to be met, so citation metrics are irrelevant, as is the issue of whether other sources exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will add more info from these sources: "Rethinking Chemical and Pesticide Regulation", The Regulatory Review [9]; "Better Environmental Law from an Unlikely Source", Jotwell [10]; and "Trump and the Constitution: Law course explores the limits of executive power", ABA Journal [11]. I'll look for more sources too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think all commenters prior to you are aware of it, and are criticizing its application here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did not seem that some were familiar with it before this AfD, or not with #5. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need not explain it in detail; the entire discussion before your comment is discussing it, and everyone before your comment has rejected the SNG in this case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read all the comments. I would take comments like "Wow" and "absurdity" as indicating lack of familiarity with the criteria. That is one of the reasons why I think that this is not the place to discuss changes to this SNG. Clearly all the editors contributing so far have a different opinion, but WP:NACADEMIC is very clear that academics meeting any one of the criteria are notable, and there is nothing in #5 that says "held a named chair appointment (as long as they were a full professor, associate professors holding named chairs don't count)". It's also clear, in the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes, that sources outside the institution are not required to verify that the person meets one of the criteria ("For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.") I believe that Biografer was quite justified in writing an article about this person, but if no other editors agree (or not enough), then I guess this will end up being one of the "occasional exceptions" mentioned in the box at the top of WP:NPROF. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:NPROF guidelines say that C5 can "be applied reliably only" for persons tenured at the full professor level, so a delete decision would not be contrary to that guideline. The endowed chair certainly helps support notability. Why did they appoint her to it? The best reason I've been able to see so far is promise, in which case this is WP:TOOSOON. But perhaps her supreme court briefs are more notable than they appear? A subject-matter expert would be helpful here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She does not hold an endowed chair (which is nonetheless expansive), she holds an endowed professorship, so C5 would still not apply here. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reywas92, the two terms (endowed chair/endowed professorship) are fairly interchangeable, with much of the variation coming down to local terminology of one university or another. C5 appears to be relevant, but (per the fine print in WP:NPROF) not reliable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair point then; I had hoped this search result from UT might have clarification, but "The very best universities in America often endow a third of their faculty positions" shows all the more reason this is a poor criterion that certainly doesn't confer automatic notability alone, since maybe about a third of positions are full professorships anyway. This caveat is interesting since I suppose someone may be hired as assistant professor with an endowment and keep that as a full professor too. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A third of positions is very likely an exaggeration; the link is from a university trying to convince donors to give money. Per WP:NPROF, successful professors will generally be notable. C5 is a useful tool for us to assess success. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back in the 1980s some universities were creating their first endowed professorships. They used to mean more than they do today. With Johns Hopkins alone having 483 of them, I think we need to stop taking them as default signs of notability. Often they do mean there is substance there, but not in every single case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criteria 5 has this caveat though that some above are ignoring "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." So the person must have reached the rank of full professor before they get the appoitnment. If they are not yet a full professor having a named chair will not always be a default show of notability and this appears to fall under the later arangement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my vote from Strong Keep to Weak Keep. Looking at the directory of faculty at the University of Washington School of Law, I see that the 67 faculty members are identified as: Lecturer (5), Senior Lecturer (7), Principal Lecturer (1), Assistant Professor (3), Associate Professor (7), Professor (32, of whom 13 are named positions), Fellow (1) and Chair (3) (and a few directors, deans, advisors, etc). Only 2 others have WP articles (one of the chairs, and a named professor emerita). None of the named positions are described as Associate Professor, although as Knudsen's CV says both "Stimson Bullitt Professor of Environmental Law" and "Associate Professor, 2015 to present", perhaps some are, and perhaps she is, and perhaps Criterion 5 can't therefore be applied reliably. And 20% of a faculty would be a large rate of notable members, though not improbable in a very notable institution - which this probably isn't. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:57, 31 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) 20:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Gervais (dancer)[edit]

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

GNG fail. Appears to be a paraphrase of the single primary source used in the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is some minor coverage, the odd mention, but on the whole seems to be jobbing dancer, but doesn't seem to have made lead or insufficient to generate any real impact. Possible WP:TOOSOON scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:15, 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 delete. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anim8[edit]

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

With CSD declined, I went to look for sources. I've found [12] and [13] – which were published before the article states when Anim8 was founded. Because they refer to another subject, I did not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. According to WP:INHERENTWEB, fame is not equivalent to notability. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Maloba[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Despite the number of references, almost all of them are trivial transfer updates. First Afd closed as no consensus due to incorrectly applied Mass AfD nom. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources already in the article pass the standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 13:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really seeing the claims of GNG in the article sources, they're mainly routine transfer reporting and match reports, but needs more time fo develop stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article are sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems many people just look at the number of references rather then actually read them. There are 16 references: 7 trivial match reports (player only mentioned once in passing), 5 transfer rumor pieces, 2 sources that don't mention player at all, 1 youth national team trivial mention, 1 dead link. Now please explain how does this help him pass GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with BlameRuiner's source analysis. I'm not seeing GNG sources. – Levivich 04:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wholetones[edit]

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tending Delete - Review of the sources shows lack of independent notability. This looks good on the face of it, until you find that the listing itself is not peer-reviewed, and there are no published or reviewed results available. This is a promotional write-up by the originator. This is not a review, but a lavender-scented gush of enthusiasms. - However, not sure what to think about the Billboard rankings. #1 rankings do tend to come with some claim to notability, even if it's meant for dogs... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per billboard reference but its no longer showing Georgiamarlins (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try and get some clarity over the Billboard Rankings reference
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:52, 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 Sofia Talvik. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florida - Acoustic[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NALBUMS. –Matthew - (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sofia Talvik where the album is already listed in the discography section. Although I am a native Floridian (and enjoy the state despite the obvious issues), I could not find enough coverage to support a separate article. I am always partial to redirecting whenever possible to help anyone who may be looking for information on a topic. There could be a language barrier at play here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something must be wrong with me, because for some reason, I didn't even think of that. I would strongly support a redirect rather than an outright deletion. The only issue, I think, is whether it should redirect to Sofia Talvik or to Florida (Sofia Talvik album). –Matthew - (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that before so I understand. I recommended Sofia Talvik as the redirect target because the album is already mentioned in the article. The Florida (Sofia Talvik album) article does not mention the acoustic version, but that information could easily be merged to make it a more suitable redirect target. I do not have a strong preference either way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sofia Talvik Wm335td (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. There is consensus that the tournament is not notable. List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events was identified as a suitable redirect target. — Newslinger talk 08:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Teen Tournament[edit]

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! College Championship (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Teachers Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, an largely unreferenced article about a week-long tournament every/every-other season does not meet WP:N. Google search produces links back to this article, the production website and external Wiki fandom sites. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.

Of the 18 footnotes in the article, none meet WP:SIGCOV and most are local news stories featuring past contestants.

1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18—Web archive of local/regional news coverage about tournament winners/participants / WP:NOTNEWS

3—WP:COPYVIO conent of contestant introductions from 1991 tournament

5—2008 tournament results but fails WP:V

6, 11—Web archive of Sony site with 2009 and 2011 contestants

17—J-Archive content which fails WP:V

AldezD (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Most of the sourcing is to routine coverage (e.g., "local teen X finishes in Yth place") and primary sources, and the list of contestants, which makes up an overwhelming portion of the article, is essentially listcruft. Adequately covered at the main article about Jeopardy! tournaments. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 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. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eldarion[edit]

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

The article on Eldarion exists because there is a confusion between importance in a constructed universe and importance in reality. Eldarion is very important in the former, and not at all in the later. He is not a minor character in The Lord of the Rings, he is a non-character. He is not even born until after the end of the plot. I am not even sure his name appears in the book per se, he is sourced it seems to the appendix, which in and of itself is generally a sign of non-notablity, not that being named in a book, even one as widely read as The Lord of the Rings makes one notable. We actually have a heavy legacy of pre-2010 articles on characters from literature, broadly defined, including works of literature that purport to be histories and are held as such by many of their reeaders (such as scripture), that are very low on 3rd party sourcing showing impact beyond those works. However the very fact that the article on Eldarion exists is probably the most extreme example of this I have ever seen. Yes, he sort of appears in a film, and true it was a very popular film, it at the time managed to become the 2nd highest grossing film ever, and still stands at number 26, although it may fall 28 or so when the Christmas holiday movie takes are all recorded. However Eldarion is not named in that film, and only appears briefly in a dream or vision of the future. Yes, Tolkien put pen to paper to write a story of the days when Eldarion was king, but he never made it more than a few papges into The New Shadow. The fact that such a non=character has had their article survive for just shy of 16 years is the saddest commentatry on Wikipedia possible. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was proposed for deletion back on Dec. 7th of this year. The proposal was removed with the bald assertion "this article is important enough to remain and sources should be found." Why exactly is someone not ever mentioned by name in the main text of any book or in any movie notable? Sometimes it feels like people confuse the issues of character notability and biographical notability. That might make sense if we were discussing people mentioned in works that purport to be works of history, but LotR is not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My main take away from the proposed deletion on this is that no article on a Person created by Tolkien, no matter how far from appearing by name in any regularly published work of his they are, is going to be deleted by actual nomination. This article was created just after the release of the RotK movie. That movie released Dec. 17, 2003, so 18 days before the article was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A very minor character. It's true a lot of editors seem to be confused between in-universe notability and the notability of a character. This came up in the discussions about Radagast and Queen Beruthiel — important people in Middle-earth, but a minor character and a non-character for us.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess Queen Beruthiel was a major character in Middle Earth, since she was a queen (queen consort, but still). However she is not even mentioned in the work, only her cats. She lived at a time that Tolkien never wrote any stories set during.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it says something about this character that he is only mentioned in the Aragorn article twice, and once is in the infobox. Fails GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eldarion is a very minor part of The Lord of the Rings. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:38, 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. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Agnihotri[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. We need coverage about him, not by him. Also, G11-able stuff. ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for writers. We need sourcing about the subject, not just evidence they have been published.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 30 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. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesofsound[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Appropriate way to go explained. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pristina[edit]

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

The existence of this redirect is precluding Universiteti i Prishtinës from being moved to University of Pristina, it's English name. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't delete normally pages because of that. The page can still be moved there by someone with appropriate permission. If you want Universiteti i Prishtinës to be moved there request so at WP:RM/TR or by opening WP:RM discussion on the talkpage. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio), per Netherzone. Given that the page was so newly created I think the direction of copying is clear enough. I suspect that her books may give her a pass of WP:AUTHOR, though, and the discussion hasn't carried out long enough to determine a consensus on notability, so no prejudice against creation of a non-copied article on the same subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Cohen[edit]

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

GNG Fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She's been quoted in reliable sources [14][15][16], but I was unable to find any significant biographical details except for staff bios published by various universities. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CopyVio Detector shows a 97% match [17] altho it's hard to say if the UCLA page is taken from WP or the other way around. Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn with a consensus to Keep after a WP:HEY by Grand'mere Eugene (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast College[edit]

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

Promotional. No decent references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a full discussion of the relevant notability standards for college and university articles (as have been developed for high schools). The institution is included in the U.S. Department of Education's databases and it receives federal financial aid so it's certainly a real, legitimate institution. It's also accredited (by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges). We keep articles for (real and legitimate) high schools regardless of the available sources but I don't know if we've ever had a similar discussion about post-secondary institutions. I think it would be very odd to have different standards and expectations for high school and college articles so deleting this article for lacking evidence of notability is not recommended. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, the text as it stands now is not promotional, and most of the facts the facts have citations to WP:RS. I'd like to see a discussion among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools community and the WP community at large about the use of multiple non-trivial secondary sources like accreditation and governmental approval documentation as valid WP:RS evidence in lieu of media articles. For this article specifically, I did find some newspaper articles on newspapers.com:

"Future for Court Reporters Bright, School Head Predicts". Independent Press-Telegram. 1968-05-05. p. 75. Retrieved 2019-12-25.
Silver, Sheryl (16 Nov 1995). "New software creates careers in 'rapid data entry'". Los Angeles Times. p. 106. Retrieved 2019-12-25 – via Newspapers.com.
"Woman's Rise Out of Poverty". The Los Angeles Times. 1995-11-16. p. 106. Retrieved 2019-12-25.

I will also search for the previous titles of the college, just planning to spend the rest of Christmas with my grandkids!

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNI would be the more appropriate project to discuss this (and an invitation to to the Schools community would also be very helpful and welcome!). ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2017 we decided against default keeping of all articles on high schools just because they exist, and we need to apply the same logic to colleges. We need secondary sourcing, not just proof of existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not a directory I think we need more than proof of existence for schools, colleges and universities. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some content and secondary soures. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's improved it thank you. Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my keep !vote to the above, per improvements. BD2412 T 20:53, 1 January 2020 (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Species of The Saga of Seven Suns[edit]

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

This is a list of fictional in-universe minutia that fails to establish notability or justify itself as a necessary article split. TTN (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remain unconvinced this is a needed content fork from the article on the books themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists are unjustifiable content forks. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is clear that consensus is that lists of obscure fictional elements are inappropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:16, 29 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of The Saga of Seven Suns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list of fictional in-universe minutia that fails to establish notability or justify itself as a necessary article split. TTN (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that this subject can support a stand-alone list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is clear that consensus is that lists of obscure fictional elements are inappropriate. (This should have been bundled with the species list nomination.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:16, 29 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 Restore redirect. No legitimate reasons have been brought foreward why the result of the previous AfD should be overturned (merger has already been performed). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space: 1999 vehicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This topic fails to establish notability. It is not justified as a content split. These are not necessary to understand the main topic. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is merely an indiscriminate collection of plot-related information. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft minutia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - prior AfD was not handled properly. Prior nominator put a redirect immediately after the close instead of: After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect StrayBolt (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Put the redirect back and then lock it so no one can edit it again. Someone might merge over information to the other article, so preserve the history. Dream Focus 20:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Much of the content can be moved to another wiki, but the core content is best kept in the article for Space: 1999 if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:REDUNDANTFORK--Darius (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect- I'm not sure why this even came back in the first place. The AfD closed as merge, someone went an did the merge, and then a while later someone else came and unilaterally restored the extremely crufty content. They should have gone through DRV instead of deciding to overrule AfD consensus on their own initiative. Redirect and protect to uphold the result of the first AfD. Reyk _YO! 14:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another one for "Delete as BRITISHFICTION". This would never be listed if it were Batman, DC or Marvel.

Space 1999 was a substantial series in its day, from one of the major UK producers of TV sci-fi. With the techniques of the day, model-based filming made the vehicles an important part of it. This deserves an article.

Yet again, I would also question what TTN thinks they're doing here, and if the damage they're causing is really a good thing? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- So basically WP:WAX with a side of WP:ILIKEIT, topped with a dessert of WP:IDONTLIKETTN. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why this needs to go to AN. The amount of damage piling up from this is getting ridiculous. Especially when categories are now being deleted because their entries have been filed at AfD, without even bothering to wait for any sort of consensus result. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damage is very strange take on it. There is no such thing as permanent deletion on this site outside of specific revisions removed for very specific reasons. Anything can come back if it establishes notability, so anyone acting like deletion is in any way damaging is being disingenuous. As people like to often claim there is WP:NORUSH when keeping articles, the inverse is also true. There is no rush to have dozens of articles on fictional minutia before proving themselves notable. These categories, regardless if the AfDs pass or not, still only have two articles, so you're kind of skipping the real point of deletion there. TTN (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fancruft minutia" seems to be what's passing for a popular reasoning here, but that's neither a valid reason per our policy, nor even supported by the evidence. In particular, you say "only two articles", ignoring that they're list articles. So you're claiming that 2001, one of the most famous s-f films ever, is so inconsequential that nothing about its vehicles is notable? Or here, a UK TV series which still attracts a large following, 40 years on? None of that is any part of WP's notability policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're using word like famous, important, and major as if any of those have any particular meaning in deciding Wikipedia's content. Sources are all that matter. The most inconsequential piece of a work of fiction can have an article if it's sufficiently talked about in sources. While I disagree that it should be a thing, current unspoken consensus is that only character lists are necessary article forks. After that, everything has to prove its own worth. These lists have no utility unless there is enough real world information to justify them. TTN (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" is literally how we judge notability. We go by how much secondary attention is paid to topics. These are ship lists for two major fictional works, within the genre of s-f. Characters having a hard time in space otherwise, vehicles have always been a major aspect of that. This is why there is still such an interest in the vehicles of both series, why there is plenty published about them, why they remain such popular subjects amongst modellers (just look at the IPMS exhibition every year) and why we have articles on the people like Brian Johnson and Martin Bower who made them. (I expect these articles to be on your AfD list next). Andy Dingley (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fancruft minutia" is shorthand for obscure, in-universe plot details that no reliable sources take notice of, like Starship paint jobs: Why only Romulans, of all peoples, have any style or Lack of left-handed Uruk-hai in film: Fatal handicap or discrimination? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So apart from literally making stuff up as a reason why those might need to be deleted, do you have anything of relevance here? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above, the page adds to the knowledge of the topic (Space 1999), not broken (the page informs, has views, and literally no reason to remove it expect for "I don't like it" backed up by an unrelated-to-policy reasoning of "fancruft minutia"), and it appears that the original page-creation editor was not notified.

Personal opinion: AfD nom pages are the dark back rooms of Wikipedia where most experienced editors keep well away from. Lately many science fiction or fantasy lists and pages have been cut down one by one, with probably many more to go, and I really wish that some kind of moratorium could be set in place in order to have a site-wide discussion of where to draw the line. I'd suggest that if a page is "kept" in an AfD, even once or twice, then that page should be off-limits for deletion forever. I dislike commenting on these things, and to go thru the fights to save them which sometimes go on far too long even after cites are found and the initial reasoning for deleting them is fixed. Maybe harsh language, but here in the back room, where few enter, too many interesting articles created by caring editors who present subjects such as this one find few defenders (thank you so much, Andy, for venturing into these fights much more often than I do). Seeing articles being deleted from templates on my watch list (I refuse to keep track of the daily AfD nom page itself because I enjoy editing Wikipedia) and seeing that logical common sense is overshadowed by words like "Fancruft minutia", reduces that sense of fun and appreciation of accomplishment. The work of creative editors viewed by hundreds and thousands of readers (remember, people have to click on the title List of Space: 1999 vehicles in order to read it, so, you know, maybe they want to read it?) then, poof, casually upended. I've never seen an episode of Space: 1999. But other readers have. And what they do is to click on such things as this otherwise blah article on spacecraft because they care about the subject enough to learn more. Deletion is unwarranted here. My apologies if I've offended anyone with this comment, but please know that I do assume good faith while, at the same time, not understanding where the urge to delete established pages comes from. I just know I don't have that urge. So please assume good faith in my comment as coming from someone who doesn't have that mindset, and hence, being incapable of fully understanding it, needs to vent at what I experience as the illogical removal of long-term popular pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2020 (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) 15:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Amelin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He only played in the third-tier Russian Professional Football League. That league has recently been removed from the list of fully-professional leagues (WP:FPL), and he no longer passes the notability criteria as outlined in WP:NFOOTY. During the first nomination that league was incorrectly considered fully-professional. Geregen2 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator as the player hasn't played in a higher tier than the third which is now not a WP:FPL league. HawkAussie (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no have accordance with WP:GNG, very small page for many years. Кронас (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find match reports, transfer announcements and database entries in English- and Russian-language sources. Fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 30 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) 15:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Anishin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He only played in the third-tier Russian Professional Football League. That league has recently been removed from the list of fully-professional leagues (WP:FPL), and he no longer passes the notability criteria as outlined in WP:NFOOTY. During the first nomination that league was incorrectly considered fully-professional. Geregen2 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find match reports, transfer announcements and database entries in English- and Russian-language sources. Fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the last discussion was speedy kept shows the failure of some eidtors to understand that no subject specific guidelines is permanent reason to ignore GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 30 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. MER-C 04:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank James Burke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Being the son of a notable gangster does not bring notability. All the SIGCOV for the subject are related to his murder. The rest is pure conjecture. Rogermx (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my previous prod. Thanks for bringing this here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom at this point. Recreate if new info appears.BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 29 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. — Newslinger talk 09:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverm[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NN. Deleted in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that the article seems awfully promotional for this stuff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mardan Institute of Management Studies[edit]

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

A private school which fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:41, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only evidence in article or in searches of notability is self-cites. No independent sources apparent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 31 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. — Newslinger talk 09:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Pratap Dubey[edit]

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

Non notable person fails nauthor and npol Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Lack of sourcing and notability CmdrGibbons (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)CmdrGibbons[reply]

um CmdrGibbons you want to keep based on a lack of sourcing and notability?Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 30 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. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (student movement)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional with no evidence of notability. Lots of references to its own website Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced to SPS and no significant, independent, reliable sources apparent in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:53, 31 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) 15:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft of The Saga of Seven Suns[edit]

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

List of in-universe fictional minutia that belongs on Fandom. Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is a non-notable collection of plot-related information. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.— TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sometimes I wonder if we will ever actually make a dent in fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In-universe content does not belong here unless something can be found in reliable sources that discusses it outside of an in-universe context. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:17, 29 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. Regarding the one dissenting comment, I note that this closure creates no prejudice against any possible article about a specific fictional vehicle if it is notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who vehicles[edit]

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

Collection of minor fictional topics. The only notable one has an article already. The details about the real cars are trivial, so they don't justify the list. These are not necessary to understand the series, so this is not a justifiable content split. TTN (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The TARDIS is the only notable vehicle in the Doctor Who franchise. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Susmuffin. Fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough content here to justify a content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarkGlow (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i know we should show WP:GOODFAITH but did the nominator really carry out any WP:BEFORE on this?, and the editors "deletes" above appear quite perfunctory, anyway, a quick gsearch brings up a number of sources discussing one of the other notable vehicles in the dr who franchise, Bessie:- Geek.com - "‘Doctor Who’ Star Bessie On Display at UK Motor Museum", Southern Daily Echo - "Bessie, the vehicle driven by Jon Pertwee in the sci-fi classic, is wowing visitors to Beaulieu", Siva Edwardian - "The products of Siva Engineering - Dr Who drove a Siva", Doctor Who Monthly - "The Doctor Who Vehicles" (pages 26-30), these could be used as the basis of a standalone article on Bessie, notwithstanding books that most likely discuss/mention it (no, i don't have access to these:)) ie. James Bond and popular culture : essays on the influence of the fictional superspy, A critical history of Doctor Who on television. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 02:17, 29 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. MER-C 04:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series[edit]

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

This is a list of fictional minutia. There are some extremely trivial film production details. If they're not already covered in the film articles, they're likely too trivial to cover on this site. If any are notable, it'd be the one that already has an article (though current condition indicates it should be removed unless a search shows sources), so there is little likelihood of these establishing notability as a group. These details are not necessary to understand the series, so it is not a justified content split. TTN (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the listed spaceships is potentially notable. The others have not achieved any level of prominence. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am less than convinced that Discovery 1 is notable (as opposed to HAL), but clearly nothing justifies this uncontrolled list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A slew of IDONTLIKEITs is no reason for deletion. Discovery is one of the most famous sci-fi spaceships in film history. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess which one has an article and thus has no bearing in this particular discussion. TTN (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're just trying to delete the Pods? Or the Pan-Am Orion? The space station? Do you really not see the damage such a deletion causes, filleting out such major elements of the book/film? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major is a completely subjective term that has no place deciding which fictional elements to cover. Sources are all that matter. None of these items need this much detail without sources to back them. They can otherwise be summarized where necessary, if at all. TTN (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discovery One already has an article and none of the other have the sourcing necessary to demonstrate notability, either singly or collectively. Reyk _YO! 15:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list. There isn't even a requirement for individual list items to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk Dartslilly (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft list that fails WP:LISTN and has no relevance to non-fans (beyond Discovery One, which has an article already)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. There is consensus that S. Vanspal is not notable. List of Maharashtra cricketers was identified as a suitable redirect target. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. Vanspal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. Subject made two first-class appearances, and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - same comment as on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Wilson (Middlesex cricketer). Are there still more which need looking at? In this case, there already exists an article - which looks to be comprehensive - for List of Maharashtra cricketers. If this is an alternative solution, this is probably worth it. There are other initial only cricketers at Maharashtra - namely SV Datar, VV Ketkar, C. Limaye (take this to AfD if you must or bundle it in here but once again we could merge this), KM Madhavan (ditto), PN Pandav, NG Talukdar, KP Ubhayakar, R. Vaidya, and DK Yarde. Bobo . 11:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listing in a directory like Cricket Archieve is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true (and I'm not saying it isn't) that means we need to look at expanding and cleaning up a heck of a lot of non-English non-Test first-class players. Forgive me, I'll leave alone now, just leaving a note which (hopefully) will encourage us to look at a lot more first-class cricketers to see what we can do. Sorry. Not an intention to badger - just to leave a general note to myself and others to expand articles based on available sources, etc. A shame that it takes us AfDs to suggest the idea. The fact that it takes ten years for anyone even to raise an eyelid... upsets me. Bobo . 21:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. A lack any other biographical information tends to suggest that we're unlikely, at this stage, to be able to find any sources which deal with the subject in detail - I certainly can't find anything. That we know of only two matches he played in - no other club matches - makes this more likely in my view. If such sources become available I would, as always, have no issue with the article being recreated. This is consistent with cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer). Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assuming I'm these days less likely to vote speedy keep as I would in the old days, if we must not keep the article, we should redirect to the team list in question. Deleting is of no use, especially based on arbitrary nonsense guidelines like GNG where it is clearly stated on WP:N that either GNG or an SNG applies. In any case, someone would end up redirecting to List of Maharashtra cricketers anyway regardless of this conversation. Since there does exist in this case a workable list of first-class players, redirecting would make more sense than deleting. "Does not have a first name listed" is not a deletion criterion. Bobo . 19:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please forgive me for asking this question again. Do C. Limaye, NG Talukdar and KM Madhavan need looking at? "I'm just going to send these to AfD as and when I find them" is of no use if we're not philosophically consistent. In that way, we could deal with the redlinks PN Pandav, KP Ubhayakar, SV Datar, VV Ketkar, R. Vaidya, and DK Yarde all at the same time. Bobo . 19:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a case for redirecting the three blue links certainly, and I'd have no objection to redirecting the red links either. It seems a reasonable way to approach these sorts of things in the first instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, I forgot A. Ghag, because I hadn't created his article. Bobo . 00:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers, as this seems to make the most sense with players for which we know next to nothing about. I've had to do it to a couple of Manchester cricketers with one FC appearance, a name and absolutely nothing else! StickyWicket (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough for GNG even if it does meet the SNG. You can't build an article on a statistical record. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:44, 29 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. czar 09:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Memorial College[edit]

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

No coverage found. The clear failure of WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in article and only ones found in searches are either non-independent or trivial. No evidence of significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 31 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. czar 09:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPS College[edit]

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

Private school chain fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only evidence in article or in searches of notability is self-cites. No independent sources apparent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:23, 31 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. czar 09:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faran Model College[edit]

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

A private college which fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in article and only ones found in searches are either non-independent or trivial. No evidence of significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Sagar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, though in article you will find plenty of verifyable source but it is not enough to make the artist notable, it is too soon to start a new article about him. Rocky 734 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rocky 734 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~Strong keep i'm very sorry to say but this article meets WP:GNG, this artist is having enough independent sources to make him notable. Though at some point he doesn't meet WP:BAND WP:MUSICBIO WP:SINGER.... https://kalingatv.com/state/noted-odisha-singer-humane-sagar-joins-bjdnoted-odisha-singer-humane-sagar-joins-bjd/, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/music-of-the-film-from-me-to-you-released/articleshow/70554437.cms Rocky 734 (talk) 08:52, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T. Leycester (MCC cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. Details aren't provided on how many matches the subject played, but it was only during one season. The subject is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 10:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't actually meet NCRIC either - the single match he is known to have played in is one that isn't considerd first-class by anyone other than the article's author (it was a match against the Montpelier Club - his CricketArchive profile is here). So, we have a single non-notable match of cricket, a surname and an initial. We'll never be able to build a biography on that and the single match doesn't make him notable in any way. Of course, he may be notable for something else, if we can ever figure out who he actually was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't play at first-class level ~~and the source seems to be self-published~~. StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the two previous entries in this list. Nowhere near enough for GNG even if it does meet the SNG. You can't build an article on a statistical record. I do have a question for StickyWicket, though, about why you think one or both of the sources are self-published? They are from the 19th century and, at face value, seem to be authentic. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @No Great Shaker: I take that back! Reading the nomination I thought the source being quoted was self-published by the now banned user who created the article, they often used their own website for references and claimed some non first-class cricketers were first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: thanks for getting back to me. I remove self-published sources too, so I quite understand. Must admit I do get confused about first-class because its scope looks to be much wider than in football and there seem to be different views about when and how it began. I suppose this guy playing in the 1800s was too early. Anyway, all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 30 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. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu Cantonment English School[edit]

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

As per WP:NSCHOOL, schools should satisfy WP:ORG, which this one is clearly not doing. Daiyusha (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or searches of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Quite obvious that this person is notable. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Rey[edit]

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

No indication of notability. BLPPROD removed because of the external links, which are lacking. Has had no inline footnotes since the article's inception. Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep a prof with a link on the stanfurd website is good enough for me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of a large symposium in vol. 5, no. 3 of the Croatian Journal of Philosophy. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most spectacular WP:BEFORE failures that I have seen, and nominated not by a newbie but an admin. Maybe there has been a bit too much of that Christmas cheer? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Quite the mistake on my end. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:10, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PaiN Gaming[edit]

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

This appears to be a page for a gaming league that carries no notability. I'm dubious, as they cite they have sponsors, so I half expect there to be some disagreement - but I'm not seeing this fit into the general notability guidelines - and just because one has sponsors does not mean they meet those guidelines. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont see any signs of notability when i do a google news search (except a couple industry rags, not enough to pass GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created and edited this page but published without any references, now they are in the text including the ones you mentioned about sponsors and partners. Other teams outside of eSports usually have sponsors linked on their pages, such as soccer teams. Also I think it would be interesting to see that there are other teams of equal relevance to eSports with active pages like Team Liquid, SK Telecom T1, Royal Never Give Up, Fnatic among others. I intend to continue working and evolve this page. Thank you. Nidaloove (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources that were added seem to satisfy the notability requirements. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search finds several reliable sources headlining this club, including Dot Esports, The Esports Observer, and ESPN. Pbrks (talk) 15:45, 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. Based on previous behavior around the drafts, any further recreation without substantial new evidence of notability should lead to creation protection. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Singh Dhami[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG. Repeatedly draftified and repeatedly moved back by socks of the creator. Needs a better resolution. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quoting WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." If we can get some good sources on this mayor, then, I will reconsider. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in google news. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. Would settle for moving back to draft as it might be hard to find googlenews hits, or any google hits, on someone in Nepal, and as a precaution against systemic bias.-- Deep fried okra 11:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
PS. If draftified yet again. ( I came from reviewing an unblock request.) it could be protected so that only AfCers can move it.-- Deep fried okra 11:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was originally used mainly to promote a non-notable actor and self-published activist who had a bit part (not even starring or credited) in a movie. There was another Narendra Singh Dhami who was Chairman, Malikarjun Rural Municipality, Darchula https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mytM6kuoFw0 who has an interview on TV Today Nepal, and who is different from the one that is being listed/promoted here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Singh_Dhami&oldid=919257202 If this is meant to be about the politician, then it should be about that second Dhami. If the first one (the activist/author) has since become mayor, then it needs the secondary news sources, otherwise it confuses the two even more. The articles presented have tens of elected officials, some of whom have Singh Dhami as a family name, so they are just as WP:MILL local office as the others, and given that the editors know who the parents are named and actual birthplace, are likely to have even more COI. Another option is to Retarget to Malikarjun and list as current representative/mayor in the infobox, but that would have to be sourced, and then it might have to be deleted anyway should someone else become mayor later. The article had also been disputed/rejected multiple times by myself at AFC but the same socks have been pushing him into the mainspace, so I would not recommend draftifying until competence and better sourcing is shown. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mayor of a rural municipality with a population of less than 2K is not a Wikipedia inclusion freebie — at this level of significance, the key to getting him into Wikipedia is not just stating and verifying that he exists, and would require writing and reliably sourcing a substantive article about his political importance. And that's not what this article is. Furthermore, the article's most frequent editors have been users named "Ram Singh Dhami" and "Tijendra Singh Dhami", suggesting conflict of interest editing by the subject's own family. As always, "I'm proud of my relative for doing the thing!" is not in and of itself grounds for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:No notable sources found in Google Pokai (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Ravenswood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. It's not clear that the subject would meet WP:NBIO based on the claims made, but there isn't a single RS supporting them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems remarkably promotional, and this lacks the required reliable sources we need to establish notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a G4 speedy at all; the article was previously deleted before the first AfD completed. It's sort of leaning a touch on A7, though - and without sources that would be a slam dunk. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete promotional junk with insufficient sources to pass GNG Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom, Dennis The Tiger, and Jtbobwaysf. I do not see any clear notability for a Wikipedia article and certainly nothing to give evidence of a recreation over previous AFD deletion comments. Maybe it needs a little "salting" to hinder the next creation. Otr500 (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I don't see any GNG-satisfying sources. – Levivich 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It seems as if she has some regional notability based on the sources of LA Times and such, but that’s not enough. Once you start scraping the bottom of the barrel for Amazon listings it’s dire. Trillfendi (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not met by sources in article (as of this !vote), and my usual search for sources turned up nothing better. It appears this is a promotional piece for a topic that doesn't meet GNG or WP:CREATIVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a little tip: If you're listing all the notable entities a subject has worked with, that subject is generally not going to be themselves notable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts in 2015 for the play Bike Odyssey LA with co-creator Brian Sonia Wallace. The duo won grants from the City of West Hollywood, the municipal funders MTA and METRO, CICLE and the open source arts initiative ‘A LOT’ from the City of Long Beach. I found one source for the story here - https://www.laweekly.com/5-quirky-cool-things-to-do-in-l-a-this-week-for-less-than-10/ and here - https://la.streetsblog.org/2014/06/15/the-pedal-powered-street-theater-ride-led-by-c-i-c-l-e-and-bike-odyssey-la/ She also has 2 Pushcart noms - 1 in 2012 and 1 in 2013 User:Jesuitsally (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Jesuitsally (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Neither of those sources mention her, making them utterly useless as sources on her. If anything, they prove the notability of CICLE; as I alluded to above, notability as Wikipedia defines it is not inheritable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that, per our biographical policy, there needs to be strong third-party sources for every claim present in or added to the article; any claim that doesn't have a proportionately strong source needs removed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick search of author finds these sources:

on founding publishing company the los angeles press in 2018 https://larbpublab.com/los-angeles-press/ also found titles: 2012 isbn 978-0-9830435-3-9 mouthfeel press texas : 2019 isbn 978-1-940605-15-9 on amazon and https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-64-Best-Poets-of-the-Year-6x9-trade-paperback-162-pages-Black-Mtn-Press/352790347452?hash=item5223f17ebc:g:QUEAAOSwpVxdfRIF : 2017 issn 2470-3443 foglifter press v2 i2: 2018 issn 0049-1675 university of texas southwestern amer. lit v44 i1: 2013 isbn 978-0-9908119-1-6 foret interieure x artists books los angeles (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinaravenswood (talk • contribs) 02:44, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

So, setting aside the mangled citations (I tried searching for those ISBN numbers and found nothing that looked relevant to the subject), this is an interview in the publication of a student summer program, and a poem published in a pay-to-play anthology of unclear significance? Plus you appear to share a last name with the subject?. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Rosguill. Those sources are useless - Interviews are not acceptable citations except to prove "This is what <foo> actually believes/argues" and do nothing for notability like all other sources contributed to or written by the subject or their satellites. And if you're citing a dead-tree source you need to include the minimum amount of information to look it up - onus is on you for that. (For books this is: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, ISBN.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 09:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - Clearly non notable. The article seems to have been created for promotional purposes and has scarcely improved since. Michepman (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pile on here, but delete. The sources that have been brought to light don't come close to satisfying any notability criteria that I can think of. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Throwing in every reference you can find that just happens to mention the subject's name isn't really helping. 37 refs of insignificant coverage is still insignificant coverage, it still doesn't add up to anything that can be described as notable. Mattg82 (talk) 01:30, 30 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 Remalle. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kotha Remalle[edit]

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

This is explicitly a WP:TNT nomination. It's unsourced and has been for a year, but the article is not even completely in English anymore as of recently. I looked for sources, but I couldn't find any which were reliable.

Deletion is not cleanup, but I'll invoke WP:IAR here because I think the situation is beyond saving at this point. Too much original research. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A verified settlement per WP:GEOLAND. The article is not beyond saving. Indeed SportingFlyer has already saved it by making a simple revert.----Pontificalibus 09:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Spent a few minutes researching this. I reverted the article back to its last good revision and added the AfD template back in place, but there's also an Remalle article which needs to be improved which clearly passes WP:GEOLAND #1. OpenStreetMap has a "Kotta Remalle" and a "Pata Remalle" which if the Remalle article is to be believed stands for "old" and "new" in the local language Telugu (thanks Google Translate.) So we should just fold this into the actual article we have for the settlement as part of the WP:TNT. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Remalle. The article is now a perfectly reasonable village stub so WP:TNT doesn’t appear to apply anymore, if it ever did. SportingFlyer’s argument for a merge over a keep is convincing so I’d go for that. Hug^syrup 07:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Hugsyrup and SportingFlyer: I'm fine with with a merge as to enable a WP:Speedy keep. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a gazeteer, so we keep all articles on actual distinct places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 30 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) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Presler[edit]

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

Proposed deletion for lack of notability. There simply is none. Citations in the entry are local publications (and several of the subject's own tweets) mentioning some trash cleanups he organized. One NBC.COM article about Gays for Trump in which he appears in a photo caption, but is not otherwise mentioned or quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marosci (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article states nothing about him that is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia, and the referencing is not strong enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any SNGs: once you discount all the self-published primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and the sources which mention his name but are not about him for the purposes of establishing his notability, the few left over that are actually reliable source coverage about him don't add up to enough. GNG, as always, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds an arbitrary mumber": we also consider the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, not just the raw number of footnotes present. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Likely product of undisclosed paid editing from a sockpuppet ring. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juanafavour for details. — Newslinger talk 11:58, 29 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Street of Dreamix[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NALBUMS. –Matthew - (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 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 Atlanta Braves minor league players. This can be undone if he makes it Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned after review to No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Pache[edit]

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

Lots of routine coverage of a minor league ballplayer. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources don't seem to be independent of the subject and I couldn't find much sources that are. Interstellarity (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously not true. All of the sources are independent of the subject. This comment should therefore not carry any weight. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and now on the 40 man roster for ATL. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBASEBALL. Unless I'm mistaken, being on a roster doesn't do it - you have to have played in a major league game, which does not appear to have happened? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG.-- Yankees10 23:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe draftify - he's not yet notable, but being on the 40-man means he may make the majors in less than six months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize WP:BASE/N is not yet met, which is why I originally created the title as a redirect to a section of Atlanta Braves minor league players. The subject is a top prospect, and is deserving of a section there, but all other notable minor leaguers there have a redirect to section. This is also the case on all other listings of minor league players, e.g. Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Ronald Acuña Jr. was redirected to a section soon after creation and restored to mainspace after he fulfilled BASE/N, an example of WP:BASEBALL consensus in practice. As such, the redirect should be retained until Pache makes his major league debut. If Pache leaves professional baseball before fulfilling BASE/N, PROD is the way to go, e.g. Dian Toscano, Aaron Northcraft. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge for now per Vycl1994. Once he either passes WP:BASE or WP:GNG, he can have his own article. Until then, the content should be somewhere, but not here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. In which case WP:NBASEBALL is irrelevant. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of Pache is similar to the coverage that any decent minor league player would receive - there's nothing suggesting he's more notable than any specific minor leaguer per the ten year test, and WP:NBASE allows us to redirect/merge the article to the prospect page. That's a typical solution for these sorts of articles on minor leaguers, and we can always recreate it if he makes the bigs. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject passes GNG, we don't care whether his coverage is similar to other "decent" players. That's irrelevant. If he passes GNG, he is notable. And at that point, NBASE is irrelevant. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A129:823B:7DD2:1814 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:NBASE discusses which type of coverage counts towards WP:GNG for baseball players, and he doesn't quite meet that threshold. If the standard for baseball players was just "has been written about," almost every prospect would be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. It's basic that if you meet GNG, you don't need to meet more narrow alternative ways to notability such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Which NBASE is part of. As the overarching introduction to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person ... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.... If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline...." So - if you meet GNG, it is irrelevant whether you meet NBASE. Editors who seem to be especially active in discussing GNG vs SNG would include User:Masem and User:North8000, but if you really want an in depth discussion of this (again) you could consider starting it at the talk page of GNG.2604:2000:E010:1100:A129:823B:7DD2:1814 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, WP:NBASE specifically qualifies what type of coverage is suitable for determining notability of baseball players. Pache's only claim to notability is that he is a top baseball prospect, but not all top baseball prospects are automatically notable - just because a player receives coverage for being a baseball player does not automatically mean that player is notable. All of the coverage of Pache is routine for a minor league baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you're wrong as to GNG; please read the above. Perhaps others will chime in. Second, I think you are perhaps somewhat exaggerating when you assert that all of his coverage is "routine" for a minor league player; it is routine for a player who has made All Star Teams for three years running, has been named the 2019 MLB Pipeline Best Outfield Defender in the minor leagues, and is rated the # 11 prospect in baseball. That is, perhaps, a different class of player. Perhaps that is why he has attracted GNG coverage. But as to why, that is unimportant - it is enough that he has GNG coverage. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0A7:9006:7E1D:BCAA (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We entirely disagree, but he hasn't actually attracted WP:GNG-level coverage: he has generated the level of coverage expected for a minor league prospect of his caliber. A simple before search includes a flurry of minor league transactions (not qualifying for WP:GNG) and Braves prospect watches - these usually aren't considered independent enough of the subject to qualify for WP:GNG, as noted in the delete !votes above. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this information, as we traditionally have, Atlanta Braves minor league players#Cristian Pache, and creating a standalone article when the player either makes the majors or somehow becomes otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 2 January 2020 (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) 02:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Durla[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not a fandom wiki, and this is best left on a DC comics universe wiki accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not supposed to be a fandom site. In the early days we were a de facto Star Wars fandom site, and we are just ending our role as a Tolkien fandom site with current deletion discussions, although there many to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Largely unsourced and more in line with the writings of a fan-wiki. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only citation in the article is to a comic Dartslilly (talk) 02:22, 29 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 James W. Moseley#Ralph Horton crash case. Pretty clear consensus that the sourcing is not adequate to justify an article. If people want to see the page history and the redirect go as well, WP:RFD would be the place to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Horton flying saucer crash[edit]

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

Obscure UFO report fails WP:NFRINGE. At about this time there were hundreds if not thousands of these sorts of "yokel finds UFO in his backyard" stories in local media. There are grey-lit books chock-a-block full of them. That is not enough to establish the notability of the claims enough for a standalone article. This looks like it may have been started by an erstwhile fan of the story, and I have some sympathy for that because this story is a delight if a bit cringey and eye-rolly. jps (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has two sources in the article, plus it was covered in the Atlanta Constitution, but I don't have a specific reference. It is also important because of the similarity of the debris to that recovered at the Roswell crash. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sources are "martiansgohome.com" and a tell-all jaunt from Prometheus Books (an enjoyable one, to be sure, but not one that confers notability on particular "weird tales" it covers). As much as I respect AJC, a single newspaper article is surely not enough for us to base a Wikipedia article on. WP:NFRINGE is a high standard for a reason. jps (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a bunch of fringe coverage but nothing reliable. One of the two sources (External link, actually) is a UFO research society that should probably be removed. Misidentified weather balloon is similar to another misidentified weather balloon and/or non-ufo-related government coverup. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this has great relevance to the Roswell crash, in terms of the similarity of the debris. If this had been widely known at the time that all of the Roswell hype came out, it should have quickly been settled. This was reliably identified as a weather balloon, and it matches the Roswell debris. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says Ufologist James Moseley investigated the incident...called the airport... and confirmed that the object was a device used by the Air Force to determine wind velocity and direction." Since when has an identified weather device been a flying saucer, and how do we justify "flying saucer crash" in the heading when the text said it involved something else? Wikipedia was such a good idea. What a pity. Moriori (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- "Since when has an identified weather device been a flying saucer?" Roswell! I think people interested in the Roswell crash are entitled to know about this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Nonsense. You wrote above that "This was reliably identified as a weather balloon". Please read our article Flying saucer. Note that flying saucer = UFO. This Horton debris was neither anomalous or unidentified.Moriori (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Balloons mistaken for UFOs is a reasonable topic, and there are probably plenty of sources you can use to write about it. Ralph Horton could make an appearance in such an article. But as a standalone, this article is problematic. jps (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability/sourcing for a stand alone article so Redirect to James W. Moseley#Ralph_Horton crash case where it rightly belongs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LuckyLouie. There is no suitable and properly sourced "flying saucer crash" material in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I thought Mosely's book was a fun and instructive read. But the text says he was prompted on his adventure after "Perusing the flying saucer file of The Atlanta Constitution..." [18], ~~which could mean old, unpublished reports kept in a file, and no actual published record in the newspaper.~~ How wrong I was. It's the second entry down in the the (paywalled) newspapers.com archive, dated Wednesday July 8, 1953,[19], and the second snippet view mentions Horton's discovery of a "kite shaped apparatus". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be wholly unnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to James W. Moseley#Ralph_Horton crash case. It’s kinda notable, since it illustrates a typical ufo observation. Also, very entertaining to read imho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heptor (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect for the Weekly World Wikipedia, but not here. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non-notable hoax that was pulled off in 1953. Newspapers.com has full archives of the Atlanta Constitution from 1868 to the present. On July 7, 1953 (not 1952 as the article inaccurately reports), page 1 of the newspaper had a short article Cone-Shaped Rocket' Puzzles Scores Here which described multiple sightings of a cone-shaped object "about six inches in diameter" travelling about 40 miles an hour, several hundred feet in the air. The next day, the same paper, also on page 1, had another article Experts Baffled, Doubt 'Thing' a Wind Gauge, which describes how Atlanta resident Ralph Horton found a "ra-wind" device in his front yard near the County Airport, which is an instrument that is used to plot wind currents in the upper air, and how they all agreed that what Mr. Horton found was not the "thing" that people were reporting about the previous day. The Air Force said they released the weather balloon at 4pm that day, but it would not have still been aloft when the UFO reports were coming in. There's no mystery about Ralph Horton's device, there was no UFO, and there was no controversy. Interestingly, and illustrative of what a rabbit hole searching archives on newspapers.com can become, on page 1 of the paper the next day was a pretty lengthy story about two barbers and a butcher from Atlanta who claimed they captured "a little man from outer space" trying to board a flying saucer. Scientists at Emory University identified the body of the alien as a nothing but Capuchin Monkey that had been shaved and its tail cut off. The "mastermind" of the plot who claimed to have found the alien was fined $40 the next day for placing a carcass on a highway and admitted he was surprised that anybody fell for his hoax, saying he was just trying to get his picture in the paper and had bet a friend $10 that he could. On July 10, he won his bet after being handed the fine and a threat of jail time if he tried any more pranks. He told the newspaper that he had been trying for several days to spread reports of flying saucers in the sky and found it very easy to do by just staring in the air and asking bystanders if they'd seen that flying saucer that just went by. The whole story is about a prank pulled off by a couple of bored people that received some trivial coverage in their local paper. Ralph Horton found a weather balloon. Not worthy of an article about the hoax itself due to WP:NFRINGE "silly season" news reports- an editorial in the paper on July 9 described the UFO and the alien man as an illustration of the start what they in the business call the "silly season". RecycledPixels (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Change to Redirect to James W. Moseley#Ralph_Horton crash case per LuckyLouie. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As redirect seems to rule the day, the article content will need fixing before moving elsewhere. I will request references . Moriori (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sufficiently obscure so that a redirect is not needed. Nothing to merge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 31 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) 03:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dior Eluchíl[edit]

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

Fictional character from Tolkien who fails WP:GNG. There's just not really coverage in reliable sources about this figure. I'm not sure what would be a good redirect target for this figure, even. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To put it succinctly, this article is little more than a summary of Dior Eluchíl's role in Arda's in-universe history. His parents are among the few potentially notable characters in The Silmarillion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If such a wiki exists, this would be best placed on a wiki that is dedicated to Middle Earth and that universe. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are multiple Wikis about the works of Tolkien, and they have articles on Dior. I was going to nomiunate this article for deletion before someone beat me to it. To me the fact that this article dates back to Dec. 25, 2002 is particularly sad. The article of David O. McKay arguably the most important 20th-century leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only dates back to the spring of 2004. I was searching for sources, I came across this [20] which is no where near a reliable source, but it has way more real world relevance than this article does. I also came across a reddit discussion of weather Dior was the most underwhelming character in the Silmarillion (That would be hard to demonstrate, there are so many) which includes people asking why Elwing is not just the daughter of Beren and Lithian. To make things more fun, I recently read an indepth article comparing the fall of Troy to the fall of Gondolian (specifically comparing it to the works of Virgil), and in there the author said that Elwing was Beren and Lithian's daughter. So Dior is so forgetable he gets forgotten in scholarly works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for its own article, Tolkiencruft. Fans can read about him at https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dior etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only primary sources Dartslilly (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - submitted in error. Whpq (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Pacific 7000[edit]

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

This locomotive is, according to the article, at the Canadian Railway Museum. As such, a free image of it could be made as it still exists. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete the fair use photo then, not the whole article Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grimbold[edit]

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

Minor figure in the works of Tolkien. Basically no coverage in secondary sources. He fails GNG miserably. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grimbold is another example of a non-notable character whose article has persisted for longer than some editors have been alive. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was actually not created until late 2005, which is more recent than many LotR articles. It is also a clear example of confusing in universe importantce with literary importance. If LotR purported to be a history of a real place, maybe on that evidence we would keep this article. However, it does not. So the reports on him in the books are primary sources, and his role is very minor, to the literary functions of the book. We have a huge way to go to get these fictional biographies under control, but this is not even a close contest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grim example of Tolkiencruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 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 merge to List of Star Trek races#Xindi. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xindi (Star Trek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence these fictional aliens are notable independently of the one Star Trek series, Star Trek: Enterprise, in which they appeared. Content could be merged to Star Trek: Enterprise as appropriate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm a bit on the fence here, but the Xindi had a fair presence in Enterprise. At the risk of invoking WP:WAX, there is precedent for including the races of the Trek universe (see Klingon, for instance) - but I know that this alone is not justification. Seems well cited, at the worst. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notable that the first AfD was a keep for lack of consensus. Also notable was that there was no mention of delete in the !votes - it was either a redirect or a keep. My statement above stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Star Trek races#Xindi. It currently fails WP:NOT#PLOT big time, and the promise of sources and "Yeah yeah, we can clean it up later" two years ago wasn't followed up upon either. Until this topic is developed into a proper WP:SPINOUT, this topic should be covered in the List of races. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge with List of Star Trek races#Xindi While they were a prominent part of Star Trek: Enterprise, they are not independently notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above as there is no evidence this fictional race is notable enough to get its own article here. Plausible search term so soft delete is preferable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge with List of Star Trek races#Xindi. The topic has received coverage, is a plausible search term, and has a good merge target so I would oppose outright deletion. I agree with the above merge comments/arguments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 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.